Truth activists/bloggers snatch defeat from jaws of victory

[seemslikeadream]

to be banned by Tinoire is a badge of honor, what an asshole and her band of merry men included, stealing dishonest bunch of creeps

[HamdenRice]

You know what's weird to me? The Anthrax attacks. Back when they happened, they scared the crap out of everybody. Nobody wanted to get their mail. Nobody knew who was next. It was, in a way, worse than 9/11, because it was so insidious, and something that could have hit any of us, any day, unlike, say, 9/11 where you had to actually be flying on a plane, right?

Yet it has come out, since, that those attacks weren't conducted by Scary Swarthy Foreign Muslims but by good old Americans. Even if you believe the ridiculous Ivins story, it's STILL an "inside job", domestic terror, domestic enemies.

Yet there seems to be this massive cognitive dissonance -- not even that, but cognitive DEAFNESS -- about the whole situation.

It's almost like everybody has been hypnotized into forgetting completely about the anthrax attacks.

To me this is one of the most bizarre, disturbing, and ultimately ridiculous things about the whole 9/11slashTerrorism thing.
...

I agree. In fact almost everything about 9/11 is cognitive dissonance inducing, including Bush sitting in Cheney's lap to talk to the 9/11 Commission, Cheney virtually kidnapping Congress right after the attacks, Rumsfeld telling a guest that a massive attack is coming on the morning of 9/11 and like on cue it happens, breakfast with the ISI chief ... I mean it goes on and on, and it does seem like more of a collective mind fuck than a simple terrorist attack and aftermath.

[HamdenRice]

I don't give a flying fig about you or your dopey LIHOP spookery but this strikes me as a DU-worthy slime. And to be honest, if you're talking about PI which I'm assuming you are, I don't even think you were banned, but if you were, it was one of Tinoire's better moments.



Creep.

Thanks for showing the "class" and "reasoning ability" typical of the last of the uber irrelevant Trots.

[seemslikeadream]

hey there HR

[lupercal]

I don't give a flying fig about you or your dopey LIHOP spookery but this strikes me as a DU-worthy slime. And to be honest, if you're talking about PI which I'm assuming you are, I don't even think you were banned, but if you were, it was one of Tinoire's better moments.



Creep.

Thanks for showing the "class" and "reasoning ability" typical of the last of the uber irrelevant Trots.

The whole PI business is obviously still touchy so congratulations on reopening that stale can of worms. The fact that you would show up here a week after Tinoire shitcanned the thing, thus making all claims unverifiable, with a pantload of insinuations speaks volumes about a) your honesty and b) the value of the rest of your claims which I see are as laughable as ever.

[DoYouEverWonder]

I don't give a flying fig about you or your dopey LIHOP spookery but this strikes me as a DU-worthy slime. And to be honest, if you're talking about PI which I'm assuming you are, I don't even think you were banned, but if you were, it was one of Tinoire's better moments.



Creep.

Thanks for showing the "class" and "reasoning ability" typical of the last of the uber irrelevant Trots.

The whole PI business is obviously still touchy so congratulations on reopening that stale can of worms. The fact that you would show up here a week after Tinoire shitcanned the thing, thus making all claims unverifiable, with a pantload of insinuations speaks volumes about a) your honesty and b) the value of the rest of your claims which I see are as laughable as ever.

What happened on PI is easily verifiable. And I've got the screen caps to prove it.

[lupercal]

Then prove it.

[HamdenRice]

The whole PI business is obviously still touchy so congratulations on reopening that stale can of worms. The fact that you would show up here a week after Tinoire shitcanned the thing, thus making all claims unverifiable, with a pantload of insinuations speaks volumes about a) your honesty and b) the value of the rest of your claims which I see are as laughable as ever.

Uh, no actually. It is only "touchy" to the cult members who stuck it out and survived the purges and counter purges until the only ones left were doing a forced reading of Das Kapital. I haven't read anything over there in ages, so I wasn't aware of the latest purge or whatever. It is and has been totally irrelevant and therefore unable to elicit "touchiness" among anyone relevant.

