This is a quite big deal that most of us totally missed last night: John Edwards doesn't believe there's a "global war on terror," at least not in the simple-show-of-hands sense. To come to that sort of conclusion takes either a total lack of attention, a willing suspension of disbelief, or a black belt in stoopid. Having heard part of his Two Americas speech, I'm going with the black belt idea.
This is something a lot of Democrats say privately -- and something mainstream pols everywhere else in the world say publicly -- but it contests a Bush administration premise in a way very few American politicians have been comfortable in the last five and a half years. I put the European attitudes down to the willing suspension argument. After all, they've got the Muslims living in their midst in greater numbers than we have. The turbans are raping European women, slaughtering the occasional European intellectual in the streets like sheep, and staging carbecues in Gay Paree. You can't not pay attention when the train's exploding under your backside, and if it's stoopidity then I'll bet Theo van Gogh sure wised up quick there at the last. But the Euros spent many happy years under the American nuclear umbrella, practicing their willing suspension skills until they were able to confuse Americans and Soviets in motive and method, with lots of them preferring the Soviets since they were closer and more European, until the system so inconsiderately collapsed. They still miss the commies, still hope they're gonna come back so they can all march and wave red flags and enroll their kids in the Young Pioneers, because Marxism sounds like it should make sense. After all, it's expressed mostly in polysyllables. Americans are much more monosyllabic, and if you're monosyllabic how're you gonna engage in dialectics? So obviously the wrong system collapsed and the pursuit of Social Democracy avoids those unfortunate mistakes that caused that unpleasantness with the kulaks.
His stance -- though it doesn't seem to have been all that deliberate -- matches the recent comments of a prominent British politician. It's the most direct challenge to the Bush administration's whole worldview that I can recall from a leading Democrat. A good part of that's the "dissidence" meme that's ever so fasionable among those who lack the imagination to believe that we could lose the war against the savages. Since there's no way we could possibly lose and since there really aren't any demands being made on them, not even the demand that they pay attention, it's great fun to pretend to be ever so Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn-ish, only without the unstylish beard and the even more unstylish Christianity. There aren't any penalties to "questioning authority," and in fact it'll even get you laid in college. The net result is a beleagured Authority that has to explain itself over and over to nitwits who are posturing, not listening, and eventually being distracted from Authority's task, which is in this case defending the rest of us from people who want to cut our heads off and make our children wear turbans.
Edwards aide David Ginsberg confirmed that the former North Carolina senator had not raised his hand in response to Brian Williams' question,"Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" He also noted that Edwards elaborated later in the debate. "I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs. And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit, the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one." This is mere fatuity. Maybe he really is simply not paying attention. Ruling out or never being willing to resort to force leaves talk the only option and wind the only end product. If we're going to deal with those dangerous people and dangerous leaders "strongly" then we've got to do the Clausewitz thing: military action has to remain diplomacy by other means and vice versa. The U.S. was actually doing that, and in many cases doing it damned well, up until last fall. Bush and his team suddenly deflated when they noticed that the nation's attention span had moved to Britney's nether regions and the Dems were making political gains.
I'll reiterate: The original goals were correct and the original approach was effective. The Taliban were tossed out. Al-Qaeda hard boyz were chased down and captured or killed. Terror networks were dismantled. Funding lines were dried up. Qaddafi went out of the terrorism business. The Oil-for-Food crooks were chased down, and there have actually been some convictions -- though George Galloway, Kofi, and Kojo aren't among them. The AQ Khan network was dismantled. There were the Rose and the Orange revolutions. Syria was forced out of Lebanon after 30 years of occupation in the Cedar Revolution. Our Ethiopian proxies have thrown the Powerful Islamic Courts out of Somalia. And Sammy was bounced from bloody-handed power in Iraq. Those are all successes and they are successes precisely because the Bush administration was a prickly and pushy partner for a torpid, self-satisfied, and basically corrupt International Community to work with.
The areas where success hasn't come have been in those areas where we haven't been pushy bastards. We've been letting the EU take the liesurely diplomatic approach with Iran. Solana and Larijani just shared a cliche 5-star meal the other day. North Korea's been another six-party approach that's produced just ducky results. Darfur's been a UN project with the UN's usual spectacular success. The only place where the multilateral approach is showing any success at all is in the manner in which the Euro courts have been willing to extradite bad guyz back and forth across their borders. And you can bet that Carla del Ponte'd just love to get in on that action.
