CNN: "U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, CNN yesterday posted a must-read piece by Peter Bergen and David Sterman on how Islamic jihadism is considered to be so much worse than domestic right-wing extremism -- among the public, in the media -- even though the latter is much more deadly than the former. Here are some highlights, starting with a reference to the Kansas City KKK killer, though you would do well to read it in its entirety:

Now let's do the thought experiment in which instead of shouting "Heil Hitler" after he was arrested, the suspect had shouted "Allahu Akbar." Only two days before the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, this simple switch of words would surely have greatly increased the extent and type of coverage the incident received.

Yet the death toll in the shootings in Kansas is similar to that of last year's Boston Marathon bombings, where three people were killed and the suspects later killed a police officer as they tried to evade capture. (Many more, of course, were also wounded in the Boston attacks; 16 men, women and children lost limbs.)

In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

*****

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

This is to take nothing away from 9/11, which was obviously a horrendous attack, nor to suggest that jihadism is no longer a serious threat. Certainly part of the reason for its decline is that the U.S. has expended vast resources combating it, both overseas and at home, including building up the national security state. And of course America isn't jihadism's only target. Whether al Qaeda or related to al Qaeda or not, it has struck elsewhere, including in Mumbai in 2008.

But Bergen and Sterman are right that jihadism is blown way out of proportion in the U.S. and that the media deserve much of the blame for that. I suppose racial/ethnic/religious/cultural bias is to explain for that. Even a known KKK leader and virulent anti-Semite can be your friendly next-door neighbor in the mostly white and Christian parts of the U.S. He may look like you and act like you, for the most part, and in any event he may not seem all that their weird despite his extremist views, some of which, deep down, you may even share.

But anyone with even slightly brown skin, with an accent, with odd dress, with weird-smelling food, with strange religious or cultural practises, well, even it hardly matters whether that person is Muslim or Buddhist or Sikh or Hindu or whatever -- he or she is somehow the Other, and that frightens you, because difference terrifies you and because, of course, you've been told by the media -- and it's only worse if your media outlets of choice are Fox News or right-wing talk radio -- that the real threats to America, to your way of life, to you personally, are of the non-white, non-Christian, "foreign" variety.

The point, of course, is that while jihadi terrorism is very much a real thing, the more urgent danger within America's borders is right-wing extremism, which while appearing in different forms is very much a significant threat to the country and its inhabitants. Look no further if you're concerned about your way of life, about yourself personally. These are people who blow up government buildings and plant bombs and drive around major cities randomly shooting people or even targeting certain kinds of people -- people just like you in many ways, no matter your race, creed, color, or hue.

It's much easier to vilify the foreign Other, I know, to lump those "different" from you into one big huge threat from which you can cower in fear with those you think are like you. But I would say it's far more advisable to deal with the world as it is and to understand the real threats for what they are.

As if we don't have enough to worry about

By Carl 

It looks like China and India are heading towards their own version of the Cold War:

Under cover of night last month, a platoon of People's Liberation Army soldiers hiked across barren mountains and set up camp in the foothills of the Himalayas, one of the most inhospitable places on earth for a bivouac.

But it wasn't just an exercise in high-altitude preparedness. The Chinese camp was 19 kilometres on the Indian side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which separates Ladakh in the state of Jammu & Kashmir from Aksai Chin.

The border here has never been demarcated and remains a thorn in Beijing's side. A Foreign Ministry spokesman insisted the soldiers were still in China.

The incursion comes as Beijing is on an imperialist expansion kick. It is already embroiled in territorial disputes with neighbours like Japan and the Philippines over islands, and mineral and fishing rights. It recently started cruises to to the Paracel Islands, which is claimed by Vietnam.

Now, the latest land grab, which has passed almost unnoticed in the western press. But it has raised alarm bells in New Delhi, brought protesters out onto the streets and recalls alarming memories of 1962, when the two countries fought a short-lived war triggered by border disputes, and a standoff in 1986.

Well, OK, then! Two nuclear powers are edging closer and closer to outright hostilities! How do I sign up for Mars One again?

China has long given assistance to Pakistan to keep India otherwise occupied, but the combination of American intervention in the region as well as Pakistan's own internal struggle to keep the Taliban and Islamists tamped down has rendered that an exercise in academia. So I'm guessing China is finding some other way to kick India in the nuts.

Given China's other pots on burners, like North Korea, Iran, and Africa, you'd think they'd want to fix this as peacefully and unobtrusively as possible. And so far, they've managed to keep the skirmishes on the back burner, even in India. 

Read more »

Photo of the Day: The India-Pakistan border, from space

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Globe: "The India-Pakistan border appears as an orange line in this photograph taken by the Expedition 28 crew on the International Space Station. The fence between the two countries is floodlit for surveillance purposes."

A remarkable image, if also a depressing one -- one that literally highlights the artificial divisions that keep humans at war with one another.

Sarah Palin thinks she might just have won in '08

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Take a seat. And a deep breath. And try to keep your sides from splitting as you read this:

Republicans would have been more successful in the 2008 presidential elections if she was at the top of the ticket, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin suggested Saturday.