You're the one who identified PI in the first place, so you can hardly accuse me of bringing it up, right? How do even know now that I'm talking about PI? And what "insinuations" was I making about it since I didn't identify the forum?

PI may have been "shitcanned" (and who cares), but I see the paranoia and delusional self righteousness that it cultivated lives on.

[HamdenRice]

hey there HR

Hi SLAD!

[lupercal]

Look clown, you brought it up in the quotes you omitted from mine:

Check your PM. I have no interest in calling someone out with whom I have no gripes.

Then why did you?

For this, I was banned from a forum by someone who is posting in this very forum these days. . . .

I don't give a flying fig about you or your dopey LIHOP spookery but this strikes me as a DU-worthy slime. And to be honest, if you're talking about PI which I'm assuming you are, I don't even think you were banned, but if you were, it was one of Tinoire's better moments.



Creep.

Why you brought it up, and in such a trolly way, I can only guess, but it seems entirely consistent with your trolly behavior on PI as I remember it. Now that you brought it up.

[seemslikeadream]

Is PI still alive? Land of the living dead

the only trolls at PI are the gang that run the place, much more than trolls though, much more than that

screen shots!! I got a ton of screen shots

[JackRiddler]

.

HR, you know I love to see your stuff, always thoughtful even when I disagree. In this case, I certainly agree with the general observation that the "truth movement" doesn't know its opportunities when they appear, but that's been true since the new war games and Able Danger stories made no particular stir for it in 2005, or earlier really, and irrelevant since its final intellectual hijacking by the LC/AJ/WAC axis and the All-Demolitions All-the-Time approach in 2006.

I think you have to accept that the sum total of OBL stories before and since Sept 11 are largely in black-box territory. "We see what we believe," especially when we don't get to see anything much at all except what's released as official by government, claimed by often spooked-up journos and/or S.I.T.E.-approved "Bin Ladin videos." Look at the incredible range of generally incomplete and contradictory AQ stories put out by reporters on all sides, from Hamid Mir to Yossef Bodansky to Dasquie/Brisard to Tariq Ali to Peter Bergen to Lawrence Wright to Seymour Hersh to Richard Labevierre to Peter Lance to the 9/11 Commission (main source: alleged notes from CIA torture sessions) to Yosri Fouda to Hopsicker to you name'em. Out of all that, there are necessarily many mounds of bullshit. On the official side, there are even those who will still dispute that the beginnings of his political career went hand-in-hand with one of the CIA's largest and most self-celebrated operations.

I can't look at any of the available major scenario outlines, including the faking of OBL's career since 9/11 as a series of propaganda operations, and say it must be ruled out, or sneer automatically at those who go with one of the scenarios labeled as "conspiracy," except insofar as they express absolute certainty on evidence bound to be narrow (in which case: let'em have it).

I take the evidence connecting Pakistani ISI elements to Sept. 11 very seriously, but what does it really mean? I don't see elements in either Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan pulling off participation in Sept 11 or the hiding of OBL on their own as some kind of double cross without collaboration with their closest superpower ally. Just doesn't fit anything that's happened since, for starters. When the official stories edit out Saudi and Pakistan, they're also editing out the connections back to the US parapolitical realm. Here's how I saw it on the other thread:

