Rambama Will Take Musharraf Down!

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Al Qaeda drew “first blood,” they don’t know who they were messin’ with…

Yesterday, we all got a good laugh when it was revealed that Democrat Presidential aspirant Barack Obama announced he would “invade Pakistan,” if necessary. My post with limited comments didn’t add much as what is there to add to the already ludicrous?

This morning, James S. Robbins has a great take over at NRO on Obama and acting on “actionable intelligence.”

“So President Obama would invade Pakistan? Who would have thought? “It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005,” Obama said at a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Obama was pinging off a recent New York Times report of an early 2005 mission to apprehend al Qaeda leadership figures in Pakistan, including second banana Ayman al-Zawahiri. The mission was aborted by then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld because the operation had grown too large. This alone makes it a good case-study in the failings of bureaucracy; too many components looking to get involved, not enough risk being accepted, not a shining moment for the partisans of Defense Transformation.”

If anyone wants, link back with an image of “Rambama” let’s see what we can put together.

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Let’s get this straight and clear:

“WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.”

Aimed at the president but more appropriately directed at the candidate himself:

“He confuses our mission.”

This only bolsters “his chief rivals” description of “his foreign policy skills as naive.“

Personally this just flummoxes me, so I must hand it over to Michelle Malkin’s “Macho Man.“

Riaz Hassan, the Pope, the Taliban and 22 South Korean Hostages

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

According to an editorial written by Australian professorial fellow and emeritus professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, Riaz Hassan, (“Interrupting a history of tolerance?”):

“The Zionist project for a Jewish state was predicated on centuries of Jewish sufferings in Europe.

Anti-Semitism was not an entrenched characteristic of Islamic ideology and history until the 20th century. Without doubt, European anti-Semitic writings and their translation into Arabic during the 19th century and German National Socialism in the 20th century were instrumental in instigating anti-Semitism throughout Arab lands.”

Strange revelation, not so much from Hassan, but more due to its publication in The Korea Herald today, following the extension of the deadline set by the Taliban for the release of 22 South Koreans for roughly the same number of Taliban in Afghanistan.

Pope Benedict recently chimed in on the hostage situation that may lead to the murder in cold blood of the 22 Christian missionaries calling the exploitation of innocent people as a “grave violation of human dignity:”

“Unfortunately the usual practice of exploiting innocent people for their own ends is spreading among armed groups. It is a grave violation of human dignity that clashes with every elementary norm of civility and rights and gravely offends divine law.”

Hopefully this will not exacerbate the situation as according to Professor Hassan in the September 26, 2006 issue of the Daily Times of Pakistan in his “VIEW: The Jihad and the West:”

“The need for a dialogue between Islam and the West has never been more acute than now, but Pope Benedict XVI’s recent description of Islam as “evil and inhuman” is clearly not the best approach. In his lecture on Faith and Reason at Regensburg University, the pope quoted the 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor Manuel II Palaeologus as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad [peace be upon him] brought was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.” Notwithstanding the Vatican’s statement that the pope meant no offence and, in fact, desired dialogue, in the eye of many Muslims his remarks only reinforced a false and biased view of Islam — not conducive to dialogue.”

In another example of intolerance toward radical Islam the South Korean government has asked YouTube to remove video clips from 2004 that “showed Koreans condemning Islam after a Korean translator was killed in Iraq in 2004, and a Korean woman preaching Christianity to a group of Afghan children. It was not disclosed who posted the videos, which have now been taken down.”

Further in the effort to avoid provoking the Taliban, “the Korean Government Information Agency asked Youtube last Friday to delete the content on the grounds that it falsely portrays Christians and Koreans alike.” The Christian portrayal refers to a quote from a YouTube post that said, “I am Korean myself and right now 90 percent of Korean public also think that those stupid Korean Christians deserve what has happened.“

So in the effort to bring the 22 hostages home safely a view of the world that the likes of the Taliban most violently represents is wiped from the public record.

Good luck with real negotiations.

South Korean Hostages Held by Taliban Orts – “they do not pay attention!”

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Of the 22 remaining South Korean hostages taken by the Taliban in Afghanistan Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf said:

“They are safe and alive,” and that the Afghanistan government, “has given us hope for a peaceful settlement of the issue.”

The “hope” he spoke of is a positive turn as 23 people had initially been taken hostage while on a 10 day relief mission and unfortunately one had to be shot dead yesterday because the Afghan government “had not responded positively to its demands,” which was to a demand of the release “of eight Taliban prisoners in exchange for eight Koreans.”

