open Democracy News Analysis - global security - Comments

Bendara on "The war on terror: seven years on (part two) "

Bendara — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:00:14 +0100

If the United States is still stuck in a post cold war paradigm, then the ‘war on terror’ is a contradiction of that type of thinking. The principle enemy in the war has the ability to move its operations not only across the Middle East but Europe and Asia. The American approach to concentrate on Afghanistan, i.e. against the Taliban was not an attempt to address the immediate threat posed by al Qaida as both groups are not one and the same thing, while the invasion of Iraq was for altogether different reasons and not at all linked to 9/11.

Meanwhile al Qaida, with or with out the support of bin Laden, continues with its strategy of extreme Islamism, quite divorced from the presence of Western armies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two countries simply present al Qaida with an opportunity to widen its attacks against Western targets. The audacious bombing of the Marrott hotel demonstrates its ability to target whom ever they want across much of the Islamic world.

Thus we are all faced with a war on two fronts. The continued insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the wider war against the West (specifically America) by a truly violent organisation that unlike the Taliban, is the absolute expression of 21st century terrorism.

The overall strategy used by al Qaida has alienated them with many who would have remained their supporters. Groups like Sunni and Shia, governments like Syria and Iran find the extreme violence far too unpalatable and as a result al Qaida has in essence become everyone’s enemy. In order to gain ‘credibility’ they need to adapt in order to win back that support.

If al Qaida wants to continue its campaign against Western interference in the Middle East it needs to concentrate its attacks on Western forces and not on Muslims. By targeting the source of Arab grievances, i.e. Israel and United States influence in the Middle East, it will retrieve much of the support it has lost over the last few years.

Meanwhile as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq drag on America is faced with a dilemma entirely of its own making: how to get out of these regions with any semblance of credibility. It is important to note that the US government only needs to be seen as successful at home as the views of the international community don’t matter.

If the United States wants to get out it needs to change its reliance on military solutions. However that is unlikely as the ‘success’ of the Surge is seen at home as an American success and not a compromise between Shia and Sunni groups. Thus the proposal to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan is evidence of unchanged military thinking.

The Afghani and Iraqi wars will drag on for a good while yet, the United States will continue to lose allies and unless troops stay on indefinitely, systemic corruption in the Afghanistan government will see a return of the Taliban. Also, the failure in Iraq to establish a workable government may well see commentators like Paul Rogers writing about these current events in 2015.

Jeff Mowatt on "The war on terror: seven years on (part two) "

Jeff Mowatt — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:23:27 +0100

The link on sustainable security brought to mind similar ideas brewing in the US CSIS thinktank described as Smart Power.

Back in 1996, in a paper on inclusive capitalism in the Information Age, there had been a warning that the economically disenfranchised would eventually come to the point of seeing their existence threatened and respond with violence. It preceded the attack on the WorldTrade Center by 5 years.

It led straight to Russia in the wake of their 1998 economic collapse to leverage a bottom up development methodology which succeeded where the HIID and Defense Enterprise Fund had floundered.

Then in 2002, a proposal for economic development in Crimea proposed the concept of economic Smart Bombs as sustainable investment in what could still become the kind of international conflct we'd experienced in the Balkans,

A little later as Iraq began to drain US public coffers, a strategy paper describing national scale microeconomic investment to secure a transitioning democracy at the equivalent of only 1 week's spending in Iraq. We were there warning of inpending trouble with TNK-BP and the severing of gas supply on Ukraine's pipleines.

We've been there doing what the Oxford Reseach Insitute seems to be talking about and wondering why there was nobody standing alongside us.

http://www.p-ced.com/projects/ukraine/

tenzi on "Iran and Pakistan: danger signals "

tenzi — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:41:44 +0100

there are no proof of nuclear possesions in either countries...yea, there might be pictures but who can tell difference a real picture or a photoshopped one?
if Iraq did have weapon of mass destructions to begin with , wouldn't they use it against iran first? if pakistan had these "weapons", wouldn't they attack the country that has been in a war against them for 50 years?
terrorism is created...some of the so called american haters in afghanistan only hate america because americans have destroyed it. war cannot bring peace in this world but helps creates hate which leads to terrorism. i would ahte ths country with all my heart if it killed my family, my own country, my land.
pakistan is still a new country, by bombing it, we will push it more backwards. we have to figure out another solution.
please do comment: i will be back on this page...i am actually really happy that people are concerned about these issues that media conceals from us. i learn from people not media or government.