Follow the money? In my view, that's not just the accusation of financing for the alleged 9/11 hijackers from Pakistan and ISI. Those would be important peanuts. Far more significant would be the flow of billions of dollars in US military aid to Pakistan over 30 years, only briefly interrupted for a few years after the nuclear tests, and which never seems to be affected by all these accusations of ISI support for terrorism. That kind of money buys a lot of relationships in a dirt-poor country where the military is the strongest institution, and it brings in a train of PMCs (private military contractors) with additional interests and relationships. It's in this context I feel we should view the constellation of all reports and claims coming out of Pakistan relating to OBL, Sept. 11 and "al-Qaeda." Remember, the ISI chief accused of involvement with the hijackers was in the US for more than a week leading up to his meeting with the intel oversight chiefs in Congress on the morning of Sept. 11th. (You hear that less frequently than you hear about him approving money wired to Atta at the same time.) Pakistan is always presented as a quasi-ally and the home of enemies. And yet this inherently unstable arrangement is maintained over so many years, and despite the enormous chaos and real carnage this helps bring forth in Pakistan. In that I see the outlines of a spook nexus that involves US elements employing Pakistani elements, some of them actually hostile to "America," as assets playing various roles within a larger intentionally confusing and chaotic scheme that generates the terror threat and counterterror operations simultaneously (also opening many opportunities for private profit). The likeliest scenario to my mind currently is that there was no surprise raid, there was a US theatrical production (involving real deaths) arranged with the knowledge of the top ISI elements and with the understanding that the aftermath would see every possible accusation leveled back and forth. It will be said on the hard side of US public discourse ("conservative" and "liberal") that Pakistan harbored OBL, and on the "conspiracy" side that CIA pulled a fast one on Pakistan by planting an OBL death theater of some kind inside Pakistan, but not that elements of ISI and CIA collaborated in pulling off an operation with benefits for the involved elements. Yet that is the hypothesis that will be supported, if you now see US politicians express hostility to Pakistan and then vote for the next aid package. That's what I'm predicting as likeliest, we'll of course likely return to this later and compare it to what actually happens.

Is this the beginning of a shift away from the wars and the empire and the primacy of military spending by Obama? As in the DU post you pointed out, I think that's possible, I just wouldn't bet on it for less than 5:1 odds. The opportunity is there, I do not see the intent to engage it, or to so seriously, given the likelihood of a preference in the administration to just go for the smoothest possible reelection. The possible changes in spending priorities you describe are not quite entirely symbolic, but only marginally substantive. The historical moment necessitates a lot more than what Obama seems willing to try. I don't see the Pentagon "cuts" as a significant slow-down on the road to financial, fiscal, geopolitical and ecological disasters on a scale never before seen, that among other things will sweep away this empire whether the chief executive intends to power it down or not.

Here's the DU post you referred to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 39x1011589

Multidimensional chess players, here's your man's chance. What will come of it?

(May 2, 2011)

Interesting past week:

Obama -- born! (In 1961!) A muscular, lightly ironic video at the White House press dinner shows NFL hits and baseball victory celebrations, intercut with a dancing birth certificate set to the tune of a song called, "I AM A REAL AMERICAN."

Trump -- naked! Republican dwarf candidates -- laughing stocks!

Osama -- dead! Buried at sea, case closed. Americans chanting USA! USA! and primed for closure on the era of 9/11.

Reelection 2012 -- a wrap, if it were today. Obama administration, reset and popular, "political capital" restored.

The Bush man at the Pentagon, Gates -- retired. Obama's choice, Panetta, is in. Petraeus -- neutralized, withdrawn from his Afghanistan flag-waving photo-ops and sent into the bowels of the CIA, an agency with a proven history of stimying and dispensing with directors considered hostile to it.

Afghan government -- practically inviting a drawdown, the July 2011 date for beginning a withdrawal almost here. Pakistan urging Karzai to get the Americans out. Supposed mission in Pakistan can be declared a victory right now.

Iraq -- the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between Iraq and the Bush regime calls for all US troops out by December 31st.

A report by top ranking members of the Navy and Marine Corps officers serving Adm. Mullen at the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the US has been wrong to pursue military solutions instead of political ones, spent its treasure on war when it should have invested in education. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are ready to entertain this!
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... -to-shrink

The next budget -- not just a crisis but an open book. Ryan proposal -- now anathema to most. Initiative can be seized by the liberals, if the executive is willing to provide leadership.

Arab Spring -- an opportunity to redefine all relations there. The US can stop playing Big Cheese and let an Egypt on the Turkish model show the way to new possibilities.