Speaking at the India Today Conclave in New Delhi, Palin was asked why the GOP ticket did not defeat then-Sen. Barack Obama (D). Palin said that Obama ran a strong campaign and effectively billed himself as a change candidate.

Pressed by India Today editor Aroon Purie that she also represented change, Palin replied, "I wasn't at the top of the ticket, remember?"

The 2008 vice presidential nominee said she was not claiming she should have been the nominee over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), but her comments provide a glimpse of her potential appeal to voters should she choose to run for the nomination in 2012.

Okay.

First, why was Palin invited to speak in India? What could she possibly have to say? I suppose her "star" is her appeal, but I doubt she's ever given the slightest thought to anything Indian, with the possible exception of outsourcing and, perhaps less possibly, food.

Second, she may not have been said she should have been at the top of the ticket, but you don't have to read too deeply between the lines -- her message is clear. She thinks the McCain campaign disrespected her and that it failed in large part because it kept her on the sidelines. She is nothing if not a massive egotist, after all, a self-aggrandizing, self-glorifying fool. And just imagine what it would have been like had she been at the top. She wouldn't have been able to hide from the media after those embarrassing interviews with Katie Couric et al., and she would only have embarrassed herself further. At least McCain had some legitimate bona fides as something of a maverick (however faux) and had some credibility on foreign policy. Palin had nothing, and it was only a matter of time, a short amount of time, until that initial burst of popularity blew up.

Third, the "change" Americans wanted in '08 wasn't the sort of change Palin was offering, which really wasn't change at all but more of the Bush-Cheney same with a bit more social conservatism thrown in and much less of an appreciation for reality (not that Bush and Cheney appreciated reality all that much, but at least they had a sense of the world -- yes, even Bush).

Fourth... oh, enough Palin for now.

Once again, all we're getting is the same old maybe-maybe-not bullshit about running for president. But her popularity has plummeted. He still has her ardent admirers on the right, in the deepest recesses of the GOP base, but pretty much everyone else, including not just independents but once-mainstream Republicans and establishment conservatives, wants her to go away.

She won't, of course, but her days as a legitimate contender, if she ever was one, are well behind her.

Reasons for concern

By Carl 

It really looks like the entire South Asia/Middle East/Northern Africa is about to go up in flames:

1) King of Jordan Dismisses His Cabinet 

2) Poland warns Belarus: Change or risk overthrow 

3) Turkey: Mubarak Should Leave Now 

4) India: Raja's arrest does not affect credibility of PM, govt: Congress 

5) Pakistani soldier killed in border clash with Afghanistan (Roundup) 

6) Report: Russia to retaliate against Ireland over spy claim 

7) ANALYSIS-Palestinians expect a boost from new Egypt 

8) Qatar men linked to terrorism attacks 

9) Tunisian Interior Minister Says Security Services Spark Unrest 

10) UPDATE 1-W.African currency zone worried about Ivorian fall-out 

11) Sudan's protests triggered by long-term economic, political frustrations 

12) Mubarak Fails to Quell Protests as Turmoil Spreads to Yemen 

13) How leaders of Bahrain, Jordan, Syria and Yemen plan to keep control 

14) Unrest in Egypt Risks Spreading Into Algeria, Standard and Poors Forecasts 

15) African Unrest Puts Europe's Gas at Risk as Oil Gains 

And then there's Egypt...

Look, a few of these, and I think with a little diplomacy and a lot of patience, we might see a peaceful resolution that enhances stability, in the short-term at any rate. What this kind of instability does is makes US foreign policy become a hodgepodge, because not only are these nations troublesome, but any tinpot dictator worth his salt, like Muammar Qaddafi, is going to start rattling sabres, looking to cut a deal with the US that will blow up in our faces eventually like Saddam Hussein did.

In the meantime, it only takes a spark...

This. Is. Scary.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Mobile email and its discontents

By Peter Henne

I had half-expected the UAE and Saudi ban on some BlackBerry services to be an esoteric topic; the details of telecommunications policy in Gulf states is hardly a regular conversation point. As a DC resident, however, I daily wade through seas of people made oblivious to the world around them by these devices. For better or worse, mobile access to the internet and email is the lifeblood of many, so this story is of concern to both the business and human rights communities.

Two aspects of the story stand out. The first is the rather technical justification put forward by Saudi and UAE authorities. The UAE has claimed they want only the "same regulatory compliance" that other states demand from telecommunications companies, while the Saudis talk of "regulatory requirements." Most agree this is blatant censorship, but it is useful to compare it to Pakistan's blasphemy-based justifications for recent limitations on internet access. This hardly endeared the Pakistani government to international opinion, but it did generate support among some religious conservatives. That the Gulf states--especially Saudi Arabia--seem to be avoiding religious appeals demonstrates the balancing act involved in their attempt to be an integral part of the global economy.