SamEllison on "The war on terror: seven years on (part one) "

SamEllison — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:09:41 +0100

The voices might have been heard, Robert Gates had this to say in the Washington Post;

"'Frankly, I think one of the keys in terms of expanding our cooperation with the Pakistanis is identifying common threats,' he said. 'They do not see some of these groups in the same way we do.'"

"Moreover, Gates said, dispatching large numbers of American and other Western troops may not be the best answer to rising violence in Afghanistan, which 'has never been hospitable to foreigners.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092300091.html

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "The war on terror: seven years on (part one) "

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:51:23 +0100

Absolutely a necessary article, but seems not to attract comments at this stage, perhaps after your three questions are answered in the retrospective part forthcoming, October 2, 2008.

Notwithstanding this flash observation, the primary problem: conflicting signs of insurgencies, terror and disharmony in our world, matched by wrong strategies and policies raises serious challenges. One could construe that with this article, you state that we need a peaceful world, questioning simultaneously how we get there. The theme of wrong strategies and policies is particularly illustrated in three major senses: (i) the performance of US troops when put in a near impossible position by political leaders; (ii) the impact of relations with emphasis on allies concept in the Middle East; and (iii) the progressive decay of coalition endeavours.

Strategically one sees that pitting groups against each other has not led to desired results and victory, instead reveals inconsistencies and panic hence wears down confidence and increases psychological problems. The outcomes had not been this much drastic if the efforts of Hans Blix and the United Nations were seriously accommodated. But isn't it late now to go that much back on the missteps? What we wait to see is, who has learned something from this in ongoing presidential campaigns: who will learn to listen to world opinion and not go it all alone and muddle-up things - but we are humans vulnerable to mistakes! The talk now should be how to understand and work for peace, what I imagine will be addressed in part 2 when grappling with the questions you put-up here.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

deteodoru on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

deteodoru — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:24:53 +0100

GW Bush had claimed that Iraq is not brain-dead like Terry Shivo. He insists it is "responsive." To make his case he called in a "specialist," Gen. Petraeus, his subordinate!

But GW Bush knows well that there is no prospect for victory. His goal is to hold on and avoid "pulling the plug" on Iraq before he leaves office. Anything that happens afterward will point to the new president as the "proximate cause," not Bush. Key to this prognostic trick is that the US holds on into January. That's why he is even abandoning his 2008 deadlines for a SOFA accord with Maliki. If Maliki forces Bush's successor to pull out and Iraq goes sour, it's not Bush's fault, it's something the next president did wrong as compared to the Bush Administration predecessor that had kept Iraq "responsive."

Anyone who did his third year of residency in the ICU realizes that he gets stuck intensively keeping going the vital organs of the patients that the attending physicians screwed up on the acute floors where any prospect for recovery was sacrificed to incompetence; ICU rarely results in recovery. Rather, it's the chamber of heroic efforts until the family can be talked into "pulling the plug." John McCain would do well to consider that fact as he might take charge of an irreversible mess. His claim that we "had," " have" or "will" succeed to pull off a miracle (he never settles on a tense for "victory") can only be convincing if he traps himself claiming that Bush was an excellent physician who pulled it from death's grasp his "surge"-- for which McCain takes credit in the Washington Times!