So here's the big chance. No more excuses. The chess pieces are positioned for action. Iraq can be over, this year. Afghanistan and Pakistan can be declared almost over, this year. A shift in spending from the wars and the "defense" budget toward human needs and investment at home can begin, this year. Even Yemen can be vacated, this year. (Dare we even dream that pressure can be applied for a real peace in Palestine?)

Obama has the position and the pieces to make these moves, this year. The neocon rationalizations of why the terror wars must continue forever ring hollow, can be counteracted. Obama can declare a bunch of victories and GET OUT OF THE MESSES.

Is your man going to live up to that? Does he really want to?

You don't have to convince me.

It's much more important that if YOU want that, if you really want it, you show that you do. Calls and letters are nice, but there will be rallies and strikes and public pressure for it... if YOU want it.

We will be able to judge a lot of the various assertions by me and others, by what happens next. What will Obama try for in the budget? Will the drawdown from Afghanistan begin in July? Will the SOFA be honored at the end of the year? Will the US engage in escalations, status quo or drawdown in Libya, Yemen, or Pakistan? Will Pakistan aid be cut off or maintained? Is the current rhetorical hostility between Pakistan and US a prelude to more real hostility, or a kabuki cover to be followed by a maintenance of status quo? Is a real election going to be tolerated in Egypt without major interference or even hostility out of the US and Israeli corners? How the neocon and Bush regime elements react will also be an indicator of whether OBL was the man they were too uninterested and incompetent to locate, or the bogeyman they built up (in which case Obama may have even called their bluff by killing or "killing" him).

.

[vanlose kid]

^ ^

Osama bin Laden killing: Victory in the war on terror is now within the West's reach
After Osama bin Laden's death, we can finally destroy al-Qaeda and finish the job in Afghanistan.

By Con Coughlin 8:20PM BST 04 May 2011

Osama bin Laden has only just been consigned to his watery grave in the Arabian Sea, but already politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are debating how best they can exploit any peace dividend from his demise.

In both London and Washington, it is mooted that bin Laden's death will speed up the withdrawal of British and American troops from Afghanistan. In the Commons this week, David Cameron said that his removal raised the possibility of a "more rapid solution" to the decade-long conflict. In Washington, Republicans and Democrats have both expressed support for an early exit. Barney Frank, a Democratic congressman, put it most succinctly: "We went there to get Osama bin Laden. And we have now gotten him."

The Republicans, on the other hand, are more concerned about the spiralling cost of America's continued involvement in Afghanistan. (And they should know, after the mind-boggling $1 trillion they ineptly squandered on Iraq.) Current US expenditure there is running at $100 billion a year; even Richard Lugar, the most prominent Republican on the Senate's foreign affairs committee, has questioned whether this represents "a rational allocation of our military and financial assets".

It is not difficult to see why an early withdrawal from Afghanistan might appeal to Mr Obama, who has often appeared lukewarm about a conflict that – much to his chagrin – has been dubbed "Obama's War" since his decision in 2009 to endorse the military "surge". Long before he sanctioned the daring special forces mission to terminate bin Laden's gruesome career, the President had spoken publicly of his desire to begin withdrawing US troops later this year. The operation's success will surely stiffen his resolve to follow his political instincts and bring forward the deadline for the cessation of combat operations, which are currently scheduled to last until 2014. What better campaign slogan for next year's presidential contest than "First we got bin Laden, and then we got the hell out"?

But hang on a minute. Just because we no longer have to endure bin Laden's rambling anti-Western tirades does not mean that the threat to our security and well-being has suddenly evaporated. In Britain, the current threat from terrorism is classed as "severe", which means our intelligence and security services believe there is a strong likelihood that we will be the target of a major attack in the near future.

In America, too, Mr Obama can count himself lucky that a series of recent plots, from the underpants bomber at Detroit airport to the devices concealed in printer cartridges, were foiled. But, to quote the spooks' favourite mantra, the enemy only needs to get lucky once.

