As the situation in Pakistan gets progressively worse...
July 14, 2007 8:55 AM Subscribe
Suicide bomber kills 24 Pakistani soldiers amid fears of holy war Following the storming of the Red Mosque, Islamic militants launched a deadly suicide attack, detonated a roadside bomb and fired rockets in Saturday as thousands of Pakistani troops deployed to the northwestern frontier to thwart the launch of a holy war. A Pakistani blogger writes about the political situation in Pakistan. A timeline of the incidents leading up to the storming of the Red Mosque.
"The Pessoptimist in Istanbul: Will Bin Laden Win?"
posted by acro at 9:13 AM on July 14, 2007
With amazing concision, he explains everything from why Bin Laden was angry about the abolition of the Caliphate by Ataturk and the Treaty of Lausanne, to why Pushtuns in the tribal regions of northern Pakistan think they are actually in Afghanistan. Along the way, he highlights how non-state actors are challenging the Lausanne world order.via Juan Cole's Informed Comment
posted by acro at 9:13 AM on July 14, 2007
acro writes "The Pessoptimist in Istanbul: Will Bin Laden Win?"
Wow. That was very good.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:14 AM on July 14, 2007
Wow. That was very good.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:14 AM on July 14, 2007
And thanks for the Pessoptimist link, acro—it is indeed a good job of historical analysis.
posted by languagehat at 9:19 AM on July 14, 2007
posted by languagehat at 9:19 AM on July 14, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Islamic militants launched a deadly suicide attack, detonated a roadside bomb and fired rockets Saturday as thousands of Pakistani troops deployed to the northwestern frontier to thwart the launch of a holy war, officials said.
You're doing it wrong.
posted by quin at 10:05 AM on July 14, 2007
You're doing it wrong.
posted by quin at 10:05 AM on July 14, 2007
I read 'amid fears of holy water'. I need some coffee.
posted by IronLizard at 10:09 AM on July 14, 2007
posted by IronLizard at 10:09 AM on July 14, 2007
The worst that could happen is Musharraf being killed or deposed, since any replacement will likely have few reservations about distributing Pakistan's nuclear weapons among Islamic fundamentalist groups. Events leading up to a civil war in Pakistan would most certainly be worthwhile to pay attention to and to try to stop. I hope things work out.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:56 AM on July 14, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:56 AM on July 14, 2007
That link of acro's - "The Pessoptimist in Istanbul"- is interesting, with some good information about the background here. But the conclusions it draws make little sense to me; perhaps that's because it's so very short, and because it seems to contain only a single paragraph detailing the author's views of the situation. After discussing the border disputes and the apparent nullification of the caliphate about which bin-Laden is so angered, and referring to Ibn Kutayba's statement on the "circle of justice," Mr Rubin states:
But in response to the challenge of Bin Laden, rather than building its army, the US has mobilized thousands of private contractors and exhausted its army in the fatal venture of Iraq. Rather than calling our people to fight and sacrifice, our government cut the taxes of those most able to afford to pay and financed its military ventures with subsidies, not from an imperial hegemon, but from financial markets that are far more arbitrary than Lord Curzon. To retain its monopoly on power in the face of failure, the ruling party has undermined the system of justice. We could have responded more wisely to Bin Laden's challenge, but we have drawn this circle of injustice around ourselves.
Granted, Kutayba traced all of these things - an army, money, and prosperity - to justice and good administration. But is Mr Rubin suggesting that the US didn't mobilize its Army forcefully enough, or that the leaders of the United States failed adequately to call its people to fight and die? Somehow I don't think so, although I confess that I feel as though I simply don't understand what Mr Rubin is saying here when he says that "we could have responded more wisely to Bin Laden's challenge." Not that this statement is doubted in any way- I could start listing ways in which the response was unwise easily, beginning with shoddy administration and a disregard for transcendant international right- but what wise strategy is Mr Rubin pointing to?
