Keys Corner

The USA wants to introduce “democracy” in Iraq, but not in Pakistan:

The US and Britain are pressing Pervez Musharraf’s victorious opponents to drop their demands that he resign as president and that the country’s independent judiciary be restored before forming a government.

In a strategy some Western diplomats admit could badly backfire, the Bush administration has made clear it wishes to continue to support Mr Musharraf even after Monday’s election in which the Pakistani public delivered a resounding rejection of his policies…

No further comment needed, I think.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a stark warning on Sunday to Europeans, saying that their safety from terrorist attack by Islamic extremists is directly linked to NATO’s success in stabilizing Afghanistan. After weeks of calling on NATO governments to send more combat troops and trainers to Afghanistan, Mr. Gates made his case directly to people across the continent in a keynote address to an international security conference here…

Well, I disagree with the implied criticism that some countries are not pulling their military weight. The US-lead wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have encouraged terrorism in Europe and alienated moderate Muslems. The answer is to supply aid to the citizens of these countries and not charge around their countries acting like Rambo. For a different view, take a look at Marc Sageman’s article in last week’s New Scientist. Sageman is a forensic psychiatrist, sociologist, former CIA case officer and a consultant for various US government agencies – so I think he is as qualified to talk about fighting terrorism as Gates, yet he comes to a completely different conclusion (subscription required to view full article):

...The key to the modern terrorist network is the collective discourse on internet forums, which provides general guidance and tactical instruction to the participants in the absence of the command hierarchies of traditional terrorist organisations. It also fosters a true conversation among the participants – it is impossible to anticipate where a given discussion will lead. The result is that each small local terrorist network pursues its own activity for its own local reasons, and in doing so promotes the overall goals and strategy of the Al-Qaida terrorist social movement far more effectively than any central command could. This explains why governments’ bureaucratic and ideological approach to tackling terrorism – pursuing high-value targets in the hope the movement will implode – is bound to fail.

What, then, should governments do? Their strategy should be twofold. First, they should continue to seek to eliminate violent networks, and ensure the fair prosecution of captured terrorists in a transparent way in order to regain the trust of Muslim communities worldwide. Any campaign against terrorism must be focused exclusively on the perpetrators, and not on racial or ethnic groups in general. It is when Muslims are indiscriminately censured that they become angry. It is also worth remembering that the most effective way to rob terrorism of its glory is to reduce the terrorists to common criminals. There is no glory in being taken to prison in handcuffs.

The second strategy is to contain the threat and wait until it disappears for internal reasons. Young people follow fashions and define themselves in contrast to their elders. They worship fashionable “jihadi heroes”, but fashions come and go. If we have the good sense to allow the leaderless jihad to fade away, it should do so in years rather than generations. The aim should be to accelerate the process of internal decay by avoiding any action – such as the invasion of Iraq – that could prolong and invigorate this violent movement. A military strategy, for example, is completely counterproductive because it creates more terrorists than it eliminates.

General Petraeus, the commander of the American forces in Iraq, is probably going to have some explaining to do in the next few days – he was responsible in 2004 – 2005 for distributing a large chunk of the weapons that the Americans have given to the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, about a third of them can no longer be accounted for and are probably in the hands of the opposition forces. In other words:

• 110,000 AK-47s
• 80,000 pistols
• 135,000 bits of armour

seem to be absent without leave.

And where does Fred Karno come into this? Well, he was a slap-stick comedian at the same time as Laurel and Hardy were so popular, and one of his acts was about a completely chaotic army described in the ditty below:

We are Fred Karno’s army,
Fred Karno’s infantry;
We cannot fight, we cannot shoot,
So what damn good are we?
But when we get to Berlin
The Kaiser he will say
Hoch, hoch, mein Gott
Vot a bloody fine lot
Fred Karno’s infantry.

Given the US forces’ record in Iraq so far – not able to stop looting of hospitals and museums, unable to secure Iraqi arms dumps, can’t keep records of what they’ve done with money or arms, can’t keep the country under control – they seem to be on a par with Fred Karno’s Army, don’t they?

The Pentagon has announced that an alleged senior al-Qaida member who has been held in Guantanamo has “confessed” to planning the September 11 attacks on the USA:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged number three in al-Qaida, confessed to planning the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 2001, in front of the secret military tribunals being held for the top detainees in Guantánamo, the Pentagon said last night.

However:

He is understood to have gone through torture, including “waterboarding” when the suspect being interrogated is strapped to a board and placed underwater. According to the New York Times, the use of harsh techniques was approved in his case by the justice department and the CIA.

So that makes the confession as likely to be true as the White House’s statements on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that were made before the invasion in 2003, doesn’t it?