The second interesting element is how widespread moves to censor BlackBerry seem to be. Both India and Lebanon have been moving towards similar controls. And Indonesia apparently considered limitations on email access, but recently claimed there would be no ban on the services. That relatively open countries like India and Indonesia are concerned about BlackBerry access shows these policies are not tied to the peculiarities of the Gulf states.

The efforts to limit BlackBerry access are part of the tension between states benefiting from the free flow and ideas and resources in the modern international system, and their desire to limit their vulnerability from these flows. The problem is not that these states have a limited understanding of the Internet--as some have argued--but that they understand it all too well.

Obama calls on Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not sure if it'll accomplish anything, but I think Obama's efforts to engage the totalitarian military junta that rules Burma* and brutalizes the Burmese people are admirable, yet more evidence of the dramatic shift away from the military-oriented, unilateralist approach that characterized Bush's foreign policy.

"Despite years of good intentions," said the president, "neither sanctions by the United States nor engagement by others succeeded in improving the lives of the Burmese people." And he's right. "So we are now communicating directly with the leadership to make it clear that existing sanctions will remain until there are concrete steps toward democratic reform." Specifically?

There are clear steps that must be taken: the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; an end to conflicts with minority groups; and a genuine dialogue between the government, the democratic opposition and minority groups.

That would certainly be a positive start, though, of course, the lives of the Burmese people will only improve in any meaningful way once the totalitarians are overthrown or otherwise removed from power, preferably in some sort of peaceful transition, however unlikely that may seem given the junta's iron grip.

Engagement alone won't be enough. Ultimately, what Obama will need to do -- if he's serious about this -- is persuade Burma's neighbours, notably India and China, that it is in their best interests to stop supporting, and enabling, the junta. The problem is, beyond humanitarianism, it isn't clear that it really is in their best interests, given how they both profit from their economic relationships with Burma, notably from their access to Burma's natural resources.

Furthermore, Burma just isn't significant enough to destabilize the region. And it's not like Burma is important enough to the U.S., either in economic or national security terms, for it to risk worsening its generally positive relations with India and China by demanding their support in a unified front against the junta. The key is India, which, as a democracy, could perhaps be persuaded to stop propping up totalitarianism. Perhaps that would be enough to compel the junta to loosen its grip.

For his part, though, Obama has at least inserted the wedge that could lead eventually to long-term change in Burma. And that's a very positive start in its own right.

**********

* As I put it here, let's all please call it Burma, not Myanmar:

Can we all please stop calling it Myanmar? That's the name the military junta -- then the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), since 1997 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) -- gave the country when it declared martial law
in 1989.

As Yale law professor Amy Chua puts it in her book World on Fire (p. 23): "Members of the majority ethnic group in Burma are called Bamahs (in the spoken language) or Myanmahs (in the written language). The newly independent state that emerged from the end of British colonial rule in 1948 was called the Union of Burma. In 1989, SLORC changed the country's name to Myanmar. (It also changed the names of various cities: Rangoon, for example, is now called Yangon.) In deference to the democratic opposition party, which has refused to acquiesce in the name change, the United States government currently refers to the country as Burma, and I do the same."

We all should do the same. Burma it is.

Thank you.

Killer bear kills militants in Kashmir cave killing spree

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The title of this post says it all. But here are the details:

A bear killed two militants after discovering them in its den in Indian-administered Kashmir, police say.

Two other militants escaped, one of them badly wounded, after the attack in Kulgam district, south of Srinagar.

The militants had assault rifles but were taken by surprise -- police found the remains of pudding they had made to eat when the bear attacked.

It is thought to be the first such incident since Muslim separatists took up arms against Indian rule in 1989.

The militants had made their hideout in a cave which was actually the bear's den, said police officer Farooq Ahmed.

Oops. Not a smart move. How can these militants be expected to take over Kashmir if they can't even run their own cave without, you know, getting killed by a bear?

Otherwise, I wonder what Colbert thinks of bears now. Are they an even greater threat, or are they on his side at long last?

Endgame?

By Carl

Not that there's a formal clock for this sort of thing...world events tend to lie in the mud until they explode like an IED... but the sense I get from the news is that we're heading for a big, big conflict.

1) Iran protests: Regime cracks down on opposition as further unrest looms -- In itself, this would not be troubling me, beyond my concern about Iran in general, both as a harbor for terrorism as well as a genuine hope for democracy at some point. Iranians are highly intelligent and educated people. But add to this...

2) Carter challenges Gaza blockade as he meets Hamas leaders -- ...and you have the makings of a regional crisis. See, Bibi Netanyahu, the troubled and troubling Israeli prime minister, is on a two-pronged dilemma. On the one hand, he has to assure his supporters with respect to the Palestinians. On the other, he has a credible threat to Israel's very existence with Iran's budding nuclear development program.

It is likely that Netanyahu will compromise on the Jewish settlements question at Obama's behest, in exchange for the very real possibilty of an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Which would then get the attention of...