Our weak spot has always been the Democrats' deteermination to keep on fighting Vietnam, to keep on singing Alice's Restaurant whether it makes sense or not. Binny's been counting on that from the first. Sammy was, too, though it didn't work well for him. The Paks are counting on us giving up in Afghanistan and going home so the Talibs and the ISI can retake control. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its Syrian and Iranian backers are not only counting on us leaving, but on us telling them when we're going to do it. All of them think the tide's turned against Bush and against the United States. All they've got to do is wait us out. They're counting on the weakness, the yellow stripe, the fascination with who's Dannilyn's daddy to overcome our determination to give the Muslim world a chance to live like decent human beings for a change. They're counting on lightweights like John Edwards to come through for them.
This article starring:
Brian Williams
David Ginsberg
John Edwards
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
CENTER FOR NONPROLIFER STUDIES > FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH: UNRAVELING AL QAEDA's TAGRGET SELECTION CALCULUS. Gist- Osama + Boyz wanna destroy the US economy, directly andor indirectly, and to knowingly induce the USA to spend Spend SPEND, regulate Regulate REGULATE, gubmint Gubmint GUBMINT, etc like there's no tomorrow [for USA]. Also, to "BLEED" THE USA DRY.
#2
Well, I don't really think there is a War on "Terror." I've seen that a war "on" something-or-other never seems to work out very well. Then, "terror" is s tactic, not an ideology. A war against Jihad might work. A war against Islam would probably work OK. A war against Syria, Iran, the Magic Kingdon, and Pakiland would do very well.
#3
Binny talked about how he and his were going to cause our economic collapse, dwelling on the billions of dollars 9-11 had cost us. I came away with the impression that Binny had no idea of the size and resilience of our economy, kind of like those ladies who envision the atom as being the size and shape of a frozen pea.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/28/2007 0:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Masterful, Steve. I find myself unable to believe that a total non-entity like Edwards (or Obama) could get anywhere near the WH, in a "normal" time, much less these troubled times. Then I recall the odd, alienating whininess and unseriousness of much of the country these days, and the astoundingly bad political/Beltway class we're currently saddled with, and I get further discouraged.
AoS note: the yellow hilite was Fred, not me. I was going to go back and do some inline comments, but Fred got to it first -- and much, much better.
#5
I agree. We have been successful where we were willing 'go it alone'. And we have accomplished a great deal despite what our self-hating media wants us to believe. We have only failed where we are working within the 'international community.'
Certainly our enemies think they can wait us out. They must be emboldened by the current clown show in Congress wherein they are trying to define exactly how long they will have to wait.
Still, I have to think that the desire of Congress to reopen and second guess every decision of the past 6 1/2 years, ranging from the Pat Tillman coverup to the Iraq intelligence that supposedly exhonerated Sammy, will backfire.
We just announced we caught the 7/7 bomber, who was an Iraqi al Queda jihadist transiting Iran to fight us in Iraq. We sent him to Gitmo after he apparently spilled his guts during what must have been a coercive period of questioning.
Stories like these occasionally pop up to remind us that Saddam supported terror, we are fighting and killing al Queda in Iraq so, Iran is helping al Queda, Gitmo works as does slapping terrorists around a bit to gain information. Other stories, like the 7/7 bombings, remind us of the utter depravity of the enemy we face. I think most voters are guilty merely of lacking attention rather than suspension of belief or stupidity and therefore the enemy may be overestimating their political prospects.
Bush, being human and a politician, has many flaws. However I think his worst two mistakes were not directly related to Iraq (where we destroyed Sammy's Army in 3 weeks with barely 100K troops and have killed 1000s of terrorists even as we failed to transform a backward culture overnight) or Katrina (where the Coast Guard and ANG made the mistake of saving most everyone off camera despite an incompetent local government). Instead, I believe that the 2 biggest mistakes were not to create some sense of shared sacrifice on the home front to remind us that we are at war and allowing the media to completely misrepresent the facts -- from Joe Wilson to Saddam's WMD program -- and create the impression that all is lost. In other words, PR matters a lot in a society where the media elite has contempt for the values of the nation. As an individual politician, Bush could be dismissive the the media but as a war leader he cannot. People watch it and, lacking a sense of involvement in the war, can easily be distracted by Dannilyn's daddy and believe the headlines to articles they do not read.
