On much of the world stage, President Bush has been widely reviled as one of the worst U.S. leaders of modern times, and it is hard to think of an American president who has received a worse press since Richard Nixon.
To his critics, who are legion on both sides of the Atlantic, the war in Iraq has been a monumental disaster, at a cost of more than 4,000 American lives and at least $500 billion. They see the war on terror, with the notorious Guantanamo prison camp as its symbol, as a catalyst for radicalizing tens of millions of Muslims that has made the United States a pariah in the Middle East.
The war in Afghanistan, they argue, is going badly in the face of a resurgent Taliban, the cost of Washington pouring most of its resources into Iraq. Bush, the theory goes, failed to keep his eye on the ball, weakening the fight against al-Qaeda through his supposed obsession with Iraq. He is also accused of undermining America's standing in the world, adopting a unilateralist foreign policy and refusing to work with its Allies.
Some of the criticism of Bush's foreign policy is fair. The early stages of the occupation of Iraq were poorly handled and there was a distinct lack of post-war planning. America's public diplomacy efforts have been poor or even non-existent, with little serious attempt to combat the stunning rise of anti-Americanism. More recently, Washington's failure to stand up more aggressively to Moscow after its invasion of Georgia projected weakness and indecision.
Much of the condemnation of his policies though is driven by a venomous hatred of Bush's personality and leadership style, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America's 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over eight million voted in Iraq's parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region's first free Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that freedom can flourish in the embers of the most brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.
The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. The West's most feared enemy suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in the world since the British victory in Malaya in 1960.
The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also been a success. There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush's aggressive strategy actually worked.
Significantly, there have been no successful terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005 London bombings, in large part due to the cooperation between U.S., British and other Western intelligence agencies. American intelligence has proved vital in helping prevent an array of planned terror attacks in the UK, a striking demonstration of the value to Britain of its close ties to Washington.
President Bush, in contrast to both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had a crystal clear, instinctive understanding of the importance of the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Tony Blair may well have been labeled Bush's "poodle" over his support for the war in Iraq, but his partnership with George W. Bush marked the high point of the Anglo-American alliance since the heady days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
The decision by Bush, with Blair's support, to sweep the Taliban out of Afghanistan was a brilliant move, one that not all U.S. presidents would have taken. A weaker leader would have gone to the United Nations Security Council and sought a negotiated settlement with Kabul. It was a risky gambit that was vindicated by a stunning military victory in the space of a month, with a small number of U.S. ground forces involved.
Bush also made a firm commitment to defending the fledgling Afghan government, and succeeded in building a 41-nation NATO-led coalition. The notion that the resurgence of the Taliban is America's failure is nonsense. The U.S. has more than 30,000 troops in the country under U.S. or NATO command, making up over half of all Allied forces there. Continental European allies have simply failed to step up to the plate with more troops, with almost the entire war-fighting burden placed on the U.S., UK and other English-speaking countries. Afghanistan is not a failure of American leadership, it is a damning indictment of an increasingly pacifist Europe that simply will not fight.
President Bush also recognized the importance of re-shaping the NATO alliance for the 21st Century, backing an ambitious program of NATO expansion, culminating in the addition of seven new members in 2004. He also had the foresight to support the development of a missile defence system in Europe, successfully negotiating deals with both Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush was right to back the eventual inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, and both would be well on their way to membership today were it not for the feckless decision of France and Germany to side with Russia in blocking their path to entry.
Bush began his presidency primarily as a domestic leader. He ends it as a war leader who has left a huge imprint internationally. His greatest legacy, the global war against Islamist terror, has left the world a safer place, and his decision to project global power and military might against America's enemies has made it harder for Islamist terrorists to strike against London, Paris or Berlin.
Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power will make it less likely that rogue regimes, Iran and North Korea included, will seek to militarily challenge American power. The memory of the invasion of Iraq and the unequivocal message that sent is by far the most effective deterrent to Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.
If superpowers do not demonstrate an ability and a willingness to wield power (as Britain did on numerous occasions at the height of the Empire) their hegemony will be increasingly challenged. President Bush exercised U.S. military power to stunning effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan, an important reminder that America was still a force to be reckoned with after the 1990s humiliation of Somalia and the half-hearted missile strikes against Bin Laden in Sudan. In an age of growing threats and challenges, the projection of hard power matters, and America's next president would be wise to take heed.
#1
Not bad, but it's stunning how even an essentially positive analysis nonetheless integrates key myths and poor frameworks.
I assume everyone here can pick these out, but consider for a moment how in effect delusional the everyday discussion of US foreign policy has become.
Iraq a monumental disaster? Huh? By what measure? What were the alternatives that might have delivered such a strategic victory (regime removal - the blundering defeat of AQ there subsequently is very rich gravy, but still gravy)?
