Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

On January 13, 1842 a wounded and battered British military doctor, Dr. William Brydon, riding atop a dying horse arrived at the British garrison in Jalalabad. He was the only survivor of the 16,000 strong British Army that was in full retreat from Kabul. The remaining soldiers had been slaughtered by the Afghanis in the snowy mountain passes between Kabul and Jalalabad.

The British discovered in 1842 what every other conquering army has come to learn - that Afghanistan is easily taken but never kept. Since the time of Alexander The Great conquering armies have made forays into Afghanistan only to find that it is the graveyard of occupying armies. Nonetheless in the 19th century the British and the Russians competed for control of Afghanistan in what has come to be known as The Great Game. This Game has always been played with the foreign power installing a puppet regime in Afghanistan, which eventually is destroyed by local forces. As The Great Game has been played out the Afghan distaste of foreign occupiers has grown.

The Great Game continued in the 20th Century with the Americans replacing the British as Russia’s adversary after the Second World War. On Christmas day in 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. With that action The Great Game between the United States and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was launched in earnest. Over the next 10 years the Soviets unsuccessfully battled an insurgency, the Afghan Mujahideen, backed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The Soviet Army lost over 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan while over a million Afghans lost their lives in the same period. Yet after 10 years of fighting the Soviet Union was unsuccessful in breaking the back of the insurgency. On February 15, 1989 the battered and demoralized Soviet Red Army completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan. The humiliation of the Afghan campaign and the financial strain put upon the Soviet economy by the invasion and occupation played a significant part in the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. The 10-year Soviet occupation also left the economy and society of Afghanistan in tatters.

More than a decade later the United States finds itself as the occupying force in Afghanistan playing The Great Game once again. In response to the attacks of September 11th 2001, on October 7, 2001 the United States launched an aerial bombing campaign in Afghanistan that led to the rapid collapse of the Taliban regime. After the routing of the Taliban the United States installed the government of Hamid Karzai in power. Subsequently an election was held that legitimized the Karzai government.

As in previous occupations of Afghanistan what appeared initially as a routing of the local forces is beginning to appear as anything but that. Over the past few years the seemingly defeated Taliban have regrouped into an ever more potent insurgency. As the Afghan population has soured of the continued foreign occupation the Taliban have regained support as the defenders of Afghanistan. In recent weeks there has been heavy fighting between the American military and the Taliban in the South of Afghanistan. This renewed fighting has led to significant loss of civilian life. With each additional civilian death the United States is rapidly losing hearts and minds in Afghanistan. The inexorable logic of occupation is leading to ever growing resentment of the occupier amongst the local population.

The situation in Afghanistan has become increasingly more volatile. Any act or accident by the United States is now viewed by the Afghans as an act of provocation. In this context the fatal traffic accident in Kabul yesterday involving an American military truck was the spark that was needed to set ablaze Afghan frustration. Yesterday’s riots will undoubtedly be brought under control by the Afghan Government. But by doing so, the Government will inevitably kill or injure Afghan civilians. Any heavy-handed Government tactic will be viewed by the Afghan people with suspicion. The Government will be seen as doing the bidding of the United States. In appealing for calm President Hamid Karzai may have done more harm then good by calling the rioters enemies of Afghanistan:

Karzai, speaking on national television Monday night, condemned "opportunists" for exploiting a simple traffic accident and said people responsible for the violence would be sought and treated severely. "Accidents happen all over the world," he said. "This is not a reason to fight or destroy. Those who have done this are the enemies of Afghanistan." [Emphasis added by me.]

Karzai will be seen more as an American puppet in the aftermath of yesterday’s riots in which Government troops killed up to 20 people. The Washington Post reports on the underlying resentment brought to the fore by the traffic accident:

The riots exposed the bitter resentment that many Afghans harbor toward the U.S.-led military forces that have been stationed here since the Taliban was driven from power. It also reflected the deep ambivalence many Afghan Muslims feel toward the growing Western influence here that includes high fashion and fast-food shops, sprawling aid compounds and even rap music.

The public mood has also been tense since a U.S. airstrike killed at least 16 civilians last week in a village in southern Afghanistan, the scene of heightened fighting this spring. Afghan and U.S. officials blamed Taliban insurgents who had taken shelter in village compounds and then fired at U.S.-led forces.