With bin Laden gone, the desire to declare "mission accomplished" and withdraw our troops from the fray is perfectly understandable. But to do so would be foolhardy in the extreme. For, rather than seeing the al-Qaeda leader's removal from the scene as the final act in the war on terror, it should be seen as a decisive breakthrough – and one that could provide the West with the ability to press home its advantage on a number of fronts, and achieve a comprehensive and lasting victory.

The first priority, of course, must be to eviscerate whatever remains of al-Qaeda's infrastructure, particularly in Pakistan. The past 10 years have taken a heavy toll on the organisation, and its ability to conduct "spectacular" attacks of the September 11 variety. At least half of al-Qaeda's senior commanders have been killed or captured, and the life expectancy of anyone brave enough to become its head of operations averages about six months.

That said, al-Qaeda still retains the ability to mount attacks against the West, both from its long-term base in north Waziristan and through its more recently established franchises in Yemen and Somalia. Precisely how the different strands of the brand interconnect will become a lot clearer once the CIA has had time to decipher the "mother lode" of material – computers, documents and DVDs – seized during the raid on bin Laden's Abbottabad hideout.

The prospects of crippling al-Qaeda's operations in Pakistan will also have increased considerably as a consequence of the Pakistani government's deep embarrassment that bin Laden was able to hide on its soil for at least six years. If Islamabad is ever to distance itself from Mr Cameron's wounding but apposite accusation that it faces "both ways" in the fight against terrorism, then it can start by taking effective action to root out the last remnants of al-Qaeda's leadership from territory it is supposed to control.

Removing the organisation from its safe haven in Pakistan would certainly bring benefits to the Nato mission in neighbouring Afghanistan, where American and British troops are engaged in a bitter war against the Taliban, for many years al-Qaeda's allies and protectors. The origins of the current conflict lie in the Taliban's refusal to surrender bin Laden to the Americans following the September 11 attacks. His death will already have raised doubts in the minds of moderate Taliban leaders about the wisdom of pursuing their struggle on behalf of a deceased ally. And the removal of al-Qaeda's surviving leaders would certainly help to create the conditions whereby the Taliban felt it was no longer under an obligation to protect its erstwhile supporters, and might instead focus its attention on negotiating an end to the conflict. If that happened, then we really could start to consider an early exit.

Nor should bin Laden's death, and the defeat of his organisation, be seen solely within the context of the bitter conflict being fought along the Afghan-Pakistani border. In life, bin Laden proved to be an inspirational figure not just for al-Qaeda recruits, but for an entire generation of young Muslims who were susceptible to the appeal of his uncompromising Islamist agenda.

However, the wave of anti-government protests that has swept through the Arab world has thrown up the prospect of a very different set of priorities. One of the reasons radical Islam was said to appeal to many young Muslims was that it presented an escape route from an existence otherwise bereft of opportunity or prosperity. But recent events in Egypt and Tunisia suggest there is a better way – namely, embracing the cause of democracy.

During the anti-government protests of Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution, and the demonstrations in Tahrir Square that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, it was noticeable that the overwhelming majority of the protesters were secularists who wanted to make a better life for themselves and their families. The same is true of the rebels currently battling to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and those who have attempted to challenge Syria's Bashir al-Assad. They are motivated by a desire for freedom and opportunity, rather than the dictates of the mosque.

Bin Laden's influence was on the wane long before the Navy Seals stormed his hideaway, and the Arab Spring has reinforced the view among many young Muslims that there is a viable alternative to his violent Islamist agenda. His death simply confirms that the pendulum has swung back firmly in the West's favour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... reach.html

*

[vanlose kid]

more in the same vein from here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan05062011.html

Bin Laden and the Great Game

By CONN HALLINAN


According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Leon Panetta, the U.S. never informed Pakistan about the operation to assassinate al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladin because it thought the Pakistanis could "jeopardize the mission" by tipping off the target.

Maybe, and maybe not. This is, after all, the ground over which the 19th century "Great Game" was played, the essence of which was obfuscation. What you thought you saw or knew was not necessarily what was.