The facts, however, indicate that the current Bush resort to short-cuts short-shrifts prospects for stability. US forces are relying more and more on remote killing from the air, resulting in wide spread civilian deaths. A recent UN study shows that 1 in 5 Iraqi refugees left Baghdad during the Petraeus surge, having suffered as collateral damage victims or victims of killings by sectarian assassins in previously safe areas. These are the technical and skilled cram of that nation. US forces have only walled in homogenized areas, a situation that cannot stand if there is to be an Iraqi nation. Petraeus, now that he is no longer responsible for events in Iraq, stressed the reversibility of the current alleged "stable" state. But he refuses to either discuss the effects of his Israel "killer teams" aping or the disappearance of the enemy into a wider regional war expansion to all the nations in the region. The pre-surge Anbar Sunni uprising, according to
Iraq Gov intel, has turned into a safe base for the insurgents and the Iraqi Gov is going after its leaders as if they were still insurgents. At the same time, Maliki has put forward a SOFA concept that no US President can accept; Maliki won't budge, only offering us a chance to hasten our departure. What is clear is that the Iraq War has become much more complicated, involving all the nations in the region as advisers, supporters and funders for the various factions. To speak of alQaeda in Iraq now is to extent what EJ Dionne so rightly said about the Bush Administration: " It is on A LONG VACATION FROM COMPLEXITY."

The surge is a tourniquet applied north of a cut in the artery that incompetent command carelessly made. The artery feeds an entire limb-- our military-- and if we do not repair the artery the Green Machine will go gangrene because we cannot keep sending soldiers into combat for repeated tours. On average soldiers in Iraq are about 5 years older than in Vietnam. Thus, casualties leave widows and orphans or families that must forever take care of disabled injury survivors who originally expected to take care of their families.

This nation has lived on lies and that it has done so for so long allows John McCain to justify to himself the deception that he and his friends Senators Lieberman and Graham are perpetuating. These lies may well pass accepted by the 60's generation that since adolescence lived on illusions, be they chemical or ignorance based.

If I thought binLaden alive, I would imagine that watching videos of Sec. of Treasury Paulson mumbling in desperation and smiling saying to himself: "By the Grace of God, I can say 'mission accomplished,'" for he has lived (???) to see America bankrupt and mired in Muslim lands, Afghanistan and Iraq, despised by all Muslims and still so disabled as to be unable to respond to Russian retaliation against Georgia and its feeding of nuclear technology to Iran. At the same time, having sought to impose a production agreement, where the US oil industry takes a 40% cut of Iraq's oil for 35 years but alsdecideses on how much oil Iraq is to produce instead of the Iraqis, the DoS has sought to settle for a service agreement where US companies get payed for services rendered. Instead, Iraq canceleded these deals completely and made a $50 billion accord with China. Today, with the dollar so weakened by the Wall Street bail-out, oil is again rising in price. So what
has the "surge" done other than gangrene our armed forces, stood helpless as Maliki goes after the very "Awakening" of Sunnis allied to the US, and got the militias to lay low while killers continue to-- admittedly more selectively-- kill eachother's leaders at will?

Will alQaeda get to watch America collapse on itself with various ethnic groups blaming eachother, possibly producing a Holocaust in response to the reckless and false neocon linking of Israel to our War on Terror?

We need to finally look ahead and add things up using calculus instead of arithmetic a la Bush. The surge slowed down the deterioration of a brain-dead war pretending that it has been maintained "responsive." It's time to pull the plug. 9/11 would have never happened had the airlines not violated the law by leaving open the pilot's cabin door, allowing four airliners to be seized each within ten minutes. If we stopped exaggeratingng the capabilities of alQaeda-- an amorphous shibboleth-- we could find a way to stop the hemorrhage of our Treasury and the gangrene of our military, not allowing Bush to pass off the inevitable consequence of his criminal negligence on his successor. Will we pull the plug or will we stay until the Iraqis kick us out?

John McCain refuses to deal with that question as he babbles about "victory." I find that to be treason by a man who seems to have done that before making propaganda broadcasts for Hanoi. I don't hold against him what he was forced to do as a POW but I sure hold against him the lies he is telling about the surge in Iraq.

Daniel E. Teodoru

Steven Rogers on "Pakistan: the new frontline"

Steven Rogers — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:00:31 +0100

What's noticeably missing here is any hint of an alternative strategy. Of course any attempt to disrupt the Taliban/AlQaeda infrastructure in Pakistan is risky, but ignoring it is at least as risky, possibly more so. It would certainly be preferable to have the Pakistani governmnet take effective control of the territory in question, but that government seems to lack the ability or the will to do that.

There are no easy or risk-free options, except perhaps to sit in a comfy chair and criticize any move that anyone makes.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "The SWISH Report (11)"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:19:15 +0100

For people concerned about the type of world we want to live in, the series of "The SWISH Reports", implicit in context of that concern, especially the latest one - all by Paul Rogers] must be seen as important, simultaneously as efforts of the kind risk being also read by some merely as "strategic intelligence window-dressings". A part of what is functionally in-explicit is: where to clearly locate THE ROAD TO PEACE concretely, considering in particular the type of world we live in today and the fact that THE NEW IS NOT YET BORN. This parallels importance of the stepwise accounts and points made, which are however not to be underestimated.

A dimension of points centrally of interest and also timely is the 'co-incidence' with stages in previous and current American Presidential Elections, with the latter now in its final phase. Interdependence of the issues: [global] security, economy, foreign policy is equally primary for the 2008 election, not only from vantage point of how truly informed American voters are but also of how well informed world public opinion is. The burden of this election is therefore beyond the shores of America.

It seems clear and increasingly so that failures attributed to the outgoing administration have triggered paradigm shift beyond being bemused if a personality like Fukuyama also joins the train with the following "The past two US administrations could assume American hegemony in both economics and security. The new administration - that to come after the election: my emphasis] cannot, and a critical task will be for it to better balance what we want with what we can realistically achieve". (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66ca01da-78fa-11dd-9doc-000077b07...). On rests... it fascinates to read him: "... the next president will have to detoxify", with reference to the contributions of Tom Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment on interconnected arguments.

Let me come to the point, Rogers' appreciation of the reports, especially the latest, is partly in reference to "predictive" power of the policy consultants, implicitly not distant from the argument that the new is not yet born - presumably also the rationality behind Fukuyama/reference to Carothers. Effects of the predictions on the presidential candidates of both parties: DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS, must be the target! Reading deep therefore into the predictions leads me to end my comment in interest for a greater possibility for PEACE, resting on the excerpts:

(i) "One idea that you will never hear expressed by either Barack Obama or John McCain in this presidential race is the notion that a chief task of the US foreign policy in the next administration will be to gracefully manage an adversely shifting global power balance: think of the coming of age of China, India, etc., my emphasis] and significantly diminished US influence. This is not a hypothetical issue, but one that stares us in the face today" (Fukuyama - same source).

(ii) "In any case, whatever his actual policies, we most certainly would expect under an Obama presidency a marked change in style towards a more listening, co-operative and multilaterally-engaged America. That must be of deep concern to you. A more "acceptable" America in global terms is the last thing you want". (Paul Rogers: 2 of 5).

Whether world public opinion means something to American voters, is partly an internal and partly external affair: the dilemma of a powerful nation that must be ready to humble herself in "service" of the world! Then the new will be born.

With enormous humility!

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

alfredo.bremont on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

alfredo.bremont — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:09:16 +0100

1024x768

Normal
0
21

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

What this
war on terror has turn out to be is more like a boat that has holes on every
angle and once you fix one and run to fix the other, the one that was
previously fixes just reopens again. Simply the trap is closing to the kill.

This war is
a big mistake it cannot be won and never will be won the enemy is divided and
united at once, therefore once the Iraqi troops go to Afghanistan Iraq will
probably become a worse nightmare than what it was before the troops left to
their new destination. This is an obvious tactic from the freedom fighters!
They got no other choice as in their strategy it is dividing to conquer but on
a different logic. The current economical mayhem is as well part of their
tactics as 9/11 was the beginning of this war. It is more a war against
capitalism and its selfishness and excess than a war against democracy.
Indirectly every revolutionary wants a democratic realm, however the west is
not a real democracy is more a self interest democracy were those that have the
means do what they please and those that lack the means disappear a sort of
survival of the fittest applied to society. The aim is money not culture or
knowledge, not freedom or nobility but just objects of consumption. The mind
evolves towards comfort rather than sublimity. The mind become numb and all it
does best is exploit the natural and honest individual, they call this
cleverness intelligence, because the other rather than look at the object
perceives the subject and is interested in the human side of men not on his animal
side. Capitalism is the main problem upgrade capitalism towards a human sphere
and run off from the planet of the apes, and you shall finally see how peace
and prosperity flourishes around you.

Kelarence Vansoul - Netherlands on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

Kelarence Vansoul - Netherlands — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:53:02 +0100

We ourselves know that the idea of isolating Iran is defeated strongly. Iran is currently a major commercial ally of our country along with France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and US as well. the US exports to Iran increased tenfold under Bush...
We have to accept the nuclear Iran and take our focus on the nuclear arsenal of Israel with 170 warheads. Why waste our time and energy on Iran when there is no evidence about its nuclear facilities for weapons?

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:01:37 +0100

There is much to read in order to dilute and get closer to the heart of this article, which could not have come at a better time considering the eve of American presidential elections and the two parties involved with their respective running candidates and vice candidates.

As usual, it would appear to me that Professor Rogers always foresees, tells things as they are - especially the implications and challenges - quite often too, 'wise' warning signals, not in the negative sense but to truly encourage self-searching! If I am not wrong, what the responses should be are seldom prescribed in most of his texts - the work of a "professional"scientist: be as objective as you can: describe and explain but be cautious in passing judgments - it could be the responsibility of the "others"! In short he is good at paving ways for those who care to think and see what to do.

No bad approach from the scientist when serving policy-making agencies and technocrats and experts as well as the intelligence officials. Quite one of the good ways to work for change, which in general makes the contributions of commentators worthy of what they should be, especially when they are informed, clear and less cryptic.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the eight years of present US administration soon to end, has many loopholes to attract impulses over whether it has failed or not - as it seems it is the hour of verdict! Diplomacy has been dirty and clumsy and others have capitalised. Who? Can the diplomacy be cleansed that no one capitalises - presumably that all benefit!! Today's wars and diplomatic challenges increasingly seem different from past ones if we give 'renewed' thoughts about what the NUANCES are made of [I can still be corrected should I be wrong!]. I mean wars are not always going to be the solution to victory and winning hearts hence sustainable development and peace our greatest goal or objective!

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

Steven Rogers on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

Steven Rogers — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:17:53 +0100

I don't see any reason to discern a "loose axis between China, Iran and Iraq". Certainly China will do business with Iran and Iraq, but they will also do business with many others, and if doing business makes you part of an axis, then China and the US must be part of an axis too.

Neither is there any visible reason to see this as a threat. China's interests in the region are very similar to those of the US. As a massive oil importer, China wants to see oil production rising and oil prices falling, or at least holding stable. That gives the Chinese every reason to want to maintain political stability in the Middle East. Given their own restive Muslim minorities, the Chinese also have no reason whatsoever to promote Islamic radicalism.

China and the US do compete, to some extent, but at the end of the day both are trading powers, both are oil consumers, and both are status quo powers - and that means their common interests are at least as great as their divergent interests. Prosperity in the US and Europe - the major export markets on which China depends - is very much in China's self interest, and the Chinese have no real reason to be rocking any boats. China's influence in the Middle East is more likely to be a moderating force than a radicalizing force.

raysimlee on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

raysimlee — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:51:47 +0100

Looks like the terrorist themselves is pointing an accusing finger on others. When USA and the west is terrorizing the rest of the developing world with its superior arm and killing machines it is putting a spin on the truth.

The world belong to all human beings not just the whites form Europe and those that occupy America after death and destruction of ethnic people (they are just as human as the whites from Europe). As all human are equal DO NOT use your 'human right' against other human.

Be human, learn to love. If you believe in your God at all, READ THE BIBLE.

Tom Paine on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

Tom Paine — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:57:47 +0100

The
transfer of authority in Iraq's Anbar province from American to Iraqi security forces on 1 September 2008 is an index of confidence that the situation in Iraq is indeed improving.

What does this transfer mean? Patrick Cockburn notes that 25,000 US troops will remain in the province after the "turnover" to the Iraqis.

US corporate media reports that the number of troops in Al Anbar will only eventually decline by about 2000.

I don't see how this can be painted as a huge indicator in how great it is in the province. Many here in the US see this as only Bush administration propaganda designed to impact the US presidential election.

jpcruz on "The global economic war"

jpcruz — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:09:19 +0100

No doubt you have a point there.