Another Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, complained of the government in Kabul:

“They do not pay attention and did not give a positive response, so that’s why we killed one Korean hostage.”

Chief Presidential Secretary for Security Policy Baek Jong-chun of South Korea furthered what will likely be observed as “non positive response,” by the “spokesman heavy” Taliban when he said:

“The Korean government clearly states that the organization responsible for the abduction will be held accountable for taking the life of a Korean citizen. The killing of an innocent citizen cannot be justified under any circumstance or for any reason, and any such inhumane act can not be tolerated”

Sadly, the Taliban lost its short hold on power that it had in the mid to late nineties, which has forced it to abuse, quash and make miserable fewer lives; wo is them.

The prospect of the possibility of snuffing the lives of the 22 remaining infidels must be of some solace to the Taliban members. Of comfort early on in the kidnapping episode to the Taliban members, internet users had “criticisms on the Christian community for aggressive proselytizing activities in Islamic countries,” also “local protestant churches were urged to think again about their aggressive evangelism after the news of hostages broke out last week.”

Following the slaying, in cold blood, pointless murder of one of the hostages, Pastor Bae Hyung-kyu yesterday, other internet users began saying (one anyway):

“This is not the time to keep up criticisms when a person has been shot dead. Although these people could have been more careful, they were there with good intentions, and none of them deserves to be victimized this way.”

It’s interesting to read of the pathetic stupidity of those that will put their own safety and life on the line in an effort to convince the “believers” that it isn’t so bad to be an “infidel.” Those that criticized the Christian missionaries do have a point that the hostages put themselves in harms way, “for endangering their safety, ignoring government warnings and not reporting to the local police while traveling from Kabul to Kandahar, the former stronghold of the Taliban.” Surely it isn’t safe for Muslims in South Korea or the U.S. either to practice according to their beliefs.

So, I guess they had it coming.

Regardless of how the “negotiations” go, it would probably be a good idea to continue and/or increase a steady stream of 500 pound and larger “negotiators” into the mountainous regions where these once proud stiflers of life now reside.

Of “Hostage Games” Global Guerrillas asks and answers:

“The recent series of hostage dramas in Afghanistan poses the following question: what’s the value of a hostage in 21st century warfare? Answer: an order of magnitude more than it was a decade ago (in contrast, the Iranian hostage drama and the Lebanon hostage crisis were outliers to the trend line driven by more by domestic US politics than any inherent system effects).

Here’s why:

Now Hear This: The Editors Have Spoken Again

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Will someone please, please, please flush the toilet Paper???

According to the emotion and angst filled, non logic using editorial board members at The NY Times:

“Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists.”

This group whines like Mike Gravel at a Democrat Debate, why are they so invested in the never changing need to get out? Who are these people? Who are the members?

Because we are still in Iraq (big surprise!) it is nothing but an utter failure. Because we are in Iraq, “Al Qaeda’s top leadership (has) regrouped and (is) resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier.” Is the logic(?) that we could then invade Pakistan or send more military to Afghanistan? What kind of a “quagmire” would be created by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan; do we really want to get involved in something like that? Who would we place the blame upon for that battlefield not going right or according to “plan” or an ever increasing number of casualties and deaths?

NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

What would our “exit plan” be? Does that question not really enter the equation because we’re already there? Hasn’t Afghanistan gone on long enough? When will the Afghanis take responsibility for their own safety and government, why should they still need us?

Of Iraq, the board asks:

“What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?”

(bold/italics/case/ul mine) This according to those that “know” that getting out of Iraq is “THE essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

This is the boards over riding “intelligence” estimate. The rallying point that Iraq is for “extremists” would no longer be if we left. This is the answer they “stubbornly and damagingly” hold onto and refuse to view any other way.

Of Petraeus and Crocker’s plan the editors are aghast at the gall in the “assumption” that “a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years.” Forget the fact that it is a “war plan” and not the “change in direction” or “exit plan” the editors envision and “assume” is the only answer to Iraq and is the only question in the minds of Americans with regard to Iraq.

The board sums it all up in a voice revealing the thin line between it and a Kos-hat (see a*s-hat):

“Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing.”

One “illusion” here is that the board considers itself part of “everything” or perhaps “everything (that matters anyway).” Another “illusion” is that the “surge” and this newest plan isn’t a re-evaluation of strategy. The last “illusion” is the boards unbending surety that it is failing and overall Iraq has failed.

It must be nice to know.

Red Mosque Seige in Pakistan and The Board

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Yesterday, the editorial board of The NY Times had some advice for the Bush Administration regarding General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Of Musharraf the board said:

“he has done far less than he promised — and far less than is needed. It’s not clear which side his intelligence services are rooting for, while Taliban and Qaeda fighters continue to find shelter and support on Pakistan’s side of the Afghan border.”