Though I feel this way, I really do not know what we should have done to provide a sustained sense of involvement with the war. A large scale draft is not really needed. To me the next best thing would be to have what amounts to a volunteer fire department approach to disaster preparedness/border security/etc. with broad based participation, training, drills, etc. Still, if we did this, some people would eventually get bored rehearsing for something that never seems to happen (like a bioterror attack) and this particular measure might actually erode respect for the enemy not support it.
Ironically, the only sense of 'shared sacrifice' we get is seen by those of us who fly regularly. The intusive incompetence of the TSA, where little old ladies are searched to make sure their toothpaste tube is 3.4 not 4oz, is a weekly reminder that we are at war.
#7
One measure not taken that would have got the electorate's attention & would have possibly contributed toward an improvement in the economic vulnerability of the USA: a $50 a barrel tariff on imported oil. Tell everyone it's either a war tax or a way to promote energy independence. It would certainly be a shared sacrifice.
#8
"In other words, PR matters a lot in a society where the media elite has contempt for the values of the nation."
This is the biggie, W's greatest miscalculation and/or weakness.
The bulk of humanity does not yet have a handle on mass media, a phenomenon which, after all, is only around a century old. Like it or not, in the television age (mass media's most common iteration, despite the growing power of the 'net) good ideas are not enough. You need telegenic excellent communication skills as well.
The body politic cannot simply be fed good ideas in a dry way. As unfortunate as this might be, it's the truth. Even though I like W more than any of the Republicans running (well, maybe not more than Thompson), I can guarantee that if ANY of them, including McCain, were in office and had done EXACTLY the same things policy wise (I know, it's a fantasy, but work with me here) as W - but were allowed to have at the microphones and cameras - we'd be in a very different place right now.
Despite Rathergate etc., TV is still the most dominant information dispersal means. The cracks in the monolith are there and widening. But the monolith is still a powerful presence.
W's style would have been fine pre-television, but today, you need telegenicity. I don't like it, but that's how it is. It's the only way Reagan was able to overcome the bigotry towards himself and conservatism generally that exists in the infotainment industry.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/28/2007 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
One measure not taken that would have got the electorate's attention & would have possibly contributed toward an improvement in the economic vulnerability of the USA: a $50 a barrel tariff on imported oil.
Oil is already the highest taxed commodity on the planet. Why is a tax, which would hammer this economy and do absolutely nothing to reduce our so called "economic vulnerability", considered a good idea. Almost as good an idea as "investing in alternative fuels.
Oh wait. The federal government does that and has been doing that since the 70s without any, as in no candidate ever having reached market based on market viability, the only standard we should even be applying to any "energy policy."
And where would the money from the tariff go? To the one sector of society, given its power and size, doesn't need any more money: the federal government.
Per barrel tariffs didn't work back in the seventies, and they won't work now, just like "investment" in alternative fuels.
#10
If you really want to get Edwards' attention, tell him that under the Taliban, he wouldn't be ABLE to get a $400 haircut. That'll wrinkle his pretty brow!
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/28/2007 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
The Democratic Party simply doesn't "do" national security anymore; it's not in there repertoire, not part of their portfolio. The pro-American, pro-defense Democratic Party of old-- the party of "Cold Warriors" such as John F. Kennedy, "Scoop" Jackson, et al, is long gone.
All that's left in their place is a collection of wealth redistributionists and scam artists practicing the art of what I call "Parasite Politics": taking tax money from you and me, and handing it over to freeloaders in exchange for votes.
They're damn good at keeping themselves in power with this racket-- but it's the ONLY thing they know how to do anymore. And they want this war over, PRONTO, so they can get America's attention again and run their con without any distractions.
And for some of them, like Edwards, the easiest way to accomplish that is pretend the war simply isn't necessary because the threat isn't real.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/28/2007 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The commentary is better than the original article. Thanks Steve White.