The "official" story is that three CIA helicopters—one for backup—took off from Jalalabad, Afghanistan and flew almost 200 miles to Abbottabad, most of it through Pakistani airspace. Pakistan scrambled jets, but the choppers still managed to land, spend 40 minutes on the ground, and get away.

Is it possible the helicopters really did dodge Pakistani radar? During the Cold War a West German pilot flew undetected through the teeth of the Soviet air defense system and landed his plane in Red Square, so yes. Choppers are slow, but these were stealth varieties and fairly quiet. But at top speed, the Blackhawks would have needed about an hour each way, plus the 40 minutes on the ground. That is a long time to remain undetected, particularly in a town hosting three regiments of the Pakistani Army, plus the Kakul Military Academy, the country's equivalent of West Point. Abbottabad is also 35 miles from the capital, Islamabad, and the region is ringed with anti-aircraft sites.

Still, it is possible, except there is an alternative scenario that not only avoids magical thinking about what choppers can do, but better fits the politics of the moment: that Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) knew where Bin Ladin was and fingered him, estimating that his death would accelerate negotiations with the Taliban. Why now? Because for the first time in this long war, U.S. and Pakistani interests coincide.

Gen. Hammad Gul, former head of the ISI, told the Financial Times on May 3 that the ISI knew where he was, but regarded him as "inactive." Writing in the May 5 Guardian (UK), author Tariq Ali says that a "senior" ISI official told him back in 2006 that the spy organization knew where bin Ladin was, but had no intention of arresting him because he was "The goose that laid the golden egg." In short, the hunt for the al-Qaeda leader helped keep the U.S. aid spigot open.

Indeed, bin Ladin may have been under house arrest, which would explain the absence of trained bodyguards. By not allowing the al-Qaeda leader a private militia, the ISI forced him to rely on it for protection. And if they then dropped a dime on him, they knew he would be an easy target. As to why he was killed, not captured, neither the U.S. nor Pakistan wanted him alive, the former because of the judicial nightmare his incarceration would involve, the latter because dead men tell no tales.

As for the denials: the last thing the ISI wants is to be associated with the hit, since it could end up making the organization a target for Pakistan's home-grown Taliban. If the ISI knew, so did the Army, though not necessarily at all levels. Did the Army turn a blind eye to the U.S. choppers? Who knows?

What we do know for certain is that there is a shift in Pakistan and the U.S. with regards to the Afghan war.

On the U.S. side, the war is going badly, and American military and intelligence agencies are openly warring with one another. In December the U.S. intelligence community released a study indicating that progress was minimal and that the 2009 surge of 30,000 troops had produced only tactical successes: "There remains no clear path toward defeating the insurgency." The Pentagon counter-attacked in late April with a report that the surge had been "a strategic defeat for the Taliban," and that the military was making "tangible progress in some really key areas."

It is not an analysis agreed with by our NATO allies, most of which are desperate to get their troops out of what they view as a deepening quagmire. A recent WikiLeak cable quotes Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union, saying "No one believes in Afghanistan anymore. But we will give it 2010 to see results." He went on to say Europe was only going along "out of deference to the United States." Translation: NATO support is falling apart.

Recent shifts by the Administration seem to signal that the White House is backing away from the surge and looking for ways to wind down the war. The shift of Gen. David Petraeus to the CIA removes the major U.S. booster of the current counterinsurgency strategy, and moving Panetta to the Defense Department puts a savvy political infighter with strong Democratic Party credentials into the heart of Pentagon. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the war but could never get a hearing from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican.

The last major civilian supporter of the war is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but Gates, her main ally, will soon be gone, as will Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. The shuffle at the top is hardly a "night of the long knives," but the White House has essentially eliminated or sidelined those in the administration who pushed for a robust war and long-term occupation.

A surge of sanity? Well, at least some careful poll reading. According to the Associated Press, six in 10 Americans want out of the war. Among Democrats 73 percent want to be out in a year, and a USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 72 percent of Americans want Congress to address an accelerated withdrawal. With the war now costing $8 billion a month, these numbers are hardly a surprise.