3) Russia, China urge talks on North Korea -- ...which now brings Putin and Hu into the fray, since both have expressed support in the past for Iran for different reasons, and neither of whom is particularly friendly to either Israel nor its existence. By forcing them to divide their attentions between Iran and North Korea, we have a very real threat from...

4) North Korea threatens merciless attack if it is provoked -- ...which is responding to the Obama statement about their nuclear program being very troubling. Now, North Korea has been sharing technology and resources with...

5) EU to pledge humanitarian aid for Pakistan -- ...which is fighting on three separate fronts, all in or near its borders: the Swat valley, the Indian border and of course, against...

6) Several dead in Pakistan bombing -- ...internal terrorism, the same scourge that killed Benazhir Bhutto. These attacks grow out of the panic and fear of radical Islamists that...

7) Skirmishing ahead of new Pakistan offensive -- ...Pakistan is getting serious about assisting in rooting out the Taliban and short-circuiting their attempts to not only reclaim Afghanistan but to annex the territories of northwest Pakistan, all while...

8) Pakistan sought time to act against militants: India -- ...trying to coax yet another nuclear power, India, into a regional conflict.

Talk about your basic clusterfuck! You have all the elements of a world war right there: radicalism, armaments, regionalism, and three superpowers who seem to be eyeing each other with a mixture of contempt and confusion. And that's before we consider the residual effects of American involvement in Iraq (weakened fighting forces, exhausted materiel, resentment on the part of Iraqis) and the world economic crisis, which is only now filtering down to the very poorest of nations.

And then there's Africa, my pick for the single biggest story this year... hell, even Europe and America are not immune from the vagaries of hate!

All this occurs against the backdrop of the single biggest crisis to confront man in millenia.

And man does not handle crises well.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Pakistani government aid to militants

By Robin J. Walker

Robin J. Walker, a national security and international relations scholar and policymaker with a special interest in South Asia and non-proliferation, is a fellow at the Truman National Security Project.

This is Robin's first post at The Reaction. Check out his blog Smart Influence, which he started just last month. It features some extremely sharp commentary on his national security and foreign policy interests. -- MJWS

**********

A front page article in Thursday's New York Times explored the support that Pakistan's government, specifically the S wing of the Inter-Service Intelligence, or ISI, is still providing to militant groups, including the Taliban, who are conducting attacks in Afghanistan. This support has continued despite repeated requests and high level visits from American and British officials.

These militant connections are partly to counter fears of Indian encirclement, since India has invested heavily in Afghan reconstruction, and most of the Pakistani military still sees India, not the militants, as their main threat and opponent, and Pakistan has a long history of using militants as proxy fighters against India, particularly in Kashmir. This connection fairly clearly led to the bombing of India's embassy in Kabul last summer.


A few key questions remain:

1) How closely was the ISI involved in last November's Mumbai attacks by Lashkar-e-Taiba? Was it just intelligence sharing and protection, as Pakistani officials claim, or was the whole thing a proxy attack planned by Pakistani military, or even civilian, leadership?

2) How deep do the connections between ISI and the militants run? Is it largely the work of a "few bad apples" who maintain their ties, or something much bigger?

3) What can the United States/coalition do to entice Pakistan to renounce support for these groups and leaders? Certainly just sending the Predator drones into Quetta and elsewhere in Baluchistan is possible (and being debated -- watch for news of expanded strikes in the next few weeks), but is it worth the cost?

(Cross-posted from Smart Influence.)

Sex torture: Mumbai suspect claims abuse

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This headline from Wednesday's Telegraph piqued my curiosity:

Female FBI officer 'tortured Mumbai terror attacks suspect with sex'

According to Fahim Ansari, one of the planners of the attacks, "three foreigners, including [a 'white woman], sexually abused him, causing him 'severe itching and wounds' on his body, including his genitals. A Muslim, he claims that "this amounts to torture because it is against his religion."

And I suppose it is, however little sympathy we may have for him, given that -- assuming this is true -- he was degraded and humiliated (and perhaps physically harmed).

Now, it may all be a lie aimed at discrediting Indian authorities, but -- again, if true -- it further undermines the non-Muslim world's standing in the eyes of Muslims, contributing (along with Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and the CIA's black sites) to the massive gulf that separates us from them.

And, yes, I know, when it comes to human rights, the Muslim world has, on the whole, no credibility at all. But we, Indians and otherwise, should be better than this.

Other nations and security

By Carol Gee

Since September's growing awareness that the planet was in financial trouble, it has become more and more clear that human beings are connected to each other. As global financial sectors cascaded downwards in value, all of us came to understand the reality* of globalization and interdependence. And as we watched terrorists attack Mumbai, India, we were reminded of our own vulnerability as the drama played out in real time or video clips broadcast over and over. We in the U.S. had a few 9/11 flashbacks. People in the United Kingdom and Spain probably flashed back to their own terrorism experiences.
In another era it would have taken people weeks, months or years to understand the gravity of the fiscal and national security situations. Fiber optics and satellites changed the way we perceive earth's realities, however, both in speed and in actuality of form. The past few months' meltdown and terror news got into our heads and our guts very rapidly as we watched TV, read the papers and surfed the Internet. Not long after that, it also got into our mailboxes as the consequences of the financial meltdown got more close and personal. And it entered our phones as friends and relatives learned of their losses in India.