Regardless of the shoddy motivations of British diplomats in the nineteenth century, is there not a conflict between the Sunni reverence for the caliphate and the Western notion of liberal democracy? And which of these two options does Mr Rubin prefer?
posted by koeselitz at 10:57 AM on July 14, 2007
But in response to the challenge of Bin Laden, rather than building its army, the US has mobilized thousands of private contractors and exhausted its army in the fatal venture of Iraq. Rather than calling our people to fight and sacrifice, our government cut the taxes of those most able to afford to pay and financed its military ventures with subsidies, not from an imperial hegemon, but from financial markets that are far more arbitrary than Lord Curzon. To retain its monopoly on power in the face of failure, the ruling party has undermined the system of justice. We could have responded more wisely to Bin Laden's challenge, but we have drawn this circle of injustice around ourselves.
Granted, Kutayba traced all of these things - an army, money, and prosperity - to justice and good administration. But is Mr Rubin suggesting that the US didn't mobilize its Army forcefully enough, or that the leaders of the United States failed adequately to call its people to fight and die? Somehow I don't think so, although I confess that I feel as though I simply don't understand what Mr Rubin is saying here when he says that "we could have responded more wisely to Bin Laden's challenge." Not that this statement is doubted in any way- I could start listing ways in which the response was unwise easily, beginning with shoddy administration and a disregard for transcendant international right- but what wise strategy is Mr Rubin pointing to?
Regardless of the shoddy motivations of British diplomats in the nineteenth century, is there not a conflict between the Sunni reverence for the caliphate and the Western notion of liberal democracy? And which of these two options does Mr Rubin prefer?
posted by koeselitz at 10:57 AM on July 14, 2007
Hmm. Saving Afghanistan is another piece by Barnett Rubin that's very interesting, a piece from Foreign Affairs suggesting that the US should increase its commitment to Afghanistan. Apparently I was quite wrong in assuming that Mr Rubin was against larger military commitment in the Middle East.
It's well worth reading.
posted by koeselitz at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2007
It's well worth reading.
posted by koeselitz at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2007
But is Mr Rubin suggesting that the US didn't mobilize its Army forcefully enough, or that the leaders of the United States failed adequately to call its people to fight and die?
I think that, rather than being an argument for more active and intensive military intervention (which would help 'win' the war), Rubin is using this as blog shorthand (or longhand) for:
"If the American people were forced to pay the *real* costs of the war, it would be over quickly, or would never have happened at all."
posted by KokuRyu at 11:05 AM on July 14, 2007
I think that, rather than being an argument for more active and intensive military intervention (which would help 'win' the war), Rubin is using this as blog shorthand (or longhand) for:
"If the American people were forced to pay the *real* costs of the war, it would be over quickly, or would never have happened at all."
posted by KokuRyu at 11:05 AM on July 14, 2007
Nevermind, maybe Rubin is calling for more military force.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:06 AM on July 14, 2007
posted by KokuRyu at 11:06 AM on July 14, 2007
Well, in all fairness, it's really more of a call for more involvement: more military, yes, but also a hell of a lot more aid and effort in general...
From article: For decades -- not only since 2001 -- U.S. policymakers have underestimated the stakes in Afghanistan. They continue to do so today. A mere course correction will not be enough to prevent the country from sliding into chaos. Washington and its international partners must rethink their strategy and significantly increase both the resources they devote to Afghanistan and the effectiveness of those resources' use. Only dramatic action can reverse the perception, common among both Afghans and their neighbors, that Afghanistan is not a high priority for the United States -- and that the Taliban are winning as a result. Washington's appeasement of Pakistan, diversion of resources to Iraq, and perpetual underinvestment in Afghanistan -- which gets less aid per capita than any other state with a recent postconflict rebuilding effort -- have fueled that suspicion.
Contrary to the claims of the Bush administration, whose attention after the September 11 attacks quickly wandered off to Iraq and grand visions of transforming the Middle East, the main center of terrorism "of global reach" is in Pakistan. Al Qaeda has succeeded in reestablishing its base by skillfully exploiting the weakness of the state in the Pashtun tribal belt, along the Afghan-Pakistani frontier. In the words of one Western military commander in Afghanistan, "Until we transform the tribal belt, the U.S. is at risk."
Mr Rubin is very convincing. I still have reservations about the conflicts between Islam and western democracy, and I feel as though we ought to take those conflicts seriously (that is, come to a real compromise, not an appeasement of one side or a conquering of one side) but his practical remarks about the current situation and the steps needed are, I think, dead on the mark.
posted by koeselitz at 11:13 AM on July 14, 2007
From article: For decades -- not only since 2001 -- U.S. policymakers have underestimated the stakes in Afghanistan. They continue to do so today. A mere course correction will not be enough to prevent the country from sliding into chaos. Washington and its international partners must rethink their strategy and significantly increase both the resources they devote to Afghanistan and the effectiveness of those resources' use. Only dramatic action can reverse the perception, common among both Afghans and their neighbors, that Afghanistan is not a high priority for the United States -- and that the Taliban are winning as a result. Washington's appeasement of Pakistan, diversion of resources to Iraq, and perpetual underinvestment in Afghanistan -- which gets less aid per capita than any other state with a recent postconflict rebuilding effort -- have fueled that suspicion.
Contrary to the claims of the Bush administration, whose attention after the September 11 attacks quickly wandered off to Iraq and grand visions of transforming the Middle East, the main center of terrorism "of global reach" is in Pakistan. Al Qaeda has succeeded in reestablishing its base by skillfully exploiting the weakness of the state in the Pashtun tribal belt, along the Afghan-Pakistani frontier. In the words of one Western military commander in Afghanistan, "Until we transform the tribal belt, the U.S. is at risk."
Mr Rubin is very convincing. I still have reservations about the conflicts between Islam and western democracy, and I feel as though we ought to take those conflicts seriously (that is, come to a real compromise, not an appeasement of one side or a conquering of one side) but his practical remarks about the current situation and the steps needed are, I think, dead on the mark.
posted by koeselitz at 11:13 AM on July 14, 2007
I'm surprised the Pessoptimist doesn't mention the attack on India's parlaiment which came in Dec. 2001.
I very much believe that bin Laden et al hoped that a US intervention in Afghanistan would destabilize the Musharraf government in Pakistan, that this was one of their immediate goals... the reason why the US allowed bin Laden to escape into the tribal areas is precisely this: to pursue him would have brought down Musharraf very quickly.
Using the Northern Alliance as proxies was so effective because it meant there wasn't a US Army in Pashtunistan which would have brought the Pashtuns of Pakistan directly into the fight (and brought down Musharraf.)
US strategy in Afghanistan is interesting in comparison to Iraq. I think the differences highlight that Iraq has always been a political project (and subject to the strategery of the Cheney administration) whereas Afghanistan was planned during Clinton and run by the professionals. Yet at the same time, I think US intervention in Afghanistan made the fall of Musharraf inevitable, just as intervention in Iraq makes war with Iran inevitable.
We would have been better off paying the Pashtuns to kill bin Laden for us.
posted by geos at 11:21 AM on July 14, 2007
I very much believe that bin Laden et al hoped that a US intervention in Afghanistan would destabilize the Musharraf government in Pakistan, that this was one of their immediate goals... the reason why the US allowed bin Laden to escape into the tribal areas is precisely this: to pursue him would have brought down Musharraf very quickly.
Using the Northern Alliance as proxies was so effective because it meant there wasn't a US Army in Pashtunistan which would have brought the Pashtuns of Pakistan directly into the fight (and brought down Musharraf.)