#16
The far left believes that all the attacks from 9/11 on are 'false flag' operations perpetrated by Bush and the Joooooossss (Mossad). All Muslims are peaceful practitioners of the 'Religion of Peace'. We attacked Afghanistan so Cheney could make money building a pipeline, and attacked Iraq for oil. We're planning to do the same in Iran for the same reason. All the head-hackers, suicide bombers etc., are liberation fighters reacting to American Imperialism.
This is the nature of the 'reality-based community'. Looks like they're well represented by the Democrat contenders. God help us all if one of these asshats ever becomes President.
#18
Excellent rant on economics and energy, badanov. One that needs to be pounded into the public, the political class - and even many of the fine folks around here. People for some reason arbitrarily dispose of basic economic logic when dealing with energy, with predictable results in their analysis.
To go put it in geek speak, accounting for the imprecision of the analysis due to the lack of objective measurement yardsticks, the "externality" or market failure represented by "dependence" on imported energy cannot be efficiently addressed through govt. intervention (taxes, subsidized R&D). And the issue of energy has confused many, since even before globalization we had a direct stake in regional order - now that stake is huge. Thus we would need to take steps to protect our interests abroad regardless of the % of oil that's imported, or the price. Aside from both these points, the economics of the situation (even before China and India became huge players, now it's a "slam dunk") mean that no conceivable amount of "savings" in use of imported energy would have a meaningful impact on the intended targets (oil producers and their friends).
#19
Certainly the US needs to secure its overseas connections for oil imports. I don't mean that is not necessary.
The "market" for oil exports has failed several decades ago due to the nature of the product & its marketing. Any further restriction in the oil markets will hammer the US economy, no matter its source, and this is the "economic vulnerability" I referred to. The taxes we pay for our oil imports certainly must include our war dead and injured, something that can't be measured in dollars. The "highest taxed commodity on the planet," indeed. A tariff (aka "External Revenue") is one of the oldest measures for governments to raise money, as opposed to "Internal Revenue" -- a tax on your income. I know a lot of Rantburgers are viscerally opposed to any taxation whatsoever while they also support foreign military adventures which must be paid for somehow. Badanov seems to be dismissing the very thought of "economic vulnerability" as a ridiculous concept. Osama bin Laden has/had a different idea on this, and I believe OBL's on to something. The Great Depression was a most "viable market," even though it was the kind of market few of its victims wanted. Verlaine seems to be saying the US Govt is completely helpless to deal with this vulnerability except by somehow changing the governments responsible for much of the world oil export capacity. Throwing slogans and pet ideas & phrases around is no substitute for thinking & strategy. If these are the best ideas we're capable of, we have already lost.
Posted by: Bin Laden ||
04/28/2007 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I know a lot of Rantburgers are viscerally opposed to any taxation whatsoever while they also support foreign military adventures which must be paid for somehow. Badanov seems to be dismissing the very thought of "economic vulnerability" as a ridiculous concept.
Way to stay on one side of the ledger. It must be your Enron moment, I guess.
Your sneering term "foreign military adventure: we know as the Global War on Terrorism, a defensive War initiated by the Islamists of Iran and continuing under other auspices as well.
It's a tough fight, and one we will eventually win, but we won't win it easily if we impose tariffs on oil or increases in income taxes.
Taxes kill investment and they kill new job creation. Taxes, even oil import tariffs kill economic incentives to continue to invest, and they never, ever, accomplish the goals they set out to accomplish because, simply put, they are a dishonest attempt to transfer wealth rather than to pay some a common goal such a national defense.
That is why I am opposed to taxes and increases in all their forms, because those who sneeringly refer to a war for our very survival as a "foreign military adventure", have no sense of common good, only of retribution and redistribution of wealth necessary to achieve that retribution, and the means to create wealth.
Our "forign military adventures" are being paid already by taxes but then so is NPR, which is certainly not defense related and which can be cut anytime, as well any number of items so that we can win this war, and you can go back to tranfering wealth from those who create it to those who never will, aka the federal and state governments.