We have no idea what it was actually like to the players on this global stage. But we got a lot of hints. In our guts, we pick up on clear signs of fear, anxiety, panic, anger, and confusion. The resultant clouded thinking was apparent in both the fiscal and security realms. And that still goes on to this day. We can see it all play out as our government and other governments try to get on top of their various crises. For Germany it meant fiscal hunkering down, for Canada it meant Parliament going home until the end of January. For India it meant dealing with their old Pakistani enemies without going nuclear. For the United States it has meant a leadership vacuum that has a lot of worried people watching it play out.

As with all crises, things eventually calm down. Crisis theory tells us that is usually about six weeks. Failure to exercise appropriate leadership happens when people in authority are still overly anxious and confused, or when they completely zone out. Successful leaders either get on top of their emotions and more rational thinking takes over, or they turn it over to someone who can exercise rational decision making. And in all Democracies the decisions must be taken under the rule of law.

India, Germany, Pakistan,* Canada# and the United States are all forms of democracy* at one level or another. Post-colonial India's long-standing democratic government is relatively weak as contrasted with the strength of their technology sector. Post-war Germany is a democracy fused from East and West Germany as well an an integral part of the emerging European Union. Pakistan is a brand new democracy born out of a military strong-man, a recent assassination, privation, tribalism and lawyer protest marches. Canada's parlimentary democracy emerged from British colonialism, and still struggles to keep its ethnic cohorts together and exercise power under Great Britain's Queen's Governor General. And, finally, the United States' constitutional and electoral processes dictate presidential lame-duck-dom for almost three months following the elections.

Yes, it always comes back to leadership within and between whatever forms the democratic governments take. We can only watch as foreign and domestic leaders react to the demands of the crises and of their own laws. It is messy and convoluted and frustrating to the citizens of all the nations mentioned. But the alternative is even messier. Leaders employ guns and bombs, threats, lies, rigidity and stubbornness, piracy, financial anarchy and partisanship. Those tactics or automatic reactions come out of real or perceived crisis, of failed dogma, of greed and contempt for the rule of law. Each gets in the way of leaders managing the crises. We are all left to chill and watch it play out, keeping our own feelings of fear, anxiety and helplessness under control.

What else helps? India must remain cooperative within the world community who stands ready to provide help and support. For example the U.S. diplomatic and national security initiatives appear to be working at the moment. Germany's Angela Merkel might regain rationality and a sense of the benefits of interdependence. Pakistan, with a few successes, may grow to see itself as more a part of the solution to terrorism than a willing safe haven for terrorists. Canada will sort out its leadership challenges, celebrate the holidays and take a breather. And we in the United States, through rational thinking and faith in the democratic process, messy as it is, will get through this recession and presidential transition. We must support our President-elect's leadership within the rule of law. And we must as a nation eventually hold the leaders who have not been rational officials operating within the rule of law accountable. We must stand back and be wise, trust the process and just chill. Have some eggnog, save some money, put up mistletoe, turn off the TV, and let your Senator or Congressperson know it would be OK to be decent and generous to blue collar as well as white collar American workers. Mark January 20th, 2009 on your calendars. We have 44 more days of this; then the grownups get to be in charge again.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Bond lives

By Capt. Fogg

As I keep saying, it's not terrorism if you're not terrified. The notion of a United States with 300 million people cringing and cowering in fear that a dozen nutjobs from abroad might come and shoot us all is, quite frankly disgusting and reminding ourselves at every football game that we live in the home of the brave doesn't seem to have much of an effect. Very odd in a country where so many of us are heavily armed.

As one who grew up in the years immediately following WWII, I've long been impressed with the stories of the citizens of London going about their business, upper lips as stiff as Sheffield steel while the bombs and rockets fell from the sky, night after night. People slept in the underground and in the suburbs, houses such as my parents once lived in had a reinforced bomb shelter in the back garden. If they were terrified, they kept it to themselves. England was devastated, the English were not.

I have to be impressed by the story related today in the Daily Mail by an Englishman who took refuge in a restaurant in the Taj Mahal hotel while the shooting went on on the other side of an improvised barricade.

I was extremely lucky. I was with a very good bunch of people. Three or four of us were Brits,

said Nick Hayward. Remaining calm and sober, they conducted a search for booby traps and built barricades.

At 5 o'clock in the morning, as it began to seem that Indian troops would soon retake the hotel lobby, the group, stirred but not shaken, found some glasses and a bottle of vintage champagne:

[T]he head waiter came rushing across to me and said, "No, no, you can't do that!" and I said, "Well we're going to" and he said, "No sir, those are the wrong type of glasses. I shall find you champagne flutes."

