Informed Comment

Abdullah Abdullah is threatening to withdraw from the presidential runoff contest in Afghanistan if the head of the Electoral Commission is not replaced. That commission oversaw the fraud-ridden first round. President Obama has put off his decision on Afghanistan policy until the presidential election is concluded, but what if it never really takes place and the US is willy-nilly stuck with Hamid Karzai and his wounded legitimacy?

Over 1,000 US troops have been wounded in Afghanistan in the past 3 months.

Congress is pressing the Pentagon to find more effective ways of combating roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices.

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Abdullah Abdullah is threatening to withdraw from the presidential runoff contest in Afghanistan if the head of the Electoral Commission is not replaced. That commission oversaw the fraud-ridden first round. President Obama has put off his decision on Afghanistan policy until the presidential election is concluded, but what if it never really takes place and the US is willy-nilly stuck with Hamid Karzai and his wounded legitimacy?

Over 1,000 US troops have been wounded in Afghanistan in the past 3 months.

Congress is pressing the Pentagon to find more effective ways of combating roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices.

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Jon Stewart this week showed his usual stone cold courage in having on to his show Palestinian activist Moustafa Barghouti and Jewish-American peace worker Ann Baltzer for a frank discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. A hard line Likudnik audience member heckled them and ultimately had to be escorted from the studio. Here is an eye witness account at MondoWeiss.

Part 1 of the interview:

Here is part 2:

As usual, the Likudnik Dirty Tricks squad has been pressuring Stewart and Comedy Central over this outbreak of frank talk about Israel.

Rawstory has more on the controversy.

Please support Stewart: at http://www.comedycentral.com/
help/questionsCC.jhtml, selecting The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in the menu. If you prefer to call, the number is 212 468 1700. If you liked what you saw, give it support. Numbers matter in these things and actually the Likudniks aren’t all that numerous, it is just that so few in the mainstream bother to speak out.

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Jon Stewart this week showed his usual stone cold courage in having on to his show Palestinian activist Moustafa Barghouti and Jewish-American peace worker Ann Baltzer for a frank discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. A hard line Likudnik audience member heckled them and ultimately had to be escorted from the studio. Here is an eye witness account at MondoWeiss.

Part 1 of the interview:

Here is part 2:

As usual, the Likudnik Dirty Tricks squad has been pressuring Stewart and Comedy Central over this outbreak of frank talk about Israel.

Rawstory has more on the controversy.

Please support Stewart: at http://www.comedycentral.com/
help/questionsCC.jhtml, selecting The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in the menu. If you prefer to call, the number is 212 468 1700. If you liked what you saw, give it support. Numbers matter in these things and actually the Likudniks aren’t all that numerous, it is just that so few in the mainstream bother to speak out.

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases Urdu editorials on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s controversial visit to Pakistan

Pakistan: Urdu Press Roundup Discusses Hillary Clinton’s Visit to Country
The following is a roundup of excerpts from editorials and articles on the visit of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to Pakistan, with particular reference to Washington’s policy towards Islamabad, war on terror, and the Taliban, published in the 30 October editions of seven Urdu dailies.
Pakistan — OSC Summary
Friday, October 30, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary

Ausaf Editorial Sees Shift in USPolicy Regarding Taliban

Maintaining that the United States wants to hold talks with the moderate Taliban for resolving the Afghan imbroglio, the 30 October editorial says: ” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that those who were forced to become Taliban members would have to be separated from the militants.

She said that every gun-wielding individual was not a terrorist,but there were those, who were supporting the extremists out of compulsion.

The policy that the United States is deliberating these days concerning the Talibanis that the Taliban should be divided into two groups, good and bad, then the good members of Taliban should be isolated from the bad ones, and talks should beheld with them.”

Jinnah Editorial Holds US Responsible for Talibanization

Recalling that it was the United States that had organized and provided resources to these people (Taliban) in its war against the Soviet Union; the 30 October editorial states: “The United States itself is the motivator for the apprehensions that the US secretary of state hasbeen expressing during her visit to Pakistan.

The United States used to provide weapons and other paraphernalia to the Taliban to fight against the Soviet Union and declared them as jihadists.

It used the shoulder of the Taliban jihadists to shatter the Soviet Union. Later, when the shattered Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, the United States left the Taliban unmonitored.”