This is a situation ripe with danger for the United States at a time when it is preoccupied with the worsening civil war in Iraq. The United States and the Karzai Government are in a no win situation. If they allow the rioting and unrest to continue unchecked Kabul and perhaps the rest of the country will become destabilized. On the other hand if the Karzai Government clamps down on the population, as it has begun to do, it will lose any legitimacy it may have and will be seen as a tool of the occupier. Either way the Karzai Government is likely to go the way of other Governments that were installed by occupiers in Afghanistan.

The United States occupation of Afghanistan will come to an end at some time in the future. The only unknowns are whether or not the American military will suffer the fate of previous occupiers and what kind of society the Americans will leave behind in Afghanistan. The Soviets endured 10 years of pinpricks from the Afghan insurgency before the cost of occupation became too great to bear. What will be the breaking point for the United States? The challenge for the United States is to break the cycle of The Great Game and leave behind a functioning Afghan society that does not lead to future interventions and instability. Meeting this challenge requires the United States to be fully engaged not only militarily but also diplomatically. History has shown that foreign militaries have never been able to impose their will on the Afghan people for an extended period of time. If there is a recipe for success in Afghanistan it does not lie in the use of force. With the United States preoccupied in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan promises to slip away toward failure. Urgent attention is required and may not be forthcoming from the Administration of George W Bush. Thus another predictable chapter of The Great Game may be written.

What is an acceptable ratio of death between the enemy and an innocent civilian? Is it 4 to 1? Is it 2 to 1? Are you willing to kill one innocent life to be able to kill 4 of the enemy? Are you willing to kill one innocent life to kill 2 of the enemy? How far are you willing to go to defend freedom? Would you offer your own life so that 2 or maybe 4 of the enemy may be killed? I want to know.

Today in Afghanistan the United States military launched air strikes in the village of Azizi in Kandahar that killed 60 suspected Taliban militants and 16 innocent civilians. One report puts the estimated number of civilians killed as high as 35. The lower number puts the ratio of Taliban to civilians killed at 4 to 1.

The Associated Press quotes eyewitnesses as saying the suspected Taliban militants ran into peoples’ homes to seek shelter from US bombing of their positions in a nearby madrassa:

Many of the wounded sought treatment at Kandahar city’s Mirwaise Hospital. One man with blood smeared over his clothes and turban said insurgents had been hiding in an Islamic religious school, or madrassa, in the village after fierce fighting in recent days.

"Helicopters bombed the madrassa and some of the Taliban ran from there and into people’s homes. Then those homes were bombed," said Haji Ikhlaf, 40. "I saw 35 to 40 dead Taliban and around 50 dead or wounded civilians."

Another survivor from the village, Zurmina Bibi, who was cradling her wounded 8-month-old baby, said about 10 people were killed in her home, including three or four children.

"There were dead people everywhere," she said, crying.

Reuters quotes the Governor of Kandahar, Khalid Assadullah, as follows:

Khalid said the 16 civilians had been killed in air strikes after Taliban took up positions in their houses.

"The Taliban used people’s houses as their trenches. They were killed in the bombardment," he said.

Some of wounded civilians were brought to Kandahar’s main hospital.

A wounded boy, Daad Mohammad, said all seven members of his family were killed.

"They are all dead," he told Reuters from his hospital bed.

MSNBC quotes the Governor of Kandahar:

"These sort of accidents happen during fighting, especially when the Taliban are hiding in homes," he told reporters. "I urge people not to give shelter to the Taliban."

The Associated Press quotes a US military spokesman:

U.S. military spokesman Col. Tom Collins said the coalition forces targeted a Taliban compound and "we’re certain we hit the right target."

"It’s common that the enemy fights in close to civilians as a means to protect its own forces," he added.

The latest fighting is part of the heavy fighting that has broken out in recent weeks as a result of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Despite 4 years of American military dominance and American reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, the Taliban have not been defeated. In fact, the Taliban are increasingly seen as the protectors of Afghanistan against foreign occupation. Jim Maceda of NBC News reported just last week:

The Taliban’s comeback is not only on the battlefield, but, increasingly, in the hearts and minds of Afghans. Why?

Analysts say the democratic values embodied by Afghan President Hamid Karzai haven’t caught on.

"In a lot of parts of the country, nothing really has changed from a few years ago," says Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch.

…

Despite some $12 billion in aid and the loss of more than 220 U.S. soldiers, many Afghan men in the street want the Taliban back.

Increasingly, the Taliban is seen here as a protector of Islamic values against the invasion of Western ways.

Kabul is now dotted with luxury hotels and malls, and Afghans say they like their higher salaries, but not the crime and prostitution that are also on the rise.

"We need the Taliban," one Afghan man says. "Otherwise Westerners and foreigners will corrupt our religion."

The battle with the Taliban in Afghanistan is more about hearts and minds than military engagements. In that battle we are losing, perhaps we have already lost. We have installed ruthless warlords as Governors in provinces all over Afghanistan. We cannot engage in the same heavy handed tactics as these thugs. They may not value human life but we must. Every time we bomb a village and kill innocent civilians, we are creating more enemies. The people of Afghanistan do not have the luxury of choosing between a grand idea of Liberty and the darkness of the Taliban. From their perspective the choice boils down to who will keep them safe. If the Americans will indiscriminately bomb their villages to try to kill a few Taliban, the choice for the Afghan man or a woman becomes rather clear. When an errant American bomb destroys an Afghan family, the surviving members will not be worshipping Americans as their saviors. They will instead look to the Taliban to offer them protection. This very need for protection is what led to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the mid 1990s. Hearts and minds are won by offering security and stability not by offering Democracy at the point of the gun.

The United States, with every civilian death, is creating more ill will toward itself in Afghanistan. As in Iraq, liberation has been morphing into heavy-handed occupation. Afghan nationalism that demands American withdrawal will be the result of this spin toward failure. In this environment the Taliban will find fertile ground to preach their brand of hate by offering, once again, security at the expense of liberty. The legacy of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is becoming clear. The United States is creating the very extremism it tried to defeat when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, the extremism was created as a consequence of American actions. In the case of Afghanistan, the extremism that crept into the shadows during the initial invasion has been given fertile soil as a result of American actions.

There must be a better way to fight extremism without creating more death and hate. Surely a 4-to-1 or 2-to-1 ratio of extremists to innocent civilians is not an acceptable mathematical formula for success in the War on Terror. Innocent life has value far greater than the term "collateral damage" suggests. So I ask again, how much is an innocent life worth?

From his secure undisclosed location somewhere within the borders of Pakistan or Afghanistan Osama bin Laden again outlines to the world his vision of the Apocalypse through the magic of audiotape. He calls for a ‘Long War’ against the Western world and delivers a long list of litanies against the West in an attempt to rally Muslims to his cause. Osama bin Laden is in the Clash of Civilizations business and he sounds almost desperate in his zeal to bring one about. In this endeavor he has many in the West on his side.

Osama bin Laden attempts, in his latest audio rendition, to associate himself with any and all sources of possible grievances that he imagines Muslims may have. His mantra is, "Hate the West at all costs". He wants very much to be part of the global rise in Islamist extremism. He wants to channel local grievances in Muslim countries against Government oppression into an unified global movement against the West. He wants to combine the disparate acts of desperate men into a coordinated attack on the West and Western values. He wants his long war between Islam and the West where the ultimate casualty is reason. However, his murderous lunacy is laid bare when he suggests that Muslims in Sudan should oppose international peacekeepers who may be deployed in an attempt to end the genocide in Darfur. Muslims of the world take heed: Osama bin Laden would rather that hundreds of thousands of Muslims were slaughtered than support peacekeepers from the West.

We, and I mean the larger we, should deny Osama bin Laden his long war. We who are the American Government and people, the Muslim Governments and their people and the rest of the Western World have been culpable indirectly and in some instances directly in the rise of global Islamist extremism in general and the rise of Osama bin Laden in particular. Bin Laden is the evil stepchild of Pakistan’s seriously misguided Inter-services Intelligence Agency (ISI). With American Government support through the CIA, the ISI nurtured, armed and trained bin Laden and the rest of the Arab forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s to fend off the Soviet Union. We should also thank the ISI for their generous support of the Taliban and any and all extremist Islamist factions it could find around the world. The United States participated in the support of bin Laden and the rise of al Qaeda with full knowledge and understanding that this support of these radicals would lead to trouble for the United States in the future. When asked in 1998 after the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa if he had any regrets in sanctioning U.S. support for bin Laden and the Taliban, the ever confused and factually challenged Senator from Utah, the inimitable Orrin Hatch, replied that "It was worth it". I wonder if the Senator still feels that way now.

Osama bin Laden wants a long war with the West and in this wish he gets ample support from this Administration. This is a war of attrition that the United States cannot win. It is a war that will only lead to continued growth of extremism in both the East and the West. The logic of this long war is easily exploited by bin Laden on one side and by the ideologues on this side. The "us" and "them" rhetoric that it encourages is simplistic yet powerful in its ability to bring about the triumph of hate. Now is the time for men and women of reason to stand up and speak out against this slide into madness. We are caught in a twisted version of Hegel’s Master/Slave dialectic and we must break out if we are to triumph over it.

It seems to me that there is an alternative to this "us" and "them" logic and the dream that if we bomb Iraq, Iran and Syria somehow reason and Democracy will flower in place of extremism. Our current path, far from fostering Democracy and peace with the United States, is creating anger and resentment in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world. We are planting the seeds of future extremism by our actions today. We have neither the bombs nor the will enough to kill the new extremists faster than they are being created. So, I propose a different approach. I propose an approach that recognizes that the vast majority of the grievances in the Muslim world is not against the West but against the corrupt Governments that rule there. The United States is a target because of the support it provides these Governments and not because "they hate us for our freedom". Save the extremists and corrupt Governments that unwittingly fuel each other, all peoples of the world want freedom and security, so the notion that somehow the United States is hated because we are "free" is utter nonsense.

We can shorten bin Laden’s "Long War" and defeat him and his ideology by engaging in the new "war on terror" which should have the following components in equal measure:

• We should end active support of regimes in the Muslim world that oppress their peoples, deny them fundamental freedoms, and officially sanction extremist teachings. Examples of such regimes include, first and foremost, Saudi Arabia (the head of the snake, if you will), Egypt and Pakistan. We give billions of dollars each year to these Governments to prop them up. In return, these Governments engage in the systematic abuse of their citizenry. Like any addict, they thrive on economic and military aid from the United States. Their elite line their pocketbooks on the backs of their people. Is anyone surprised why their peoples are attracted to violent ideologies that target these Governments and what they see as their far away master? It is time for the United States to cut these addicts off and demand better treatment of the masses. If anyone thinks that my suggestion is naive, I assure you that the withholding of a few billion dollars of aid to Egypt will have the effect of focusing the mind of Hosni Mubarak in a hurry. The benefit of shifting policy is tremendous. It has the effect of liberalizing these countries and the more important effect of cutting the legs of the oppression that breeds hate toward the United States.
• We should support massive educational and economic development projects in Muslim countries. We should really drain the swamp instead of paying lip service to draining the swamp. There is no extremist ideology that can survive if the masses do not suffer from ignorance. Alleviating poverty and illiteracy are the two most important factors in combating extremism and the terrorism that so often follows.
• We should take the fight to bin Laden and al Qaeda. No amount of education, economic assistance or other acts of compassion will rescue the few who will continue to stoke hatred wherever and whenever they can. We should deal with these individuals with impunity. We will be vastly aided in our effort to hunt down and destroy the remnants of al Qaeda by our other efforts at improving the lot of the masses. Bin Laden and al Qaeda will find themselves increasingly isolated and without support as our efforts to drain the swamp start to take effect.
• Lastly the people of the Muslim world must join the struggle. They must join not in an "us" versus "them" sense. They must respond to actions by the United States to try to open up their Governments by not joining the ranks of the extremists but by putting internal pressure on their Governments. They must choose not between Islam and the West, but between Extremism and common sense.

The policy I have outlined above is obvious and has been suggested many times before - there is nothing new here. We do not need radical new ideas though, we simply need ideas that make sense. But I doubt that the current Administration in the United States has the will or the desire to change course to this new policy. They believe in bombs and not books. This is the "stay the course" Administration so any course correction is unlikely to occur. They have already set their course on the attack on Iran and I doubt anything as important as the dismantling of al Qaeda and Islamist Extremism will deter them from their chosen course. In any case, the efforts I outlined above require that the U.S. Administration have credibility with the Islamic world. This Administration has none. The change in policy may come when a new Administration comes to power in a thousand days. But as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. points out in his appeal today in The Washington Post, it promises to be a long Thousand Days.

“The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantanamo are bad people.”

“I mean, these are terrorists for the most part. These are people that were captured in the battlefield of Afghanistan or rounded up as part of the al Qaeda network."

”We’ve already screened the detainees there and released a number, sent them back to their home countries. But what’s left is hard core.”

- Vice President Dick Cheney, June 2005

As Chinese President Hu Jintao meets with President George Bush they are likely to discuss a whole host of issues of bilateral importance. However, one issue that is unlikely to be on the agenda is the plight of two Uighur men being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Since June 2002 the United States Government has held two Chinese Uighur men at Guantanamo Bay. These men were picked up from Pakistan in 2001 as "enemy combatants". On March 26, 2005 the two Uighur men, Abu Bakker Qassim and A’del Abdu al-Hakim, were found not to be "enemy combatants" by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at Guantanamo Bay. However, as of this writing, they remain in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

The two men are ethnic Uighur. The Uighur are a persecuted Muslim minority in China. After September 11, 2001 China has stepped up its crackdown of the Uighur by claiming they are "terrorists". The United States Government fears if the two Uighur men are repatriated to China they will be imprisoned or killed. The Bush Administration does not want to admit the men to the United States but cannot find a foreign Government willing to accept the men either.  Lawyers for the two men argued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the two men should be released from Guantanamo. But in December 2005 a District Judge ruled that even though their detention is unlawful they cannot be released:

These petitioners are Chinese nationals who received military training in Afghanistan under the Taliban. China is keenly interested in their return. An order requiring their release into the United States–-even into some kind of parole “bubble,” some legal-fictional status in which they would be here but would not have been “admitted”–-would have national security and diplomatic implications beyond the competence or the authority of this Court.

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear their case this week because another hearing is pending on the case in a lower court. So, the men remain in legal and diplomatic limbo for the foreseeable future.

The plight of these two men illustrates the dangers of holding men indefinitely without any due process in the name of the "war on terror". It also demonstrates the foolishness of this Administration’s view of the world as being divided into "us" and "them". The two Uighur men are falling through the large chasm that exists between "us" and "them".

The obvious question is how many of those still being held at Guantanamo are innocent of the charge of being hostile to the United States. We cannot hope to know the answer as this Administration has appointed itself the sole right to determine their status and their guilt through the flawed CSRT process. I would have more faith in the infallibility of this Administration in being the soul arbiter of men if Mr. Cheney would cease making absolutist statements like "But what’s left is hard core." How can we even trust that he can make a sound judgment when he can’t even bring himself to refer to them as "who" but insists on referring to them as "what" - as if they are things not people? This Administration famously removes all qualifiers from its statements and takes absolutist positions. These positions do not serve us well.

Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility and punted on this issue. In fact Congress has made it more difficult for the Courts to intervene by passing legislation that strips further the human rights of those being held at Guantanamo. The Unitary Executive of George W Bush is steamrolling and trampling freedom on its quest to spread freedom and liberty everywhere. What a strange and confused world we live in today.

These guys put the chicken in chicken hawk. Enjoy your journey into the healing powers of delusional thinking.

Here’s a small sampling from the very tasty chicken hawk menu:

Daniel Pipes
	Claim to fame: Founder of the Middle East Forum Former board member of the US Institute of Peace (recess appointment by President Bush) Muslim basher and all around xenophobe Japanese internment supporter Palestinian hater Iraq War champion
Notable Quotes:  "Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. Two of his co-conspirators met with Iraqi intelligence officers in the United Arab Emirates. Bin Laden aides met with officials in Baghdad. Further, Saddam may be behind the recent military-grade anthrax attacks, suggested by the presence of bentonite, a substance only Iraq uses for this purpose. " -"On to Baghdad?: Yes - The Risks Are Overrated" in the  New York Post, 12/3/2001 "Saddam Hussein represents the single greatest danger to the United States, not to speak of the rest of the world. Today, with Americans mobilized, is exactly the right moment to dispatch him." - New York Post, 13/3/2001 "A famous American victory in Iraq and the successful rehabilitation of that country will bring liberals out of the woodwork and generally move the region toward democracy. (Saudi leaders are already leaking their plans to establish electing assemblies, something totally unprecedented in their kingdom.)" -New York Post, 2/11/2003 "The United States cannot pass up a unique chance to remake the world’s most politically fevered region. Sure, the effort might fail, but not even to try would be a missed opportunity." - New York Post, 2/11/2003 "Oh, it was a success. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Beyond that is icing." -Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 4/1/2006 "The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them — to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They’ve more or less written us out of the picture. " -Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 4/1/2006

Richard Perle
	Claim to fame: Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan Chairman of Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee under President Bush "Prince of Darkness" Member of the Project for a New American Century Signer of 1998 Letter to President Clinton advocating overthrow of Saddam Hussein Alleged to have behaved unethically for financial gain Iraq War champion
Notable Quotes:  "Because the thing that many of us have speculated about is happening. There is that interchange. It is likely that chemical weapons, biological weapons in the possession of the Iraqis derived during the cold war from the Soviet Union are now being disseminated to terrorists." -PBS interview, 7/11/2002 "Saddam is in the terrorists business. The easiest thing for intelligence organizations to do is unconsciously slip into a world-view that becomes a filter that causes you either not to look, or even when you see, to ignore and fail to register information inconsistent with that world-view. And it has been the view of the intelligence establishment for a long time now that Saddam, who is secular and not a religious fanatic like Osama bin Laden, behaves in a manner different from the terrorists. So they’re not looking. Even when there’s evidence; they tend to discount the evidence. I think they’re simply wrong about this." -PBS interview, 7/11/2002 I noted there were widespread media reports saying an attack would require up to 250,000 troops. These soldiers could not all be air-dropped into Iraq. They would have to come from somewhere, such as Saudi Arabia. And a military action of this size would need extensive logistical support nearby. Forget the 250,000 figure, Perle said: "The Army guys don’t know anything. They said we needed 500,000 troops in 1991 [for the Gulf War]. Did we need that many to win? No." What’s the Perle Plan? I asked. "Forty thousand troops." he said. - David Corn interview, 5//10/2002 "The problems in Iraq are ahead of us, but we’re doing better than people think. And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation."  -AEI Luncheon 9/23/2003

Ken Adelman
	Claim to fame: Assistant to Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 Arms Control Director under Ronald Reagan Member of the Project for a New American Century Ken "cakewalk" Adelman  Iraq War champion
Notable Quotes:  "I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps. " - Washington  Post, 2/13/2002 "Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and civilization. Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on weapons of mass destruction — and just as deep a hatred of America and civilized free societies. " - Washington Post, 2/13/2002 "We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." -PNAC letter to President Clinton, 1/26/1998 "I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction". These weapons are likeliest to be found near Tikrit and Baghdad, "because they’re the most protected places with the best troops." - Washington Post, 3/23/2003

Zalmay Khalilzad
	Claim to fame: US Ambassador to Iraq Former US Ambassador to Afghanistan King maker of Iraq and Afghanistan Member of the Project for a New American Century Signer of 1998 Letter to President Clinton advocating overthrow of Saddam Hussein Initially supported the Taliban in Afghanistan as a force for stability Negotiated with the Taliban on behalf of Unocol to for a proposed natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan Iraq War champion
Notable Quotes:  "The Taliban do not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran" -1996 while working for Unocol on the Afghan gas pipeline proposal

Frank Gaffney Jr.
	Claim to fame: President of Center for Security Policy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan Member of the Project for a New American Century Signer of 1998 Letter to President Clinton advocating overthrow of Saddam Hussein Frank "Connect the Dots" Gaffney Iraq War champion
Notable Quotes:  "Under present wartime circumstances, though, the United States has the ability — and, indeed, an urgent responsibility — to take more comprehensive action against Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Unless the two networks adjust their behavior so as no longer to act as the propaganda arm of our enemies, they should be taken off the air, one way or another." - Fox News, 9/29/2003 "The [9/11 Commission] staff’s statement concerning Iraq and Al Qaeda (search) is internally inconsistent; it ignores key facts; it selectively addresses others; and it effectively condemns as incredible the considerable amount of evidence that suggests Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden did indeed have a collaborative relationship – as President Bush and Vice President Cheney have insisted." -Fox News, 6/20/2004 "I was thinking actually about effecting regime change through the use of military force. There are other ways to effect regime change as well. The problem with not replicating the Iraqi (Israeli?) Osirak attack, which also had a desired effect on Iraq, is it is no longer possible, given the lessons the Iranians learned about concealing and dispersing their nuclear weapons program. I think to do that very discriminate, precise military strike, you’re gonna have to change the regime, and I think the good news here, John, if there is any, is that I believe the Iranian people want that every bit as much as we do, if not more."-John Gibson interview, 11/24/2004, already advocating attacking Iran in 2004 "The connections between the Nazis and the Islamofascists are rooted in more than shared ambitions of world domination and violent methods."…"Consequently, as a practical matter, we have no choice but to fight the Islamofascists, both abroad and at home. Surrender, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, is not an option." -Renew America 3/20/2006