My kind of people -- and my kind of hotel.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Terror in Mumbai

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm sorry I haven't posted yet on the situation in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), but I just haven't had much to say about it. Without any specific expertise in the matter, and without any specific knowledge of what's going on, or of why, I find that I'm just trying to take in as much as possible, reading and watching what I can, captivated by first-hand accounts and deferring to experts.

I'm sure I'll have more to say as more is known (and as I narrow down my list of links), but, for now, here's the latest from CNN: The death toll is up to 125, with over 300 wounded, and the fighting continues, including at a Jewish center. (For the latest on the specific buildings under attack, see here.)

See also the coverage at the Times: "Indian Forces Fire at Jewish Center."

The BBC has more, plus some solid background and analysis: "This points to either a major shift in strategy by an existing group or the influence or direction of outside parties, perhaps even al-Qaeda, whose style of attacks this mimics."

Finally, Joe Gandelman, my boss at TMV, has an excellent post up on how the attacks are being covered, in real time, by Indian bloggers and on Twitter.

"Horrible" is the word that comes most often to mind.

When the boom is over, what happens then?

By Carol Gee

(image: Wordle)

Many big things have been happening that make the news. We shake our heads and say, "Not again." These headlines, for example, signify big deals, big "booms," so to speak: Russia test fired a old missile. India sent a rocket towards the moon. A U.S. air strike went awry in Afghanistan, killing Afghan soldiers by mistake. Stock markets are crashing all around the world signifying the end of a financial boom. And the McCain presidential campaign is not expected to explode victoriously into the headlines on election day. And still we worry. Roger Simon was able to capture our mood perfectly in his column for Politico today, "Democrats' Gloom Deepens." We are superstitiously afraid that Barack Obama's meteoric track will not bring him the presidency, that there is still a booming October surprise waiting to happen to spoil it. But there is often a bit of good news to counter the bad, if we look for it hard enough:

Space remains mostly peaceful -- "India launched its first unmanned moon mission on Wednesday following in the footsteps of rival China, as the emerging Asian power celebrated its space ambitions and scientific prowess," according to The Financial Times story. This is good news we hope, in step with the recent promulgation of "Keep Space For Peace Week,"* celebrated internationally by activists around the globe.

Military might is not the only force with power -- "Russia test-fired an intercontinental Stilet missile on Wednesday as part of the checks needed to extend the service of the weapon until 2010, the strategic missile forces said. The missile, which belongs to a type commissioned in 1979 . . ," reports Yahoo! News. At the same time there was this positive news from the BBC News: "Western donors have pledged $4.55bn (£2.7bn;3.5bn euros) to help rebuild Georgia, two months after its conflict with Russia."

Some plans go terribly wrong, others work unexpectedly -- "Nine Afghan soldiers have been killed and three others wounded in an air raid by US-led forces in eastern Afghanistan," as reported by Aljazeera. In the meantime, the BBC reports that many of al tQaeda's websites have been down for weeks, fueling speculation that hackers or counterintelligence targeted the key websites.

The way out of the economic crisis depends on the individual efforts of all of us, doing what we can to help. "A fresh batch of downbeat earnings and gloomy outlooks pushed US stocks sharply lower on Wednesday as concerns grew over the difficulties facing corporate America in the wake of banking sector turmoil," The Financial Times writes. In the midst of the turmoil, it seems to me that Barack Obama's brand of "Communitarian Populism" could be just the sort of governance needed. We are going to need all the help we can get to right the listing the ship of state, and we are much of the help we need.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Unrest in the world -- a Bush Legacy

By Carol Gee

U.S. in push for foreign arms deals: report," a story from Reuters (9/14/08), lays out a very unpleasant reality. The Bush Doctrine is at the center of a "military-industrial complex" that seems to have no boundaries. Eight years after the terrorist attacks on the United States, this administration seems to know only conflict, military arms and business as usual. Rather that focusing on peace, the budget goes largely for an interminable war. Congress and the president prop up military contractors, who often manufacture cold war systems. And diplomatic gross ineptitude results in uneasy relationships with countries all around the world. To quote:

The Bush administration is pushing through a wide range of foreign weapons deals in a bid to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan and contain North Korea and Iran, The New York Times reported.

The deals range from tanks, helicopters and fighter jets to missiles, remotely piloted aircraft and warships, the Times said in its Sunday editions. The weapons and other military equipment foreign sales have totaled more than $32 billion this year, compared with $12 billion in 2005.

While the focus has been on the Middle East, sales extend to northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and Canada, the Times said.

"This is not about being gunrunners," the Times quoted Bruce Lemkin, the Air Force deputy undersecretary who has coordinated many of the largest sales, as saying. "This is about building a more secure world."

The reality is that since 9/11/01, terrorism has been on the rise. And the unfortunate myopic Middle East regional bias means neglect of other places where the U.S. might be helpful. India for example has a large problem, of which we are seemingly unaware. About all that interests the U.S. regarding India right now is a questionable nuclear deal. Another Reuters article details: "India police raid slums, relatives angry after bombs," (9/14/08). To quote: "The National Counterterrorism Centre in Washington says 3,674 people had been killed in militant attacks in India between January 2004 and March 2007, a death toll second only to that in Iraq."