Gitmo is "notorious"? No, the distortions in "reporting" about it have been notorious. The gutting of the Geneva Conventions by the ICRC (their purported guardian) and "human rights" groups and orwellian SCOTUS justices, in their pretense that up is down and that suddenly, after 1977, the Conventions magically became adequate for all future developments, unlike the previous decades of their existence - that's quite notorious.
"Tens of millions" of Muslims have been radicalized because the US removed two of the most loathsome oppressors of Muslims, not to mention homo sapiens in general, on Earth? Uh, OK. The US wasn't a "pariah" to the uninformed and psychologically dysfunctional majorities in the MidEast before 2001? Oh - I guess I imagined all those decades of lunatic hatred, terrorism, and self-degradation by those failed polities.
So, no, I'm not going to be satisfied to see sensible general conclusions - it's kinda important to get the basic facts and the premises and the framework right, too.
There is an astonishing sense of déjà vu that confronts any half-detached observer of the post-26/11 mood in India. After the attack on Parliament seven years ago, Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke menacingly of an aar paar ki ladai and ordered full military mobilisation. This time too India has swung between decrying war-talk and keeping all options open. The romantic candles of sadbhavna have been snuffed out by the torches of assertive nationalism.
One of the main casualties of this national anger is the belief that Pakistan and India have a common destiny. Bolstered by elaborate people-to-people contacts, cricket matches and cultural exchanges, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh insisted at the NAM summit in September 2006 that India and Pakistan were co-victims of terrorism. Coming within months of the Mumbai train bombings that killed 250 people, this was an exemplary expression of dhimmitude.
Days before the Mumbai attack, President Asif Ali Zardari repeated the hackneyed formulation that there was a part of Pakistan that was forever Indian and vice versa. Despite the anger in Indian official circles at the ISI involvement in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, liberal hearts melted instantly. There was a flurry of punditry suggesting that Zardari was Indias newest best bet after Pervez Musharraf.
Ever since the West threw its weight behind the peace process, the strategic community in India has been divided between those in search of the good Pakistani and those who believed that Pakistan was inherently bad. That there was a section in Pakistan disgusted by the drift to extremism and anxious to rekindle Mohammed Ali Jinnahs vision of a modern, Muslim (but not Islamic) country, wasnt in doubt. But, were these voices of enlightenment akin to the Good Germans under Hitler? Were they consequential enough to impose correctives on State policy? Or were they the useful idiots expediently wheeled out during moments of international exasperation to tell the world that ordinary Pakistanis were innocent of crimes that were invariably the responsibility of someone else?
The issue has come to a head in the aftermath of the 26/11 attack. Liberal Pakistanis still insist that they were as shocked and as outraged as Indians at the brutality of the terrorists. They may well be right. Yet, why has Islamabad been so squeamish in admitting that the Mumbai attack was an operation originating in Pakistan? Why has it equated the criminality of non-State players with the sovereignty and national honour of Pakistan? Why does it take the spilling of Indian blood to unite Pakistan?
While the world was extremely generous in extending a helping hand to a fledgling democracy in Pakistan, it expected the democratic Government to responsive in addressing global security concerns. There was never any suggestion that either President Zardari or the late Benazir Bhuttos friends who occupy high office in Pakistan were responsible for either the Mumbai attack or the Kabul bombing in September. The finger of suspicion was always pointed at jihadi groups and ISI.
The feeling that Pakistan was fast emerging as the new epicentre of global terrorism and threatening the security of countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Britain and India, should have triggered a domestic churning. It should have offended the self-respect of Pakistani elite at least to hear their country described as a migraine.
Yet, there have been few voices of consequence from within Pakistan willing to tell the political and military establishment that enough is enough and that it is time to flush out the jihadis and the rogues who run them. Those who spent last summer telling the whole world that democratic Pakistan was bursting with exhilarating creativity that would leave India in the shade have abruptly chosen to maintain radio silence. All we have heard is vague talk about making steady, incremental gains in the fight against fanatics. Like the Good German, the Good Pakistani has couched his acquiescence in either silence or sophistry.
It is the sophistry that tells the tale of denial. After 26/11, there were many intellectuals from the South Asian diaspora eager to shed tears for a Bombay they imagined had perished in the fires at the Taj. They filled many column inches of iconic liberal publications. Curiously, their remorse was invariably couched with gratuitous references to how badly India treated its Muslim minority, how Babri Masjid and Gujarat have kindled a fierce desire for revenge, and how Kashmir remains the core dispute.
Cut out the mandatory allusions to the Sea Lounge at the Taj and the vibrancy of Bollywood, and you are left with the stark judgment: India had it coming.