#22
As it stands, the miltary budget is a small percentage of GNP. It's highly unlikely this theoretical tariff would have been spent supporting 'foreign military adventures' or substantive weaning off the foreign-oil teat.
More likely this would have been spent on more palatable 'domestic security'. This could range from projects directly connected to national security, to things connected only because their proponents say it is (and my money would be on the latter), to paying off favors and thus buying votes.
KPS Gill is the former Punjab Police Chief who crushed the "Khalastan" insurgency in the 1980s by, in his words, "killing all of the terrorists". Thousands of terrorists and their supporters vanished.
By KPS Gill
There is much focus now on the Maoist threat in India and, despite entirely inconsistent assessments by various Government agencies, an increasing consensus around the view that this is the greatest internal security challenge confronting the country. At the same time - and particularly in the aftermath of the major incidents that are all-too-frequently engineered by the Maoists - there is rising concern at the 'police failure' or 'security forces failure' to contain this rising menace.
It needs to be recognised at the outset that a professional and motivated police force, with a sufficient numerical strength and adequate material and technological resources, and with a clear political mandate, can defeat any insurgency in India, including this latest bogey - the Maoist 'protracted war'. If there is a failure to contain and defeat the Maoists, it is because the necessary capacities and mandate are deliberately kept in abeyance; indeed, the limited and entirely deficient capacities that do currently exist are systematically undermined by a cabal of corrupt political, administrative and police leaderships that have developed a deep vested interest in the persistence of the Maoist insurgency. Unless the dynamics of the implicit or explicit nexus between this leadership group and Maoist violence is understood and neutralised, an effective strategy to defeat the Naxalites can neither be framed, nor implemented.
The reality of the situation on the ground - irrespective of the theoretical and supposedly ideological constructs that are given currency in the mock discourse among the 'intelligentsia' - is that this is a fight between two corrupt entities that find mutual benefit and enrichment in fake engagements which can be sustained in perpetuity. A few hapless members of the constabulary and subordinate ranks in the security forces, and equally luckless cadres of the so-called revolutionaries are, of course, killed off from time to time. But no one is really concerned about the occasional massacre - despite the brouhaha that is raised in the media after each major incident.
Fatality figures, in fact, can be used to support whatever thesis is calculated to augment the flow of funds to personal or party coffers. A close scrutiny of the operational situation and the conditions under which the forces are working will demonstrate unambiguously that, in most States and areas, nothing really changes on the ground in the wake of major incidents.
This is the reason why almost no State - and some have been at it for 40 years and more - has been able to entirely and permanently eradicate Left-wing extremism. The Maoist movement, over the past decades, has steadily augmented to attain the status of a massive trans-State exercise in organised extortion and protection racketeering. And everywhere, opportunistic alliances between the Maoists and 'overground' political parties and entities are in place, most visibly around each electoral exercise, but in a constant intercourse at all times.
Almost all political parties have become mirror images of each other in India today, but in this regard they are even more so, with a multiplicity of corrupt parties and organisations woven together in a complex tapestry of duplicity and fraud that entrenches the ruling elite - an elite that grows increasingly more dynastic in all parties over time. Small cabals of violently criminal adventurers manage to break into the charmed circle of political privilege, from time to time, by their sheer ferocity and lack of restraint. The Maoist leadership and the many criminals in the State and national legislatures fall, naturally, into the latter category.
Drumming up a sense of crisis has become an integral part of the efforts at 'resource mobilisation' in this broad enterprise, and that is why the 'developmental solution' to Naxalism finds such strong advocacy among political leaders and state bureaucracies everywhere. Long years ago, Rajiv Gandhi noted that barely 15 paisa in each rupee of developmental funding actually reached its intended beneficiaries; the rest was swallowed up by the black hole of 'power brokers'. In insurgency affected areas, the proportion of developmental funds that is actually utilised for intended purposes would be even smaller - virtually the entire sums, totalling thousands of crores, find their way into the pockets of corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and their hangers on, and through their symbiotic relationship with the 'insurgents' into the pockets of the Maoists as well.