Meanwhile much of the world does not have enough to eat. Global warming is on the rise, threatening farming, particularly in Africa. A recent e-mail from David Lane from One.org, reminded me that the unpleasant reality of starvation is, at times, the direct result of lack of a decent U.S. development effort, conflict and war. Again, the U.S. budget figures attest to administration priorities. To quote:

High food and fuel prices continue to have a catastrophic impact on the world's poorest people and threaten to roll back some of the great progress we've made alleviating poverty in areas including AIDS, malaria, and education.

Later this month, world leaders are going to the United Nations in NYC. They’ll be discussing the world's progress toward the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs)—critical issues like health, education and water. They must also act on the food and hunger crisis. There are 30 countries in immediate need of emergency food assistance and essential seeds and fertilizer. These countries have created specific plans to feed the hungry and prevent future crises by enabling people to provide for themselves. Meeting these emergency needs requires $1 billion in funding by the end of this year.

Here is where you can sign a petition, the letter reads: "As world leaders come together for the United Nations summit, please ask them to close the book on the hunger crisis. Please click the link to add your name to our petition asking them to do so:" Petition link The petition reads:

Please provide life-saving food and essential seeds and fertilizer to the 30 countries that need it most by filling the 2008 food and agriculture funding gap of $1 billion without delay.

Condi travels to Libya for a historic meeting, as well as several other places abroad. The definition of enemy has undergone an amazing transformation under the Bush administration. They are able to have a set of conflicting standards for who is favored or unfavored. Syria is still out of favor. The "Damascus Spring" in Syria has faded into memory, according to the Financial Times. To quote [regarding Syria]:

. . . activists point to other Middle East states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have poor human rights records but enjoy strong ties with the west – even adding Libya to the list after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the north African state last week – to argue that international relations are one thing, internal reform another.

"What Is Condeleeza Rice REALLY Doing Over There?" asks my regular contributor, "betmo," who sent me this link to Bluebloggin (9/7/08) Security was very high. Dick Cheney was traveling in other parts. A good deal of it has to do with AFRICACOM, the strange strategic hybrid of military melded with diplomacy. To quote:

Rice arrived in (staunch US ally) Morocco late on Saturday after visiting Algeria and Tunisia and holding a historic meeting with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli.

Rice’s visit is her first as secretary of state to this region of increasing strategic importance in terms of oil resources, emigration and terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine had no meaning for Republican Veep candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, until it was explained to Palin incorrectly by ABC's Charles Gibson, during their interview. The doctrine of preventive war is at the center of a Bush-military-industrial complex that has no boundaries. Bush business as usual means an interminable "preventive" war in Iraq, certainly a contradiction in terms. Uneasy relationships all around the world -- what a legacy!

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Bush legacy

By Carl

I had intended a very different post this morning, until I logged into the news...

1) Caucasus ceasefire holds despite war of words - The ceasefire in the Caucasus conflict appeared to be holding today as Russia reported the pullback of Georgian troops from South Ossetia and denied Georgian claims that it was deploying more troops on Georgian territory outside the disputed province.

In particular, Moscow denied Georgian claims that 50 of its tanks were in Gori, the Georgian city near the Ossential border. The city had been abandoned by its authorities who had fled, said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian General Staff. "We cannot find anyone. How they were evacuated and what happened there is a mystery to us," he said.

Russia continued to vent its anger on what it called Georgian aggression and atrocities as European foreign ministers gave the Union's blessing to a ceasefire accord that was brokered in Moscow yesterday by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President and current EU chairman.

2) Western Aid Workers Ambushed, Killed Near Kabul - Afghan officials say gunmen have killed three foreign aid workers - all women - during an ambush in eastern Logar province.

3) Lebanon Bomb Kills at Least 10 People - A bomb hidden in a briefcase exploded on a bus in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli during morning rush hour on Wednesday, killing at least 10 people and wounding 30 others, the Lebanese Army said.

Lebanon has suffered a wave of bombings in recent years, including the 2005 killing of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri, which led to political upheaval in the country. However, the attack Wednesday was the first large-scale bombing in months.

4) Death toll hits 20 in Kashmir protests - Violent protests continued across Kashmir Wednesday, as the death toll from the past two days of demonstrations rose to 20, a senior police official said.

5) Philippines 'Liberates' 15 Villagers From Muslim Rebels - Philippine security forces on Wednesday announced they have "liberated" 15 villages forcibly occupied by Muslim rebels since July after three days of heavy fighting in southern Philippines.

Philippine Defense Chief Gilberto Teodoro, Jr., said the rebels retreated on Sunday after heavy air and ground assaults. More than 80,000 people displaced by the conflict in North Cotabato, have returned home.

Teodoro's statement was confirmed by Major-General Armando Cunanan, commander of the Armed Forces Eastern Command. He confirmed that the estimated 800 Moro Islamic Liberation Front guerillas that occupied the villages have fled.