Mashriq Editorial Claims US Mulling Change in Policies

Referring to the joint press conference of Hillary Clinton with Foreign Minister Qureshi, the 30 October editorial states: “Anyhow, it can be guessed from the news conference of the US secretary of state that her country wants to bring change in its policies.

She has acknowledged to the extent that the United States had not benefited with direct contact with the rulers, rather they have suffered losses. Therefore, it now intends to establish direct contact with people.”

Express Article by Tanvir Qaisar Shahid Discusses Impact of Visit

Talking about the statement of the Indian prime minister about holding talks with Pakistan on the eve of Hillary Clinton’s Pakistan visit; the 30 October article comments: “The visit of the US secretary of state proved hard for Pakistan.

As soon as she reached Pakistan, a bomb blast occurred in Peshawar. Over 100 hundred people were killed, and 200 otherswere critically injured.

One benefit of her visit was that on the very first day of her visit, the Indian prime minister announced that his country was willing to hold unconditional talks with Pakistan.”

Islam Editorial Urges US To Review Policies

Advising the United States to bring about changes in its policy for peace and security in the region, the 30 October editorial says: “Ignoring the international norms and diplomatic demands, the US secretary of state talked about, with full comfort, the appointment of the chief of the most sensitive agency of the Pakistan Army.

If the United States wants to improve its image, it should pull out of the Afghan war.
At the same time, it should also abandon its conspiracy to bog down the Pakistan Army into this war.”

Islam Article by Khawar Chaudhry Links Operation With Visit

Emphasizing that stepping up of operation was imperative to pave the way for the visit of the US secretary of state; the 30October article states: “Preparations had been ongoing since the start of October for getting a glimpse of the white goddess (Hillary Clinton).
The series of offering sacrifices was also underway to appease her.

It is obvious that the visit of the goddess was necessary for a glimpse and a particular environment was also required for her arrival.”

Khabrain Editorial Criticizes US Approach Toward Pakistan

Highlighting the recent US measures that prove contrary to Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence; the 30 October editorial says: “The way in which people have suffered hardships because of Hillary Clinton’s visit it says that if the US secretary was facing grave threats, whywas this visit to Pakistan organized?

Talking to the media, the US secretary of state said that her country would always support Pakistan.

However, when asked about the illegal measures of the United States, she evaded to answer. Pakistanis are questioning Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence after the US drone attacks and armed patrolling by the US soldiers in Islamabad.”

Nawa-e Waqt Editorial Exhorts Leaders To Reject US Aid, Presence of Soldiers

Goading the rulers to show national honor and dignity and rise to the occasion; the 30 October editorial comments: “Keeping in view the national sovereignty the US secretary of state should be asked to withdraw the US aid and troops.

At the same time, she should be told that we cannot sell away our independence and sovereignty for the sake of the US aid, and that weare capable of defending our independence and integrity in our capacity as anuclear power.”

Nawa-e Waqt Article by Dr Hussein Ahmed Piracha Questions Double Standards of US

Deploring that the United States has been conniving at the Indian intrusion into Pakistan and its backing of the terrorists, the 30 October article says: “It should have been asked from Hillary Clinton that on one hand you have been praising the Pakistan Government and Army for launching effective operation against the terrorists in Swat and Malakand, and on the other, India has been providing weapons and dollars to the same terrorists by setting up consulates in border areas under the US patronage. India continues to cater to these elements.”

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases Urdu editorials on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s controversial visit to Pakistan

Pakistan: Urdu Press Roundup Discusses Hillary Clinton’s Visit to Country
The following is a roundup of excerpts from editorials and articles on the visit of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to Pakistan, with particular reference to Washington’s policy towards Islamabad, war on terror, and the Taliban, published in the 30 October editions of seven Urdu dailies.
Pakistan — OSC Summary
Friday, October 30, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary

Ausaf Editorial Sees Shift in USPolicy Regarding Taliban

Maintaining that the United States wants to hold talks with the moderate Taliban for resolving the Afghan imbroglio, the 30 October editorial says: ” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that those who were forced to become Taliban members would have to be separated from the militants.

She said that every gun-wielding individual was not a terrorist,but there were those, who were supporting the extremists out of compulsion.

The policy that the United States is deliberating these days concerning the Talibanis that the Taliban should be divided into two groups, good and bad, then the good members of Taliban should be isolated from the bad ones, and talks should beheld with them.”