It’s not surprising that the US army let looters clear out museums and hospitals after the fall of Baghdad – just look at these quotes from those responsible for losing track of up to $20bn in $100 bills that was shipped to Iraq to finance the reconstruction of the country (my emphasis in the quote):

Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, reminded the committee that “the subject of today’s hearing is the CPA’s use and accounting for funds belonging to the Iraqi people held in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq. These are not appropriated American funds. They are Iraqi funds. I believe the CPA discharged its responsibilities to manage these Iraqi funds on behalf of the Iraqi people.“

Bremer’s financial adviser, retired Admiral David Oliver, is even more direct. The memorandum quotes an interview with the BBC World Service. Asked what had happened to the $8.8bn he replied: “I have no idea. I can’t tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn’t – nor do I actually think it’s important.”

Q: “But the fact is billions of dollars have disappeared without trace.”

Oliver: “Of their money. Billions of dollars of their money, yeah I understand. I’m saying what difference does it make?“

In other words, it’s not our money, why should we worry? Apart that is, from the suspicion that some of that missing money has financed the people involved in both the civil war in Iraq and the on-going attacks on military personnel.

It’s mind-blowingly arrogant, not the mention short sighted.

The Independent has printed a thoughtful proposal for the way to proceed in Iraq from someone who really should know what he is talking about – Ali A Allawi, the Minister of Trade and Minister of Defence in the Iraqi Governing Council Cabinet from 2003 to 2004. He was also in the Transitional National Assembly, and Minister of Finance, Transitional National Government of Iraq in 2005-2006.

His proposals are certainly not going to please the White House, but the analysis seems more plausible than Bush’s alleged strategy of increasing troop levels in Iraq. He points out that the majority of the states in the Middle East find the current situation of increasing Shia ascendency in Iraq deeply disturbing and that a solution to the current crisis must be generated initially from within Iraq and then get regional support for the direction taken – that includes support from Iran and Turkey.

It’s a long article, but worth reading and certainly quite different from any proposal that Bush is likely to make, which unfortunately means it has little chance of being implemented.

From today’s Guardian:

The British government never believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to British interests and warned the US that toppling him would lead to “chaos”, according to a Foreign Office diplomat closely involved in negotiations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq…

William Pfaff comments in today’s Observer on a phemonenom that has worried most Europeans for the last 3 or 4 years:

... In America, it’s as though Bush, his inner cabinet, and the neocons have been playing a video game, with fictional characters and victims, virtual death and torture. Now the disc has suddenly finished, and it’s time to shut down the player.

This is not just a figure of speech. American policy has been running on images rather than evidence of real nations and people doing things for real human motives. It has been populated by abstractions: Global Terrorist Conspiracies, Rogue Nations, Fanatics Who Hate Our Freedoms, Generations of Terrorism and The Global Menace of Al-Qaeda.

The US, where actual people live, has been turned into an abstraction: the Sole Superpower, which everyone in the world knows is a Righteous Nation, the Mars (in the neocon Robert Kagan’s formulation) defending the fragile Venus which is Europe, the Straussian (Leo Strauss, the University of Chicago philosopher) Realist unflinchingly battling in a Hobbesian universe to protect Kantian Europeans, with their illusions of global parliaments and peace, from nameless horrors…

I see the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, is talking about withdrawing immunity from prosecution granted to US and “coalition of the willing” troops who accidentally kill, maim or rape the locals. Anyone taking bets on how quickly the USA will withdraw their troops if that happens?

The US army’s image of it’s activities in Iraq is looking even more tarnished than usual this week:

• A British SAS member resigned in protest at the “war of agression” in Iraq, becoming the first member of the SAS to resign and refuse to go into combat on moral grounds. He says he saw “dozens” of illegal acts by US forces while on a 3-month tour of duty in Baghdad.
• Meanwhile, a memo written to Tony Blair in 2003 from John Sawer – Blair’s special envoy to Iraq at the time – has surfaced, which doesn’t mince words describing the situation in Iraq after the US-led invasion- here a few excerpts:

  ...Garner’s outfit, ORHA (Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance), is an unbelievable mess. No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure (my emphasis), and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis. Bremer’s arrival is not a day too soon. Garner and his top team of 60-year old retired generals are well-meaning, but out of their depth…
  .... A big part of the problem is the US Third Infantry Division. They fought a magnificent war and now just want to go home. Unlike more mobile US units they are sticking to their heavy vehicles and are not inclined to learn new techniques. Our Paras company at the embassy witnessed a US tank respond to (harmless) Kalashnikov fire into the air from a block of residential flats by firing three tank rounds into the building. Stories are numerous of US troops sitting on tanks parked in front of public buildings while looters go about their business behind them. Every civilian who approaches a US checkpoint is treated as a potential suicide bomber. Frankly, the 3rd Inf Div need to go home…

Meanwhile, Bush tries to remain upbeat (at least in public) about the situation in Iraq.