One cannot disagree that Musharraf’s Pakistan has done less than promised in the fight against terrorism, however via the opinion of the toiletPaper all the nuance that they find commendable in a Kerry, they don’t apply to themselves with regard to a problem that is not at all as simple as they would like.

Question to the board: whose intelligence will Musharrafs be if he is replaced whether Democratically or by other means?

The board believes:

“Washington needs to make clear to the Pakistani people that America is the ally of their country, not their dictator, and that the United States favors the earliest possible return to free elections and civilian rule.”

Well, this is hard to disagree with as well; but their people are definitely a mixed bag as are the many different parts of the government there. “America is the ally of their country,” including one assumes of Mohammed Abdul Aziz and Abdur Rashid Ghazi; the fellas in the lead on the Red Mosque stand-off.

 

 

Did the boards words strike fear in Musharraf and lead to the recent military storming of the mosque? Hmmmmm…..

BBC News considers the consequences of the siege:

“Pakistan’s military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, has often been accused of tolerating elements in the military and the intelligence services who are known to maintain ideological and strategic links with the country’s Islamic militants.

That includes those holed up in Islamabad’s Red Mosque (Lal Masjid).

So does the final showdown at the mosque mean that Gen Musharraf is moving decisively against those elements – and if so, what are the consequences?”

The board should consider more than just their simplistic biased views when blowing the hot air of their clarion call; whatever the subject.

The Times Editorial Board in THEIR Labrynth When Considering Musharraf

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Hmmm, The Times editorial board is at it again and all emotionally as well.

Regarding General Pervez Musharraf the board believes the U.S. should cut its loses with the sinking fortunes of the Pakistani leader:

“Washington continues to uncritically support the general’s highhanded rule.”

“We’ve seen this story too many times before. One version starred the shah of Iran, others some of General Musharraf’s predecessors. None ended happily for the United States or the nations involved. Dealing with dictators is sometimes necessary. Clinging to them when their people want them gone is unbecoming of the world’s greatest democracy and unhealthy for America’s long-term interests.”

It is just another cut and run tactic The Board loves, although I’ll agree that it would be nice as the board says, to have Pakistan “return to free elections and civilian rule,” in time; but at what cost? Even Time Magazine sees the light in reference to what Musharraf is up against at home, with:

“Called “my buddy” by George W. Bush, Musharraf, 62, has paid a price for his decision, having been the target of multiple assassination attempts by the militants who infest his country. His ties with the U.S. enrage religious radicals, who are his most dangerous opponents.”

Best by far is from someone that has a clue and doesn’t get into a hissy fit like The Times editorial board whenever something even slightly Bush is the subject.

From Foreign Affairs, “A False Choice in Pakistan,” Daniel Markey, July/August 2007 Vol 86, Number 4

“It is true that Pakistan’s government needs greater popular legitimacy — won through the ballot box — in order to advance both long- and short-term counterterrorism goals. But the critics’ prescriptions for how to advance these goals risk throwing the United States, Pakistan, and the war on terrorism off course without offering a better alternative. If members of the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) retain ties to militant groups, including Taliban sympathizers, they do so as a hedge against abandonment by Washington. The past six decades of on-again, off-again bilateral cooperation have undermined Pakistani confidence in long-term U.S. partnership. Washington, accordingly, should resist the appeal of the cathartic but counterproductive approach of confronting Islamabad with more sticks and fewer carrots. Any attempt to crack down on Pakistan will exacerbate distrust, resulting in increased Pakistani support for jihadists; coercive threats will undermine confidence without producing better results.”

Markey suggests “shifting gears:”

“Washington should shift gears in its approach to Pakistan, but it should not reverse course. Given the abysmal state of U.S.-Pakistani relations on the eve of 9/11, the Bush administration’s six-year partnership with Musharraf has paid real dividends. Pakistan’s macroeconomic outlook and its relationship with India have both improved, creating new prospects for long-term stability and prosperity.”

Shifting gears is appropriate advice to any side of our arguments these days. The Times, the Left and others growing weary of Musharraf’s Pakistan prefer shifting gears into R, which, suffice it to say is not Race; anyone knows (I hope) that driving along at a decent clip and jamming the gearshift into Reverse isn’t really a good thing. The same applies to any alliance, whether perfect (are there any out there?) or not. We need to appreciate the positives rather than just negatives and not simplify the arguments, which is something we love to do; great for the game of politics but not the game of life.