Jinnah Editorial Holds US Responsible for Talibanization

Recalling that it was the United States that had organized and provided resources to these people (Taliban) in its war against the Soviet Union; the 30 October editorial states: “The United States itself is the motivator for the apprehensions that the US secretary of state hasbeen expressing during her visit to Pakistan.

The United States used to provide weapons and other paraphernalia to the Taliban to fight against the Soviet Union and declared them as jihadists.

It used the shoulder of the Taliban jihadists to shatter the Soviet Union. Later, when the shattered Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, the United States left the Taliban unmonitored.”

Mashriq Editorial Claims US Mulling Change in Policies

Referring to the joint press conference of Hillary Clinton with Foreign Minister Qureshi, the 30 October editorial states: “Anyhow, it can be guessed from the news conference of the US secretary of state that her country wants to bring change in its policies.

She has acknowledged to the extent that the United States had not benefited with direct contact with the rulers, rather they have suffered losses. Therefore, it now intends to establish direct contact with people.”

Express Article by Tanvir Qaisar Shahid Discusses Impact of Visit

Talking about the statement of the Indian prime minister about holding talks with Pakistan on the eve of Hillary Clinton’s Pakistan visit; the 30 October article comments: “The visit of the US secretary of state proved hard for Pakistan.

As soon as she reached Pakistan, a bomb blast occurred in Peshawar. Over 100 hundred people were killed, and 200 otherswere critically injured.

One benefit of her visit was that on the very first day of her visit, the Indian prime minister announced that his country was willing to hold unconditional talks with Pakistan.”

Islam Editorial Urges US To Review Policies

Advising the United States to bring about changes in its policy for peace and security in the region, the 30 October editorial says: “Ignoring the international norms and diplomatic demands, the US secretary of state talked about, with full comfort, the appointment of the chief of the most sensitive agency of the Pakistan Army.

If the United States wants to improve its image, it should pull out of the Afghan war.
At the same time, it should also abandon its conspiracy to bog down the Pakistan Army into this war.”

Islam Article by Khawar Chaudhry Links Operation With Visit

Emphasizing that stepping up of operation was imperative to pave the way for the visit of the US secretary of state; the 30October article states: “Preparations had been ongoing since the start of October for getting a glimpse of the white goddess (Hillary Clinton).
The series of offering sacrifices was also underway to appease her.

It is obvious that the visit of the goddess was necessary for a glimpse and a particular environment was also required for her arrival.”

Khabrain Editorial Criticizes US Approach Toward Pakistan

Highlighting the recent US measures that prove contrary to Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence; the 30 October editorial says: “The way in which people have suffered hardships because of Hillary Clinton’s visit it says that if the US secretary was facing grave threats, whywas this visit to Pakistan organized?

Talking to the media, the US secretary of state said that her country would always support Pakistan.

However, when asked about the illegal measures of the United States, she evaded to answer. Pakistanis are questioning Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence after the US drone attacks and armed patrolling by the US soldiers in Islamabad.”

Nawa-e Waqt Editorial Exhorts Leaders To Reject US Aid, Presence of Soldiers

Goading the rulers to show national honor and dignity and rise to the occasion; the 30 October editorial comments: “Keeping in view the national sovereignty the US secretary of state should be asked to withdraw the US aid and troops.

At the same time, she should be told that we cannot sell away our independence and sovereignty for the sake of the US aid, and that weare capable of defending our independence and integrity in our capacity as anuclear power.”

Nawa-e Waqt Article by Dr Hussein Ahmed Piracha Questions Double Standards of US

Deploring that the United States has been conniving at the Indian intrusion into Pakistan and its backing of the terrorists, the 30 October article says: “It should have been asked from Hillary Clinton that on one hand you have been praising the Pakistan Government and Army for launching effective operation against the terrorists in Swat and Malakand, and on the other, India has been providing weapons and dollars to the same terrorists by setting up consulates in border areas under the US patronage. India continues to cater to these elements.”