Elliott Abrams
	Claim to fame: Deputy National Security Advisor to President Bush Special Assistant to the President under President Bush Pled guilty to two counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during Iran-Contra Member of the Project for a New American Century Signer of 1998 Letter to President Clinton advocating overthrow of Saddam Hussein Iraq War champion
Notable Quotes:  Does damage mostly with actions.

So, what do you do with a chicken hawk after the thrill is gone? Apparently you can now race chicken hawks.

What happens if Abdul Rahman is set free in Afghanistan and is then killed by a fanatical lynch mob? After all, clerics in Afghanistan have threatened to tear him to pieces. It is an entirely convenient outcome for all concerned. The West can say that they pressured the Karzai government to release him; and they would be right. The Karzai government can claim that they reconciled Western values with Afghan tradition and released the man (albeit on a technicality); and they would be right. The Afghan judiciary can say that they wanted to prosecute him but he was found insane; and they would be right. The Afghan clerics would say that justice must be served, and so a mob killing would be justified; and, by their logic, they would be right.

Everyone wins under this scenario except:

• Abdul Rahman (obviously, I don’t need to explain why he loses here)
• Afghanistan because it does not face the kind of hard choice that societies must confront in order to develop socially and politically
• Islam because it does not get to settle once and for all that the date on the calendar is 2006 and not 622
• The rest of us because we all have a stake in protecting basic human rights (codified internationally in the UDHR).

So, we should not embrace this ducking of the issue by Afghanistan or by our leaders. We should resist it. We should demand that the Afghan constitution resolve the conflict in its language between its acceptance of the UDHR and Islamic Sharia law. We wanted a revolution in that part of the world, well, now we’ve got it. This is the moment of Afghanistan’s liberation, not Tora Bora. We have considerable clout with the Karzai government (we pay his bills and provide for his security). It is time for us to demand a return on our investment. It is time for the Karzai government to move the Taliban out of the Afghan judiciary and offer some real protections. If his government falls, so be it. It was and is an impotent government anyway.

The real war against terror was in Afghanistan until we exported it to Iraq. That war still rages for all Afghanis - in the degradation of women, in medieval justice, in the illiteracy, in the ignorance, in the poverty. We must fight this war, now that we are called to wage it. This war is the "long war", to borrow a phrase. It requires bombs and teachers. It requires guns and books. It requires the exposition of one simple idea: that the basic right of human beings is the right to exist. And to exist means to think (tip to Descartes), and to think freely. All else follows: votes, democracy, wealth, pursuit of happiness, etc.

Whether this President and this Government has the political capital (after the humiliation in Iraq), the political will, and the requisite foresight and competence to carry out this long war remains in great doubt. Past experience suggests that the Administration is not capable of confronting this complex challenge. It pays lip service to words like "freedom" and "liberty" without understanding what lies behind these ideals. This Administration started the process in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from official power. Now it must follow through by giving the Afghan people the tools needed to remove the Taliban from their lives. Anything less will be another defeat for the United States in this war.

What can we do as citizens? The easy answer is that we should make our leaders accountable to us. We should remind our leaders who the enemy is and who attacked us. We should remind them that those who attacked us are still out there and their mystique grows with the passing of each humiliating day in Iraq for the United States. Our leaders must find a way to contain the damage we have done to Iraq, to ourselves and to our ability to project moral and military power. They must find a way to restore the image of the United States in the world - with each passing day and each defiant swagger of the likes of John Bolton this task is that much harder. Our leaders must restore the international alliances and organizations that we have left in tatters. Our leaders must commit to doing all of these things, or we must send them off to early retirement.

Make no mistake, there is a battle going on not only for the soul of Islam but also for the soul of the United States. Where we stand in this fight will determine what kind of planet we leave our children. We must decide whether we choose a clash of civilizations or a historic leap forward in our understanding of one another. The stakes are nothing less than that.

A reader posted a link to RAWA in the comments and I thought it deserved more prominence. In Islam, Prophet Mohammad’s (PBUH) teaching says that "Heaven lies at the foot of your mother". Visit the RAWA website to see how far astray some men of Afghanistan have gone from their religion’s teachings.

The CNN website is now featuring the Afghan persecution story as its lead story. Let’s hope that it stays there until tomorrow morning so that a wider audience can see it. You can read my posts on the topic here and here.

In an earlier post, I discussed the plight of the man in Afghanistan facing death for converting to Christianity. Today, we have heard the official U.S. Government response to this absurdity. Our response came at a press conference held by Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns and Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. The liberators of Afghanistan from the Taliben, the promulgator of Freedom and Liberty, the up rooter of tyranny everywhere, had this to say, as reported by the BBC:

Speaking alongside Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah at a press conference in Washington, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns urged Afghanistan to respect Mr Rahman’s religious rights.

However, he did not ask for his immediate release and said he respected Afghan sovereignty.

"Our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion," Mr Burns said.

"As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court."

I am astonished that we are letting a little thing like "sovereignty" get in the way of expressing our outrage. If this is the kind of freedom we propose to bring to the world, I think we really need to get out of the invasion business. Freedom means freedom for the people of Afghanistan, not freedom for the Afghan government to persecute its citizens. Surely, we have more leverage than this with the Afghan government. I thought this kind of thinking in Afghanistan was what led them to provide safe harbor to Al Qaeda.

Then, there is the little matter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the declaration that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 to guarantee basic rights to all human beings. This declaration was adopted in clear response to the horrors of the Holocaust. Article 18 of the Declaration states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. [Emphasis added by me]

The United States, at a bare minimum, should insist upon the adherence to the UDHR in Afghanistan. Anything less should be unacceptable to us and we should say so.

As a Muslim American, I feel particular shame that this kind of ignorant justice is being pursued in Afghanistan in the name of Islam. All Muslims around the world should be at the forefront in rejecting this nonsense. Muslim Americans in particular, and all Americans in general, should lobby the U.S. Government to ensure this atrocity is not allowed to happen.

AMERICAblog has a post on the Afghan man facing death for converting to Christianity. The original story appears on the ABC News website here.

Apparently, the only hope the man has of escaping the death penalty is if he is found to be insane. Apparently in Afghanistan, it is better to be insane than to be a Christian. Chalk this up to another manifestation of our failed worldwide democracy drive. I think our money would be far better spent on eradicating illiteracy than on blowing up Iraqis. We have declared victory and walked away from Afghanistan. We have handed over the keys to NATO and turned a blind eye to the resurgence of the narcotics trade in Afghanistan. Bringing a war-torn, impoverished and illiterate society into the community of nations is not as simple as ordering up the next batch of smart bombs. Once the military finishes its job, the truly difficult job of reconstruction begins. This Administration is clearly not up to that task.

My message to the Administration today is a very simple one. If you want to defeat terrorism, you must fight ignorance as hard as you employ the military option. Without it, this war cannot be won.

Before the all too easy Islam bashing gets going in earnest once this story starts flashing over the airwaves, let me do my part to combat the ignorance about Islam by separating "Ignorance" from "Islam". Only an ignorant law would suggest that a man ought to be killed for being a Christian. Here are some interesting tid bits about Islam that might dispel some common misconceptions:

• In Islam, it is fundamental that there is no compulsion in religion.
  • Verse 2.256 from the Koran: "There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. "
  • Verses 4.79 and 4.80: "Whatever benefit comes to you (O man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself, and We have sent you (O Prophet!), to mankind as an apostle; and Allah is sufficient as a witness. Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them."
  • Verses 17.54 and 17.55: And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe. Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith."
• Christian, Jews and other monotheistic religions are referred to as the "People of the Book" in the Koran. They are not "infidels" as is commonly mentioned.
  • Verse 2.62 from the Koran: "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. "

If countries like Afghanistan truly intend to live within the modern world, they must acknowledge that this is the 21st century and not the 7th century. For that to happen, there has to be literacy and poverty alleviation (two sides of the same coin). Until they do that, no amount of democracy at the point of a gun will change a thing. And very soon, they will slide back into banning the flying of kites and resume beheading people in soccer stadiums.