US strategy in Afghanistan is interesting in comparison to Iraq. I think the differences highlight that Iraq has always been a political project (and subject to the strategery of the Cheney administration) whereas Afghanistan was planned during Clinton and run by the professionals. Yet at the same time, I think US intervention in Afghanistan made the fall of Musharraf inevitable, just as intervention in Iraq makes war with Iran inevitable.
We would have been better off paying the Pashtuns to kill bin Laden for us.
posted by geos at 11:21 AM on July 14, 2007
Regardless of the shoddy motivations of British diplomats in the nineteenth century, is there not a conflict between the Sunni reverence for the caliphate and the Western notion of liberal democracy? And which of these two options does Mr Rubin prefer?
oooo... those are fighting words and ill-informed. To suggest that neo-Caliphatism is a 'Sunni' idea is sort of like saying neo-Confederacy-ism is a Southern Baptist idea.
Looking at what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, (and Lebanon), I can't begin to imagine how you could still feel like the "liberal democracies" i.e. former colonial powers, have ultimately good intentions towards their former colonies.
but besides, the inattention of the Bush administration to Afghanistan has been a blessing rather than a curse.
I think the issue is pretty clearly laid out in Rubin's Pessoptimist essay: a strong Afghan state will inevitably serve to weaken the Pashtuns, split by the Durand line. Aside from whether U.S. policy is directed by cretins, I don't see how showering Afghanistan with money would change this fundamental problem.
I think we should have left the Taliban in power and made it worth their while to kill bin Laden. As with Hamas, I think the West is better off with Islamic radicalism in the open and forced to choose between practical concerns of state and ideology than forcing them underground.
posted by geos at 11:40 AM on July 14, 2007
oooo... those are fighting words and ill-informed. To suggest that neo-Caliphatism is a 'Sunni' idea is sort of like saying neo-Confederacy-ism is a Southern Baptist idea.
Looking at what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, (and Lebanon), I can't begin to imagine how you could still feel like the "liberal democracies" i.e. former colonial powers, have ultimately good intentions towards their former colonies.
but besides, the inattention of the Bush administration to Afghanistan has been a blessing rather than a curse.
I think the issue is pretty clearly laid out in Rubin's Pessoptimist essay: a strong Afghan state will inevitably serve to weaken the Pashtuns, split by the Durand line. Aside from whether U.S. policy is directed by cretins, I don't see how showering Afghanistan with money would change this fundamental problem.
I think we should have left the Taliban in power and made it worth their while to kill bin Laden. As with Hamas, I think the West is better off with Islamic radicalism in the open and forced to choose between practical concerns of state and ideology than forcing them underground.
posted by geos at 11:40 AM on July 14, 2007
We paid for those attacks on that mosque and for everything Musharraf is doing to dissidents--i'm sure they all know that too. Our support of him hurts us enormously in the region and we have nothing to show for it--we actually lose because of it.
... General Musharraf’s move has already won support from the Bush administration, which the general counts as one of his crucial international backers. Pakistan’s post-9/11 alliance with Washington has earned the country billions of dollars in military and economic aid.
On Tuesday, Pakistan received two American F-16 fighter jets for its air force. An American Embassy news release described the jets as “an important manifestation of the growing strategic partnership between the United States and Pakistan.” ...
posted by amberglow at 11:55 AM on July 14, 2007
... General Musharraf’s move has already won support from the Bush administration, which the general counts as one of his crucial international backers. Pakistan’s post-9/11 alliance with Washington has earned the country billions of dollars in military and economic aid.
On Tuesday, Pakistan received two American F-16 fighter jets for its air force. An American Embassy news release described the jets as “an important manifestation of the growing strategic partnership between the United States and Pakistan.” ...
posted by amberglow at 11:55 AM on July 14, 2007
geos: "Looking at what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, (and Lebanon), I can't begin to imagine how you could still feel like the "liberal democracies" i.e. former colonial powers, have ultimately good intentions towards their former colonies."