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Iraqi parliament again on Thursday failed to pass an electoral law to govern the holding of the planned January 16 parliamentary elections. The Kurdish delegates refused to come into the parliament building, thereby denying the session a quorum. The Turkmen and Arab delegates had demanded that Kirkuk be treated differently in the legislation than other provinces (Kurds are now a majority in Kirkuk, and the Kurds wish to annex the province to their Kurdistan Regional Government, a semi-independent confederacy in northern Iraq; Turkmen and Arabs consider the majority artificial, the result of Kurdistan-backed Kurdish in-migration, and consider having an ordinary election there a reward to the Kurds for land-grabbing. Kurds maintain that the province has long been theirs and that they are just correcting the ‘Arabization’ or ethnic cleansing and settlement policies of Saddam Hussein, who brought Arab families north to make the oil-rich province indisputably Arab).

Many pundits are maintaining that the failure to hold parliamentary elections on time will, perhaps, force US troops to stay longer and in greater numbers than envisaged in the Status of Forces agreement.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government arrested dozens of security officials, saying that they were implicated in Sunday’s attacks.

Back to elections. Elections in Iraq cannot be held to international standards. There typically are no big public rallies, for fear that they would be blown up by Sunni Arab guerrillas. Candidates can seldom campaign publicly for fear of assassination. For the election itself, the US military declares a curfew and prohibits vehicular traffic for 3 days. Everyone is reduced to walking to the store to buy bread and other necessities. You can’t drive. This measure prevents car bombings of the polling stations.

So why does the US still have 120,000 troops in Iraq? They aren’t for the most part doing patrols anymore. They are just being kept in place so that they can swing into action as soon as the election date is fixed, and protect the electoral process from sabotage by bombing.

Is this rationale really a good enough reason to keep so many troops in Iraq? Shouldn’t the Iraqi army by now be able to supervise a vehicular curfew on its own? And, why should the Obama administration care if the election is held or not? Saudi Arabia hasn’t held any elections lately and it is our ally. The Iraqis were made by the US to have several elections, and they know how to do it if they want to. Why allow their interminable parlays on basic things like an electoral law to hold US troops hostage in the country with nothing much to do for a year?

The parliamentary and provincial elections and the referendum on the constitution were always imagined by the Bush administration as propaganda exercises on behalf of the Republican Party and Neoconservatism. Although the elections have not been meaningless, and a lot of Iraqis obviously express their political spirit through them, they have been highly flawed and artificial. The first, in January 2005, completely excluded the Sunni Arabs because it was not based on voting districts, and it appears to have been stolen by Iran, much to the delight at the time of the Red States (?). In some ways that election provoked the Great Sunni-Shiite Civil War. The constitution was rejected by a majority in each of the major Sunni Arab-majority provinces and so is not a national constitution, and it has a strong theocratic overtone (read it and weep, Christopher Hitchens). Islam is the state religion and parliament may pass no legislation contradicting sharia or Islamic canon law. Kurdish separatism is virtually enshrined in it. The Muslim fundamentalists won the December 2005 parliamentary elections as well. Critics accused Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of using intimidation by tribal forces and the advantages of incumbency to skew the results of the provincial elections of January, 2009 toward his Islamic Mission (Da’wa) Party. (Some charge al-Maliki of increasingly adopting the techniques and rhetoric of the region’s ‘soft’ dictators).

Iraq is a poor candidate for successful transition to democracy or for social peace. It has a low per capita income if you subtract the notional petroleum income, which is not exactly shared out with the people. Poor countries often fail in their attempt to democratize. It does not have a long-established, respectable business class. It has no effective trade unions to speak of, since the Baath Party had coopted them and then Paul “Jerry” Bremer dissolved them by viceregal fiat. The UN/ US sanctions of the 1990s and the US occupation has pushed literacy down to 58% from more like 78% in the heyday of the pre-Saddam Baath Party. The country has come to be strongly divided by ethno-religious divisions. Its economy is dominated by a pricey primary commodity, petroleum, and gasoline is easily stolen and fought over, producing militia competition and deaths. . All of these factors have been cited to explain failure at democratization and/or high rates of political violence, and all are present in Iraq in spades.

Me, I don’t think the US troop withdrawal should be tied to the successful holding of a parliamentary election, in which US troops are assigned the role of watchmen. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) should be adhered to, and the Iraqis will just have to decide if they want to hold an election or not, and if they do, their troops should supervise it.

I’m as in favor of democracy as anyone else. But I’m a also skeptical that it can be imposed at the point of a gun on a deeply divided society that is at the moment dirt-poor.

The time for elections as US propaganda victory has passed.

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments