The Light: Hillary

In almost every briefing pertaining to South Asia, the U.S. Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Richard Holbrooke says that he won’t use the ‘K word,’ by which he means Kashmir. This is sensible of him, knowing that any statement could escalate into an exchange of hot words between India and Pakistan (and India has made it clear it has no intention of bowing down before an meddling intermediary). Hence Ambassador Holbrooke understands the seriousness of the situation and thus avoids the “K” issue.

There is another increasingly controversial “K” that U.S. officials should refrain from using, especially in a derogatory manner. And that “K” stands for Karzai. Until recently the United States has treated the Afghan President as a puppet without realizing that his power base has grown in Afghanistan. It’s true that when Karzai was installed by the Bush administration he had little to no support in the country. But just the Bush era has passed and America has voted in a new President, time has not stood still for Karzai. The sooner the US realizes this the better for the Afghanistan, the NATO, the British and the US army.

Over the years Karzai made himself matter in the country while rumors of his impending political death continued to circulate.

The first sign of Karzai’s power was evident last year when the West discredited him during Afghanistan’s presidential elections. His opponent Abdullah Abdullah was openly supported by the Obama administration. The conflicting reports coming out of Afghanistan made the geniuses in Washington conclude that an ethnic Pashtun shouldn’t represent Afghanistan. Karzai didn’t take the news well.

On the ground the situation was quite different. An intelligence expert based in Afghanistan said that if Abdullah Abdullah runs again he will still lose to Karzai. The reason? Abdullah Abdullah is of Tajik ethnicity. It’s on the record that when Karzai agreed to a second round run-off vote Dr. Abdullah withdrew from the race. Abdullah’s claims that he had dropped his bid because of overwhelming voter fraud was only part of the story.

This doesn’t mean that the elections were clean. From Peter Galbraith to the U.N. to Hamid Karzai, there was agreement that ballot mishandling and corruption took place — but what do you expect from a country run by the Taliban for five years and then taken over by the Western armies with little to no understanding of internal Afghan dynamics? If Karzai’s brother is a warlord and a drug trafficker, Abdullah Abdullah has such criminals in his camp too, the difference being that Karzai’s brother is reported to be helping U.S. intelligence.

Hamid Karzai’s recent statements about joining with the Taliban have been unhinged, but they reflect his growing frustration with his Western sponsors. Just last month Karzai, like a shrewd chess player, made a point of inviting Iran’s Ahmadinejad to visit Afghanistan, presumably as a goodwill gesture to reach out to his neighbors. Afghanistan can not change its neighbors at the behest of the United States – but Karzai can certainly rattle some cages when need be.

That President Obama’s schedule suddenly opened up following that visit, necessitating a rush to Kabul that speaks not only to the wiliness of Karzai, but also the importance of Afghanistan and, more disturbingly, the disarray of U.S. policy toward that country. Angered by Karzai’s threats to join with the Taliban, the White House has started threatening to call off Karzai’s trip to the U.S.

A bevy of questionable opinions being circulated in the American press are adding fuel to the fire. Such suggestions look good on paper but are not practically executable. This Pentagon theory will bear no results, as it is impossible to deploy the army countrywide, take out the middle tear of Taliban sympathizers and eventually nab the upper tier. Logically, the army doesn’t know who is Taliban and who is not; furthermore, who are the “good” and “bad” Taliban? Who can be negotiated with and brought into political talks and which elements are too ideologically hardened and radicalized, thereby incapable of negotiating?

Such an approach indicates that decision makers are living in lalaland while ground realities are totally different, especially when Obama wants to bring back troops while Karzai is willing to talk to ‘good Taliban’. Karzai is another ‘K’ that can not be ignored.

The significance of the Obama-Karzai meeting and a look at the military strategy being implemented in Afghanistan will be addressed in my next writeup.

–
Crosspost from: The Pakistan Update

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

– American novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald

By Fitzgerald’s standards, the wave of anti-veil rhetoric sweeping across Europe has probably catapulted the continent’s politicians into the intellectual equivalent of the Andromeda galaxy.

Consider the following quote from a liberal Belgian MP following a vote that could put that country on track to be the first in Europe to ban the burqa and niqab: “It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and enclose an individual. Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society.” The vote was unanimous, from the Greens to the far right.

When politicians see no contradiction in curbing religious expression by evoking liberalism and tolerance, well, something’s up.

Belgium is not alone. Eight of Germany’s 16 states contain restrictions on wearing the hijab. Throughout that country women in burqa or chador are forbidden to drive motor vehicles. A 2004 French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools bans all clothing which constitutes an ostensible religious symbol from government-operated schools (including Jews and Christians). The Netherlands took steps to implement a burqa and headscarf ban, but no action has been taken despite overwhelming public support.

Many of the countries that have implemented bans or are considering doing so have attempted, often to hilariously contradictory effect, to rationalize their actions. The laws are being passed for the women’s own good. Women who wear the headscarf, niqab or burqa are being forced to do so by troglodyte male relatives, so the state must swoop in to save them from this demeaning second class citizen status. To paraphrase Orwell, slavery does not equal freedom.

All this blather is utter nonsense. There have been no statistics published that demonstrate that women who cover are being forced to do so by their families. Is it possible and indeed likely that some girls and women who wear the niqab and burqa would prefer to assimilate to Western society and go about uncovered? Can it be that many women and girls are being forced by their relatives, both male and female, to adhere to tradition? Of course. But there is no evidence to suggest that every covered women has chosen to adhere to this form of dress as a result of coercion.

The truth is very simple, as truth usually is. The Europeans have grown increasingly worried about the inability of some Muslim immigrant communities to assimilate. The Mohammed cartoon riots and the murder of Theo van Gogh underscored the fear and loathing building in Europe. Covered women simply become the most obvious symbol of a group perceived as being intolerant and parochial. Liberate them and their narrow-minded relatives will learn by example.

That and women in niqab and burqas make Westerners uncomfortable, plain and simple. It is a form of religious dress closely associated with societies known for beheadings, stoning, child marriages and other atrocities.

The storm over veils, burqas and other coverings is a sham, a figleaf used by craven European politicians to pander to their voters while avoiding the heavy lifting necessary to ensure that Muslim women living in the West are afforded actual rights. The governments of those countries would go a long way if they dropped the obsessive focus on headgear and instead allocated resources to helping women in immigrant communities understand their legal rights, including directing them to women’s shelters to escape domestic violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation — as well as enforcing harsh penalties on the perpetrators. On these issues Europe’s politicians have been less than enthusiastic to act.

Finally, if European governments want to ban the burqa and hijab they can do so for security reasons. No society would consider it acceptable to allow its citizens to walk around in balaclavas or Klan hoods or any other article of clothing that hides the identity of the wearer.

Maybe that can be the new slogan: In a public place, you must show your face.

Addendum: A Wall Street Journal writer twists his reasoning into a pretzel explaining why it’s o.k. to ban the veil in France but not in the U.S.

–
Crosspost from: The Pakistan Update

Every now and then there are moments in the American media that defy description. Nevertheless they must be addressed.

Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

In the Old Testament, a young shepherd vanquished a formidable giant in the Valley of Elah.

At the 2010 Oscar ceremony, David again triumphed over Goliath with a stone called “The Hurt Locker.” The flood of awards moved viewers around the world. Underdog stories are always good for a tear or two, much like the joy many felt when the scrappy, almost-straight-to-DVD “Slumdog Millionaire” ate the field’s lunch last year.

You may be wondering why a column traditionally devoted to American politics is focusing on Hollywood. The answer is simple. Apart from the battles over legislation and election season, no event in the US is more political than the Oscars. This year was no exception.

It’s likely that Cameron’s epic “Avatar,” the highest-grossing movie of all time and the end result of over a decade of work, lost for the simple reason that Hollywood doesn’t much like James Cameron. Jealousy always comes into play. Stephen Spielberg was not nominated for Best Director for “The Color Purple”, which, like “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker”, was also nominated for 11 Oscars. It wasn’t until “Schindler’s List” that Spielberg received an award — because it was impossible not to give him the Oscar for creating a modern day masterpiece. Spielberg was a victim of his own success — too much, too soon, too much money, without waiting his turn like a good boy. Cameron is not only rich, but he’s also something of a pushy jerk.

So despite all the hoopla over Avatar’s box office gross and stories about (weirdo) viewers visiting shrinks because they didn’t live on Pandora or their frustrated desires to be reincarnated as Na’vi, the fact remained that Avatar was a glossed up “Ferngully” crossed with “Dances with Wolves” with special effects out of “The Lord of the Rings.” The script was a crude, cliche-ridden howler. It’s the CGI that kept people coming back for more, not the bio-babble plot featuring an intergallactic botanist.

It was apparent in the days leading up to the Oscars that “The Hurt Locker” was a serious contender and not just a flash in the pan. Conveniently timed hit pieces began popping up in the media, featuring interviews with Iraq war vets disputing the the realism of Jeremy Renner’s bomb squad officer. The campaign was similar to the 2002 unsuccessful hit job against “A Beautiful Mind,” a smear campaign so nasty that it drove the film’s real-life protagonist John Nash back into isolation.

2002 featured another smear campaign, this time aimed at Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost two legs and an arm after a grenade explosion, was defeated by Congressman Saxby Chambliss, a multiple draft dodger whose ad attacking Cleland intimating that he was a Saddam/bin Laden fellow traveler. Naturally the campaign was the brainchild of the master of dirty tricks Karl Rove. Like John Nash, Cleland spiraled into depression and disappeared from view until 2004, when he energetically campaigned for John Kerry.

Some may think that “The Hurt Locker’s” win is a political act, marking a turning point in recognition of Iraq films, all of which have done poorly at the box office. Nonsense. “The Hurt Locker” could have taken place in any war zone at any time in history. The drama of an adrenaline junkie who misses his family when he’s away from them and disarming bombs when he’s at home is a psychological drama, not a political one. If the Academy had wanted to send a political message, members could have awarded the superb “Redacted” or “In the Valley of Elah,” a movie featuring one of the most shockingly brave endings in the history of war films.

So Kathryn Bigelow becomes the first woman ever to win a “Best Director” Oscar for making an apolitical set in Iraq. For those who are bound to be disappointed that Bigelow didn’t do the Jane Fonda raised fist salute, don’t worry. Her powerful and subtle depiction of the horror of war and the PTSD that results from daily exposure to heat, desolation, danger and horror is profoundly moving. Had it been political the Academy would have been too craven and frightened to back it.

And you can take that to Price Waterhouse.

–
Crosspost from: The Pakistan Update

There’s a special genre of publication that caters exclusively to excitable, starstruck young women. “Tiger Beat”, “Bop” and “16? are fluffy magazines tailored to satisfy the swoony dreams of adolescents as they fantasize about the teen idol de jour.

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

This post carries an offer for the religious conservatives. Those who consider themselves good Christians, the ones who talk incessantly about family values and the importance of virginity. The ones who go to Church every Sunday and incorporate Jesus into every nonsensical thought that comes out of their mouths. The wholesome, flag-waving American-born Christians.

For all you believers, Afghanistan has a proposition for you. The Taliban leaders had a grand Jirga and suggested that each riteous Christian should be offered a sum of money, a couple of grand, to change their hearts.

Now, we know not all good Christians are sell outs…but look when you take gas prices, utility bills, unemployment, health, inflation, and the kids’ education into account, is it that hard to imagine that more than a few people would consider the Taliban’s offer? Good Christians might secretly visit Church even after agreeing to the deal. But what’s going to happen once the money is gone? Good Christians will return to their faith, or will scheme to keep the money coming their way.

Does this sound ridiculous enough?

Well, that’s what Afghanistan’s puppet President Hamid Karzai proposed at the London Conference. The United States backed the idea, and has decided to raise one billion dollars to buy off Taliban or Taliban sympathizers. The specific amount of money each member of the Taliban would receive has not yet been worked out, but given the high corruption level in Afghanistan, my shot in the dark is that they won’t get enough money to keep their loyalties to one party.

Over the next 5 years, as proposed by the Afghan government, this money would be used to establish a trust to finance the reintegration program that would persuade the militants to lay down their weapons.

The U.N. Security Counsel also removed the names of five Taliban leaders from the “black list” of 144 dangerous terrorists figuring in the sanctions regime under Resolution 1267 dating back to the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. This shows that we are back to square one. As the UN envoy to Afghanistan put it, “If you want results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority.”

Paying the bribe to purchase a change of heart is a bogus idea. But some argue that Taliban supporters have failed to realize why international forces are in their country. Interestingly, this idea is supported by the argument that it can’t be worse than the previous efforts.

Well, then the previous efforts were wrong, as this one. Bottom line is, you can not correct a historical blunder with such idiotic tactics. This is what the West never understood and still refuses to.

–
Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

A Republican political consultant and spin doctor once gave a young reporter a piece of advice. ”When dealing with a politician think like a lion tamer. Have you ever asked yourself why a lion tamer goes into the ring with a loaded gun at his side? That’s because he knows that even though he’s been around the same lion day after day – and may even have raised the creature since it was a cub – he realizes that at the end of the day the lion is still a lion.”

No doubt working with and around politicians is a risky business. Consider the tawdry, never-ending saga of John Edwards and his merry band of enablers, chief among whom is former Edwards aide Andrew Young, now out baying for blood.

Young and his wife appeared on ABC’s 20/20 recently to empty the X-rated clown car. To hear them tell the story, working for the Edwardses was a mixture of dark and light, Gaslight-meets-Almost Famous, a traveling ego and sex parade financed by eccentric heiress Bunny Mellon, who had held a grudge against Hillary Clinton ever since the then-First Lady allegedly refused to take Mellon’s advice pertaining to changes to a White House garden.

Given the fact that this story has been dragging its way in and out of the news for the better part of a year and a half, it’s fair to ask why it remains newsworthy. Why Young and his wife are so forthcoming now is no coincidence. As of this writing, the only people who will not have to worry about finances from now on are the Edwardses. Rielle Hunter and the Youngs will probably never be able to work again. Hunter will receive support payments from Edwards. The Youngs are finished in politics. All parties will rack up heavy legal bills while under investigation by the FEC and the IRS – but only the Edwardses can afford to shoulder this financial burden.

The issue is not how could John Edwards have been so reckless (because he thought he wouldn’t get caught) or whether it’s been decided who the victim is (hands down: the child. The rest of the adults, even the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, all played along for the cameras. At least for a while).

The issue that continues to matter is image and illusion. Campaigns are like performances – how you interpret the action depends on whether you’re watching the actors on stage or backstage observing the crew frantically pulling the ropes and running around moving the backdrops. The repercussions of the great Shame of 2008 continues to play on the stage even though the Edwardses have been relegated to the sidelines for the most part.

Pulling off the John and Elizabeth 2008 Tour would have stretched the patience and imagination of even the most hardened rock and roll road manager. Imagine your boss ordering you and your spouse to make room for his pregnant mistress in your home. And then move you, your family and the woman from home to home. And expect you to claim paternity. And ask you to help fake a paternity test. And all during a presidential campaign, not while touring as the opening act for Van Halen. It would appear that Young finally decided to spill the beans because the job Edwards had promised him running a foundation for the poor (!) and financed by Mellon didn’t materialize.

While the Youngs justify their actions by saying they were caught up in the thrill of working for a man who could be president — you know, For The Good Of The Country — surely even they knew that Edwards’ candidacy was the proverbial pinless grenade. They also never articulate WHY they thought Edwards should be elected to the nation’s highest office – apart from their own person gain of course. Why else would two seemingly sane adults agree to have their lives taken over and turned upside down to benefit the career of a selfish, egotistical man?

The press is largely to blame for this fiasco. They missed a huge story that they chose to ignore despite the National Enquirer’s dogged coverage – including pictures – and the candidate’s grotesquely indiscreet behavior. They created the campaign’s archetypes – Son of a Mill Worker with Cancer-Stricken Wife Defying the Odds, First Lady-Turned-Senator Who Overcame Betrayal and Her Lothario Husband, Scrappy Surprise Pick Republican Vice Presidential Candidate and Her Colorfully-Named Family, Flinty Patriot and Vietnam War Hero Political Maverick (here’s an alternate view)….the problem was that once the script was written it didn’t change. The Clintons are racists? If you say so we’ll run with it. Elizabeth Edwards selflessly and bravely persuaded her husband to continue his campaign despite her grim cancer diagnosis? Great story. Let the presses role. Barack Obama’s value as a symbol of How Far We’ve Come is more important than determining whether he’s got what it takes to fix the wreckage left behind by 8 years of Bush-Cheney? Give that man a Nobel Prize. No wonder the media don’t know what to do now. The templates they created during the campaign are significantly at odds with the reality that played out afterwards. Crafting these narratives is easy and ultimately serves to drive conventional wisdom for good or ill. But if the traveling press corps – especially the media assigned to the Edwards campaign – could have missed a story so obvious that it may as well have jumped up and down waving its arms yelling “look over here! I’m a story!”, who knows what other facts the voters were kept in the dark about?

One inevitable result of press missteps of this nature is the creation of a ripe atmosphere for conspiracy theory, which only serves to disinform and encourage cynicism and irrational fear.

As the fallout resulting from the media’s carelessness is surveyed, here’s one thing you’re unlikely to see from the reporters and editors responsible for the coverage: An apology.

Back to the lion tamer. He managed to escape relatively unscathed. The lion is back in its cage and will probably be sent to the lion equivalent of the glue factory. The crowd watching the show narrowly avoided being eaten. And no refunds will be granted at the door.

–
Cross Post from The Pakistan Update