Far from it. "Liberal democracy" is a failed project. My suggestion would be more along the lines that we have much to learn from structures like the Caliphate and from Islam itself, and much to lose by continuing our closed-minded reverence for the ideals of democracy, freedom and equality. We are more fanatical here than any Muslim, who at least welcomes conversation about the truth of her/his views.
posted by koeselitz at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2007
Far from it. "Liberal democracy" is a failed project. My suggestion would be more along the lines that we have much to learn from structures like the Caliphate and from Islam itself, and much to lose by continuing our closed-minded reverence for the ideals of democracy, freedom and equality. We are more fanatical here than any Muslim, who at least welcomes conversation about the truth of her/his views.
posted by koeselitz at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2007
To be more blunt: I would prefer the Caliphate to liberal democracy. I doubted that Mr Rubin would as well. I have more respect for his views now than I did when I wrote that comment, although I still wonder.
posted by koeselitz at 12:04 PM on July 14, 2007
posted by koeselitz at 12:04 PM on July 14, 2007
How did this become a dichotomy between "liberal democracy" and "the Caliphate"?
As well, is it possible to discard "the ideals of democracy, freedom and equality" without ever experiencing life in a society that does not value these ideals? In oppressive societies, people can go to jail for making posts on Metafilter about LOLCATS.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:10 PM on July 14, 2007
As well, is it possible to discard "the ideals of democracy, freedom and equality" without ever experiencing life in a society that does not value these ideals? In oppressive societies, people can go to jail for making posts on Metafilter about LOLCATS.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:10 PM on July 14, 2007
Anybody taking any bets on whether Pervez Musharraf gets to die of old age? (I lost on Yassir Arafat.)
posted by pax digita at 12:14 PM on July 14, 2007
posted by pax digita at 12:14 PM on July 14, 2007
Are you saying Pervez Musharraf has AIDS too???
posted by AwkwardPause at 12:20 PM on July 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by AwkwardPause at 12:20 PM on July 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
Every good Republican knows that teh Muslims are going to establish a CALIPHATE!!!! That's always why everybody's supposed to keep bombing 'em, you know.
koeselitz-
I wonder what you mean by "liberal democracy," or if you'd care to explain the advantages over it that you think a calipahte (btw, what would a caliphate be in 2007?) would supply.
posted by washburn at 12:27 PM on July 14, 2007
koeselitz-
I wonder what you mean by "liberal democracy," or if you'd care to explain the advantages over it that you think a calipahte (btw, what would a caliphate be in 2007?) would supply.
posted by washburn at 12:27 PM on July 14, 2007
Koeselitz, I could do without being beheaded for my beliefs, thanks.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:05 PM on July 14, 2007
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:05 PM on July 14, 2007
we have much to learn from structures like the Caliphate and from Islam itself, and much to lose by continuing our closed-minded reverence for the ideals of democracy, freedom and equality.
LOLKOESELITZ
posted by quonsar at 1:12 PM on July 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
LOLKOESELITZ
posted by quonsar at 1:12 PM on July 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
In oppressive societies, there is no Caliphate, either. Oppressive societies are generally the invention of the West.
posted by koeselitz at 3:11 PM on July 14, 2007
posted by koeselitz at 3:11 PM on July 14, 2007
Ok, now you're just trolling.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:16 PM on July 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:16 PM on July 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
We've spent $160 billion in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda is stronger than ever and "better positioned to strike the West." All we've managed to do is move bin Laden to the east (to what they still consider Afghanistan according to that Pessoptimist piece). We needed to get bin Laden and commit to a Marshall Plan-level rebuilding of Afghanistan. Eventually our attention span will drift and nothing will have changed.
Well, Southern Baptists originally became Southern Baptists because of their support of slavery.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:06 PM on July 14, 2007
sort of like saying neo-Confederacy-ism is a Southern Baptist idea
Well, Southern Baptists originally became Southern Baptists because of their support of slavery.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:06 PM on July 14, 2007
.......