Among the multiplicity of reasons for the military debacle in the Indo-China war of 1962, it was found that the Border Roads Organisation had 'constructed' many roads that existed only on maps, but of which there was no evidence on the ground. Forty-five years later, the same formula is now being applied in Naxalite areas, and it is difficult even to imagine how much of the exchequer's money has been spent on roads that were never constructed, but for which payments have been made and distributed among the local 'stakeholders', with the Naxalites cornering a considerable share to bolster up their 'revolution'.
The Centre now underwrites virtually all security related expenditure in Maoist afflicted States, providing support for police modernisation and force augmentation. Yet, States fail to create the necessary capacities to counter the Maoist threat. Even where significant disbursal of such funds occurs, their utilisation remains inefficient, and diversion to other, often unauthorised uses, is endemic.
The tragedy of existing or newly created capacities is as great. The State police leaderships are raising new battalions of armed forces, but recruitment is marred by widespread bribery. You cannot expect a man who secures his position in a police force through bribery to actually risk his life fighting the Naxalites. So the next stage is inevitable: Policemen pay bribes to the police leadership to secure postings outside the Naxalite affected 'conflict' areas, and in 'soft' areas and duties. The amounts collected through these and other 'administrative' channels - including the continuous business of transfers and postings - total in the hundreds of crores, and are naturally shared with the political leadership that enables corrupt officers to retain 'lucrative' positions, where they can continue with this despicable commerce. That is why, even in State's where there has been a visible augmentation of forces over the past years, deployment in the 'conflict' areas remains disproportionately deficient.
These are 'snapshots' of the objective situation on the ground. How are we to extricate the nation from this predicament? The cabals that are currently exploiting the situation to the hilt will have to be broken. The right individuals - from constables to the highest force commanders - will have to be identified and correctly located. Political leaders will have to look beyond party coffers and the next election, to a future in which people can live without fear. If this does not happen, the corrupt state will continue to fight the corrupt 'revolutionary', with mounting casualties in widening theatres, till the collapse of governance reaches a point where the venality of the national elite threatens its own existence.
Posted by: John Frum ||
04/28/2007 16:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Despite repeated assertions by President General Pervez Musharraf of having taken tangible measures to dismantle the network of extremist jihadis, the flag of militant Islam continues to flutter high and the fanatics keep marching on the state under the very nose of Pakistans first enlightened and moderate military ruler.
The unwillingness of the Musharraf administration to clamp down on extremist jihadis is evident from some recent media reports saying that the slowing down of the Indo-Pak peace process by India has compelled Pakistan to reactivate the infamous banned jihadi organisation Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) apparently to give a fresh impetus to the freedom struggle in Occupied Jammu & Kashmir. Amidst these reports, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has asked Pakistan to honour its commitment to halt terrorist activities in troubled Kashmir. Addressing a round table conference of pro-India politicians from Indian-administered Kashmir on April 24, Singh said his country has engaged sincerely with Pakistan to resolve all pending issues. However, he categorically made it clear that these efforts wont be fruitful until and unless a peaceful environment is created.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: John Frum ||
04/28/2007 06:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
on March 7, 2004, a local English daily quoted a former Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt. Gen. (retd) Javed Ashraf Qazi as saying: We must not be afraid of admitting that the Jaish-e-Mohammad was involved in the deaths of thousands of innocent Kashmiris, in the bombing of the Indian parliament in New Delhi, in American journalist Daniel Pearls murder and in attempts on General Pervez Musharrafs life.
Yet the Pak army continues to fund the JeM
Posted by: John Frum ||
04/28/2007 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Didn't Musharraf use them in his Kargil attacks?
Didn't those attacks pave the way for his coup?
So can't one assume that they are his BROWNSHIRTS?
#3
Actually Kargil was executed by the Northern Light Infantry with a few SSG troops. Any "mujahideen" were porters.
These men, some recommended to Pak Army HQ by the Indian army for medals due to their courage in battle, were disavowed at first. The Pak army refused to take recieve their bodies. They were buried, with full muslim rites, by Indian soldiers. Later in the conflict, accepted bodies were hurriedly buried at night by the Pak army, with just a few family members present, to maintain the fiction that "mujahideen" and not Pak troops had crossed the LOC. This was done despite the fact that the dead Paks had military ID cards and pay stubs on their bodies.
One Pak father, a veteran of the British Indian Army, had to write to the Indian army chief to find out what happened to his son. His own government refused to answer his pleas.