The Good German claimed ignorance of the concentration camps and the Final Solution. The Good Pakistani is better informed. He has seen the devastation of the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad; he has watched the siege of the Lal Masjid; and he has experienced the growing hold of religious bigots on Pakistani society. He knows what the ISI is all about much better than we do. And he is too painfully aware that Pakistan is sleep-walking its way to disaster. Yet, when it comes to India, ordinary decencies have effortlessly yielded to the brusque message for India: You had it coming.
Earlier, the Good Pakistani was a social distraction, an embellishment of liberal Hindu self-flagellation and Indian Muslim angst. Today, he has become a red herring and a diversion from the urgent business of confronting the threat frontally. With infinite patience India is still trying to not be beastly to the Good Pakistani. Our Establishment is still hoping Pakistani civil society becomes truly civil.
Its likely to be an indefinite wait. In the war on India, the Good Pakistani has invariably sided with a Bad Pakistan. Only the naïve and the foolish should be surprised.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/27/2008 16:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under:
In his century-old Wonderland classic, Lewis Carroll has Alice saying, "I wonder if I've been changed in the night? Let me think. Was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I'm not the same, the next question is, 'Who in the world am I?' Ah, that's the great puzzle." Substitute Alice for Pakistan and one begins to understand Pakistan's alternating personality syndrome.
On Urdu talk shows, Pakistan's Muslim fundamentalists explain Islamist extremists who launched 61 suicide bombers in 2008 against political parties and their rallies as reactions against their spineless anti-Americanism. Terrorist attacks on military installations are rationalized as understandable reactions against an army chief who is pro-American. The three English schools torched in Peshawar recently were described as "nests of paganism."
A majority of Pakistanis believe Sept. 11 was a CIA-Mossad plot to justify a crusade against Islam. Which helps explain why there is no shortage of volunteers for suicide missions. Tens of thousands of 16-year-old boys, who have completed 10 years of Koranic studies in madrassa schools, brainwashed against the United States, India and Israel, are mentally conditioned to believe that martyrdom is the highest calling against the heathen.
....
#2
Was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different.
If kittuah leaps for the butterfly and miss, is kittuah the same kittuah if him finds deh success? Is kittuah land on a different place regardless of huntery success or failure? Quantum Kat knows but refuses to take a definite stand.
#3
A majority of Pakistanis believe Sept. 11 was a CIA-Mossad plot to justify a crusade against Islam. Which helps explain why there is no shortage of volunteers for suicide missions.
There has been no official announcement, no victory parades or televised addresses by the victorious party, no cheering crowds welcoming the liberators but Swat, to all intents and purposes, has fallen to the Taliban. It is the announcement that all girls education in the valley will cease from January 15 that is the tipping point. All schools that teach girls have been ordered by the Taliban to close by that date or face the inevitable consequences being blown up being the most usual of these. They have already blown up well over a hundred girls schools, principally those operated by the government, but have moved in recent weeks to blowing up private institutions as well. Female education has virtually ceased anyway, and the Taliban announcement merely puts the seal on what is a manifest reality the government has lost the battle for Swat and the Taliban have won. They operate at will, go where they like, issue orders and proclamations that a terrified public are unable to ignore and broadcast their message of obscurantism on the radio for all to hear and obey.
The ANP government of NWFP has called for assistance. But little seems to be forthcoming. Refugees stream out of the valley, the operators of private schools try to fight a rearguard action, the tourist trade is dead and buried long ago and the beautiful valley of Swat now enters a time of darkness. The Taliban announcement regarding girl's education may seem a strange point at which to declare Swat 'fallen' but it is of huge symbolic significance. It is significant because there will be compliance the population and the operators of schools, including the government who are the majority education provider will do what they are told. They will obey the orders of the Taliban because the Taliban are more powerful than the government that is supposed to protect and sustain them. The government is unable or unwilling to protect its own schools and is not going to lift a finger to protect those of the private sector. It gives the clear impression of having abandoned Swat and its people to whatever their fate may be.
Could the government either of Musharraf or the present rudderless, drifting Marie Celeste have done anything to stop this? Yes, and in all likelihood they decided not to. The notion that somehow the militants are our 'allies' runs as a strong and deep current through elements of the army and intelligence services, the bureaucracy and the politicians themselves. There are powerful forces that provide tacit if not overt support to them, forces which would like to see the Taliban triumphant in the rest of Pakistan and not just Swat. The caliphate of Swat is becoming a reality before our eyes. Where next?
Posted by: john frum ||
12/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"They have already blown up well over a hundred girls schools"
WTF is it with these taliban types - do they absolutely hate women tha much?
Time to start gelding any and all that we capture.
A year has passed since Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto departed, leaving us in a black hole of emptiness and vacuum, where we could only feel pain and helplessness. I recall my slain leader as I lie in bed weak with a strange sense of desolation. One of the most active members of her team always ready to respond to her orders, I find myself limp with an aching heart. Garhi Khuda Baksh and every nook and cranny of the country will be awash in the resplendent colours of the PPP flags in days leading to her first death anniversary, every splash of red, green and black with a beautiful face with a halo around it, vibrant with life and determination, that of my leader Shaheed Mohtarma.