................
..................................
...........................................
................................................
..........................................
.......................
............
......
......
...
...
...
...
...
.....
.............
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:42 PM on July 14, 2007
................
..................................
...........................................
................................................
..........................................
.......................
............
......
......
...
...
...
...
...
.....
.............
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:42 PM on July 14, 2007
Eventually our attention span will drift and nothing will have changed.
Eventually?
Three months after we installed Karzai, better known as the Mayor of Kabul, our attention drifted to Iraq. And then when the story arc seemed to be getting depressing and the blue dye wore off we drifted to the Duke LaCross team. Or was it Lacey Petersen? Now it's all about them Lesbian Gangs.
Afghanistan is going down. And. Pakistan is going down. And the US Press couldn't care less.
Think about this. Do you know how buried the AQ Khan story was? The guy is put on "trial" for selling nuclear secrets to North Korea - one of the spokes on the tricycle of eeeevil. Okay the press reported that part. But. The televised trial is held in English not Urdu (yes the lingua franca is English) they make a big deal of it...
THEN the guy gets "house arrest" and his picture put on the money and he gets a parade. Odd way to treat a criminal. This should make one ask whose side Musharraf is on. It should alarm us, should it not?
Was that a lead in any paper? Fuck no.
posted by tkchrist at 5:20 PM on July 14, 2007
Eventually?
Three months after we installed Karzai, better known as the Mayor of Kabul, our attention drifted to Iraq. And then when the story arc seemed to be getting depressing and the blue dye wore off we drifted to the Duke LaCross team. Or was it Lacey Petersen? Now it's all about them Lesbian Gangs.
Afghanistan is going down. And. Pakistan is going down. And the US Press couldn't care less.
Think about this. Do you know how buried the AQ Khan story was? The guy is put on "trial" for selling nuclear secrets to North Korea - one of the spokes on the tricycle of eeeevil. Okay the press reported that part. But. The televised trial is held in English not Urdu (yes the lingua franca is English) they make a big deal of it...
THEN the guy gets "house arrest" and his picture put on the money and he gets a parade. Odd way to treat a criminal. This should make one ask whose side Musharraf is on. It should alarm us, should it not?
Was that a lead in any paper? Fuck no.
posted by tkchrist at 5:20 PM on July 14, 2007
Are you saying Pervez Musharraf has AIDS too???
:o)
I'm saying AIDS is about the last thing in the world I figured the 'Rat would've died of. "Lead poisoning" seemed like a safe bet for decades.
posted by pax digita at 5:26 PM on July 14, 2007
:o)
I'm saying AIDS is about the last thing in the world I figured the 'Rat would've died of. "Lead poisoning" seemed like a safe bet for decades.
posted by pax digita at 5:26 PM on July 14, 2007
Pervez Musharraf autobiography: In the Line of Fire (2006)
posted by acro at 6:39 AM on July 15, 2007
posted by acro at 6:39 AM on July 15, 2007
Khan also sold nuclear information to Iran and Libya. He just got released from house arrest this month.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:27 AM on July 15, 2007
posted by kirkaracha at 8:27 AM on July 15, 2007
He just got released from house arrest this month.
Yes. Poor Khan. It was a tough stint. He was forced to join the Muslim Brotherhood to survive. Which was handy because he was already Muslim. The tricky part was raping himself in the showers and selling smokes to himself in the cafeteria.
posted by tkchrist at 1:42 PM on July 15, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yes. Poor Khan. It was a tough stint. He was forced to join the Muslim Brotherhood to survive. Which was handy because he was already Muslim. The tricky part was raping himself in the showers and selling smokes to himself in the cafeteria.
posted by tkchrist at 1:42 PM on July 15, 2007 [1 favorite]
« Older Documentary: embedded with US troops in Baghdad | Giant Squid Kinetic Sculpture Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by acro at 9:03 AM on July 14, 2007 [3 favorites]