According to Nawaz Sharif, the Indian artillery fire was so vicious that the Northern Light Infantry were practically wiped out in the barrages.
Pakistan has used the ruse of its soldiers dressed as civilian irregulars in three wars - the original Kashmir invasion (supplemented by a tribal Lashkar that spent so long raping and looting that the Indians had time to airlift a brigade of troops and secure Srinagar), - the 1965 "Operation Gibralter" - and the Kargil operation.
Posted by: John Frum ||
04/28/2007 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
John from Verum Serum sends along a nice catch, so to speak: Hes been reading carefully over General Petraeus public comments about conditions in Iraq and noticed he dropped a name no one has yet seized upon: Abu Mustafa Al-Sheibani. Petraeus said:
As you know, there are seven Quds Force members in detention as well. This involvement, again, we learned more about with the detention of an individual named Sheibani, who is one of the heads of the Sheibani network, which brings explosively formed projectiles into Iraq from Iran. His brother is the Iranian connection. He is was in Iraq. And that has been the conduit that then distributes these among the extremist elements again of these secret cells and so forth.
Sheibani is on the Iraqi Governments 41 most wanted list. Not only does this guy work for and with Iran, John notes, but hes also thought to be the first guy to bring in the Explosively Formed Projectiles. From Time, August 2005 (and thats a good article.):
The U.S. Militarys new nemesis in Iraq is named Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani, and he is not a Baathist or a member of al-Qaeda. He is working for Iran. According to a U.S. military-intelligence document obtained by TIME, al-Sheibani heads a network of insurgents created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps with the express purpose of committing violence against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. Over the past eight months, his group has introduced a new breed of roadside bomb more lethal than any seen before; based on a design from the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia Hizballah, the weapon employs shaped explosive charges that can punch through a battle tanks armor like a fist through the wall.
The MSM hasnt picked up on his capture yet. One wonders when and if they will the capture of two major Iran-linked terror leaders in Iraq may just be too much good news for them to handle...
UPDATE: Theyre biting, all right. First Id heard about this guys unlamented demise:
The U.S. military said Mohammed Abdullah Abbas Al Issawi was killed on April 20 in a coalition operation northwest of Baghdad. The military said Al Issawi, also known as Abdul Sattar and Abu Akram, was an Al Qaida commander in the Ameriya and Karmah areas around the Iraqi capital, Middle East Newsline reported.
Al Issawi was also identified as the so-called emir, or chief, of Al Qaida in Anbar. Al Qaida was said to have established a major presence in the eastern province.
More evidence of success from that Al-Anbar surge (and cooperative sheiks) that AllahPundit actually cracked a smile about a few days back. Sattar/Issawi/Akram led the cell that used the 12-year old kids in their car-bombs, so good riddance.
#1
Shouldn't this be posted in the WoT Operations section ?
Sounds like al Q and friends are having a hard time finding clean quarters lately. May they sail the water board of happiness to Allan.
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.
This is a quite big deal that most of us totally missed last night: 
A good part of that's the "dissidence" meme that's ever so fasionable among those who lack the imagination to believe that we could lose the war against the savages. Since there's no way we could possibly lose and since there really aren't any demands being made on them, not even the demand that they pay attention, it's great fun to pretend to be ever so Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn-ish, only without the unstylish beard and the even more unstylish Christianity. There aren't any penalties to "questioning authority," and in fact it'll even get you laid in college. The net result is a beleagured Authority that has to explain itself over and over to nitwits who are posturing, not listening, and eventually being distracted from Authority's task, which is in this case defending the rest of us from people who want to cut our heads off and make our children wear turbans.
This is mere fatuity. Maybe he really is simply not paying attention. Ruling out or never being willing to resort to force leaves talk the only option and wind the only end product. If we're going to deal with those dangerous people and dangerous leaders "strongly" then we've got to do the Clausewitz thing: military action has to remain diplomacy by other means and vice versa. The U.S. was actually doing that, and in many cases doing it damned well, up until last fall. Bush and his team suddenly deflated when they noticed that the nation's attention span had moved to Britney's nether regions and the Dems were making political gains. 