Red perhaps now ominously stands for her historic sacrifice, the blood that she shed, Green for her homeland, In which she had great hope till she breathed her last and black perhaps for all of us that mourn her and will continue to do so all our lives.
I cannot bring myself to call her deceased as I languish in denial, I still call her as my BIBI as for all these years that I spent in her service, I addressed her as My Prime Minister. All the best years of my youth were devoted to her and to the day when I could see all the collective efforts of her disciples culminate into a beautiful new day for the country. Sadly, that day will perhaps dawn with a Pakistan devoid of her. Her opponents continuously repeated, She will not return and She would not be allowed to return. As her anxious followers looked towards her with a creased brow, following such propaganda, she would always say reassuringly I will be with my people before the elections.
Return, she did, as she promised, never to go back as she found herself a home in the hearts of millions of her country men. Those with tattered clothes, those that bathe in their own sweat toiling day in and day out, passing from youth to elderliness and waning a bit too quickly in the process. Those are her people, the teeming millions, she resides in their hearts, She indeed is the queen of hearts.
Her ominous words ring in my ears as she called one morning not too many days before her shahadat, I see a lot of bloodshed, she said as she narrated to me how her workers were run over by a car in the constituency of Arbab Ghulam Rahim, dont worry Mohtarma I said, everything will turn out to be fine. Little did I know that her were almost prophetic and that it would be her blood that would be spilled such brutally.
Galliantly, like a medieval warrior, a knight in shining armour, she laid down her life for her people, those who honoured her memory with tears and aching hearts. Clinging to her posters as the last ray of hope, they almost believe she would be reincarnated. With meager earnings to boast of, I see the poor and the deprived investing into her beautiful posters selling at every traffic signal. They wish to hold on to her memories in whatever way, each one of them feels a little of Benazir Bhutto in them.
Like the Rani of Jhansi and the Razia Sultan of the present day, I saw her never faltering, even during days when hope was grim, days when people abandoned us and her followers ran from pillar to post to get her message across. Repeat, Repeat and Repeat your message unless people hear it, Yes my beloved leader, people hear you loud and clear. Your words are forever embedded in the hearts and minds of the nation.
I went to Garhi Khuda Buksh on her soyem as if in a trance I saw thousands mourning chanting to God that Benazir was innocent. I thought I would not make it to her grave. How would these mourners let me past, I was anxious to get to Bibi. Suddenly an old man appeared from no where, asked the crowds to make way and the crowds parted, and there I witnessed a most amazing sight, a huge grave, larger than any in the mausoleum, as if almost touching the sky. Covered with mounds of roses, Majestic and regal even in death, I thought just as in life. I touched the grave where I supposed her feet would be and begged for forgiveness as an ill-fated Pakistani who could do nothing to save my leader.
The bullet shot at you my Bibi did not hit just you, It hit millions in a single shot, how can I ever find the words to pay a homage to you that is worthy of your glory. Perhaps such words have never been coined.
A bit of something in everyone has died eversince. I looked at a devoted jiyala wanting to believe every word when he said, dont worry I have dreamt that Bibi would come back in another form. Suddenly, I felt lighter as I whispered to myself, Bibi Come Back .your people yearn for you, My Leader.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Brraaaaiiinnss
/Zombie Benazir
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/27/2008 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
In the past few days, a rather bizarre assessment made by an American risk-advisory agency began doing the rounds. India had given Pakistan a one-month deadline to take serious action against Islamist terrorists on its soil and on December 26 time would run out. On Boxing Day, India would declare war or otherwise begin military operations across the Line of Control and the international border.
The claim was, of course, rubbish. It has been fairly clear since November 26 that the Government of India is not seriously contemplating war. Even talk of surgical strikes and covert operations -- so popular among retired Generals and impressionable anchors on television news shows -- is grossly premature.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
12/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
most of the 'India cant because it needs...' claims are bullshit. if India wants to submit pak-land to punishment, it will happen. all that India needs is the will to pull the trigger and the acceptance of the possible shit storm that may follow.
Posted by: Abu do you love ||
12/27/2008 0:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"An easier option is working with Iran. For that to happen, Iran will have to stop short of actually building a nuclear bomb. Much will depend on whether President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is defeated in the November 2009 election and replaced by a moderate."
Actually, Iran made much of their progress towards nuclear weapons under so-called moderates. The more moderate rhetoric shielded them from reaction from the naive West. Ahmadinejad almost does the West a favor by consistently using hyperbole rather than stealth. If Amaddinejad loses, Iran simply regains the advantage of being able to say one thing while doing the opposite.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