Pakistan has long been frustrated with the U.S.'s reluctance to talk to the Taliban, and, from Islamabad's perspective, the war is largely being carried out at their expense. Pakistan has suffered tens of thousands of civilian and military casualties in what most Pakistanis see as an American war, and the country is literally up in arms over the drone attacks.

The Pakistani Army has been deployed in Swat, South Waziristan, and Bajaur, and the U.S. is pressing it to invade North Waziristan. One Pakistani grumbled to the Guardian (UK), "What do they [the U.S.] want us to do? Declare war on our whole country?" For the 30 million Pashtuns in the northwest regions, the Pakistani Army is foreign in language and culture, and Islamabad knows that it will eventually be seen as an outside occupier.

A poll by the New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan's northwest—home and refuge to many of the insurgents fighting in Afghanistan—found some 80 percent oppose the U.S. war on terror, almost nine in every 10 people oppose U.S. attacks on the Taliban, and three quarters oppose the drone attacks.

The bottom line is that Pakistan simply cannot afford to continue the war, particularly as they are still trying to dig themselves out from under last year's massive floods.

In April, Pakistan's top military, intelligence and political leadership decamped to Kabul to meet with the government of Harmid Karzai. The outcome of the talks is secret, but they appear to have emboldened the parties to press the U.S. to start talking. According to Ahmed Rashid, author of "Taliban" and "Descent into Chaos," the White House is moving "the fledgling peace process forward" and will "push to broker an end to the war." This includes dropping "its preconditions that the Taliban sever links with al-Qaeda and accept the Afghan constitution before holding face-to-face talks."

Given that in 2008 the Taliban agreed to not allow any "outside" forces in the country and pledged not to pose a danger to any other country, including those in the West, this demand has already been met. As for the constitution, since it excluded the Taliban it will have to be re-negotiated in any case.

While there appears to be a convergence of interests among the major parties, negotiations promise to be a thorny business.

The Pentagon will resist a major troop drawdown. There is also opposition in Afghanistan, where Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minorities are deeply suspicious of the Taliban. The Karzai government also appears split on the talks, although recent cabinet shuffles have removed some of the more anti-Pakistan leaders.

Then there is the Taliban, which is hardly a centralized organization, especially since U.S. drone attacks and night raids have effectively removed more experienced Taliban leaders, leaving younger and more radical fighters in charge. Can Taliban leader Mullah Omar deliver his troops? That is not a given.

Both other insurgent groups—the Haqqani Group and Hizb-i-Islami—have indicated they are open to negotiations, but the Americans will have a hard time sitting down with the Haqqanis. The group has been implicated in the deaths of numerous U.S. and coalition forces. To leave the Haqqani Group out, however, will derail the whole process.

The U.S. would like to exclude Iran, but as Rashid points out, "No peace process in Afghanistan can succeed without Iran's full participation." And then there is India. Pakistan sees Indian involvement in Afghanistan as part of New Delhi's strategy to surround Pakistan, and India accuses Pakistan of harboring terrorists who attack Indian-controlled Kashmir and launched the horrendous 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people.

Murphy's Law suggests that things are more likely to end in chaos than reasoned diplomacy. But self-interest is a powerful motivator, and all parties, including India, stands to gain something by ending the war. India very much wants to see the 1,050-mile TAPI pipeline built, as it will carry gas from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Fazilka, India.

A lot is at stake, and if getting the peace process going involved taking out Osama bin Ladin. Well, in the cynical world of the "Great Game," to make an omelet, you have to break eggs.

Back in the Victorian era the British Army marched off singing a song:

We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too

But in the 21st century most our allies' armies don't want to fight, ships are useless in Afghanistan, there aren't enough men, and everyone is broke.



Conn Hallinan can be reached at: ringoanne@sbcglobal.net

*

[seemslikeadream]

^^^^


oh yes that's all the rage these days, hearing it all over the waves