6) Pakistan bomb hits military truck; at least 14 dead - At least 14 people were killed Tuesday in the roadside bombing of a Pakistani military truck, an attack authorities blamed on Islamic militants.

The powerful blast occurred just outside Peshawar, the nearest large city to a tribal area along the border with Afghanistan that has been raked by fighting for nearly a week.

7) Al-Qaida linked group takes sides in recent coup - A terror group linked to al-Qaida called for holy war in Mauritania following a coup last week that overthrew its democratically elected government.

"You Muslims prepare for war and raise the banner of jihad. Let us shed our blood, let our limbs be dismembered until we regain the wise caliphate rule," said the statement posted Tuesday on an Islamic web site.

The statement was signed by Abu Musab Abdulwadood, the leader of Al-Qaida in Islamic North Africa, a cell that has been blamed for a string of attacks in Mauritania including last year's murder of four French tourists.

8) Three Security Officials Killed in W. China

- Three security officials were killed at a roadside checkpoint in western China's Xinjiang region Tuesday when at least one assailant jumped off a passing vehicle and stabbed them to death, state media reported. It was the third deadly incident in nine days, coinciding with the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

We were supposed to be bringing peace to the Muslim world. We were going to give them a spoonful of democracy and hold their noses and ram it down their throats until they swallowed it whole, then pat them on the head and say "Good boys! Now go out and play..." only they spit the medicine out and decided to go out and play.

Which makes sense. Our president plays with his tin soldiers, and expects everyone else to busy themselves with their day-to-day lives, even his own people.

What the Bush regime and their cabal do not seem to grasp is that freedom comes with a price: blood.

Dumbya has tried to run bloodless coups across the Arabic and Muslim world, but these are not stupid people. These are nations with histories and cultures and yes, they've been thru this before, as recently as the 20th Century when the patrician states of Europe divvied up the Middle East along economic and not population lines.

And now the djinn is out of the bottle. Now the festering violence that had simmered but remained in control, bottled up by the rational thoughts of men and women, has flared up and is spreading across the nations of Asia and even Europe like a fire that cannot be contained by mortals.

And Bush and his cronies laugh, leaving a world far worse off than they inherited. We were at peace. We spent eight years of the Clinton Administration at peace and in prosperity, with surpluses of goodwill and good money.

Now our dollar, so closely tied to those interests that we have antagonized, has fallen through the floor. When Bush took office, the euro purchased about 80 cents American. Now, the dollar purchases about one-third of the euro. Now our dollar, tied to the price of oil, works against us, not for us, as consumers pay more and more for gasoline and heating oil, precisely because our President has bungled the first and only mandate of his office: to faithfull execute the office of President of the United States.

That's not *some* states, Mr. Bush, but ALL states, and that means you had a fiduciary duty to this country to prevent harm. And that means not only interior to our borders but to protect us from harm outside them as well: aid workers shouldn't be killed in Afghanistan because of miserable decisions on your part that will benefit you long after you have shuffled off these (and I use the term loosely, because you clearly believe in lip service) "responsibilities".

Indeed, it is likely that whomever handles your personal wealth has already instituted a "win-win" for you. If this were a fair and decent world, you would be made to pay restitution out of your pocket to the thousands of families of American soldiers who have died fighting your war, sir.

Your war. Not ours. You scratch your head and wonder why the nation nearly to a man disagrees with you on this point? It is because we had no say. Indeed, we were told that dissent in a time of terror alerts was unpatriotic, as if patriotism stops outside our borders.

Well, we see a far greater terror within and it sits in a chair in an Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and fortunately, it will be extricated, by hook or by crook, on 20 January, 2009.

Mark that date carefully, Mr. Bush, the day you are exiled from public life, the day when even the neo-cons of the Cato Institute will refuse your calls.

And you will watch in solitude as President Obama and those who succeed him, for indeed, you have started something that will outlast even this next generation of Presidents, successfully prosecute the global conflict that history will deem you have started single-handedly, simply because they have to. It is at that time the true mettle of your faux patriotism will be found wanting and a new paradigm of love of country will emerge.

Americans will love them, not you. You will be reviled in ways that few Presidents can even have nightmares about. You will sit in seclusion, riding out the war on your thousand acres in Paraguay, believing you are safe, not even cowboying up long enough to sit through what you started at Ground Zero, America (possibly more than just a catchy phrase developed by your marketeers, an actual nuclear bombsite).

You will not be afforded the reconstruction that even the most hated president of our time, Richard Nixon, was afforded, because Americans of all stripes will see you for what you are: a shameless, godless buffoon of disproportionate idocy, a man who took a peaceful, prosperous country and tore it apart like a little boy with an Erector set, leaving twisted metal and the burned out engines of American lives lying on the floor.

But who could parrot talking points with the best of them.

That, sir, is your legacy. Enjoy it.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Bush got what he wanted out of Bali

By Carl

He delayed, ran down the clock, deferred, distracted and otherwise pushed off the tough decisions on global warming to the next shnook to sit in his chair:

NUSA DUA, Indonesia — The world’s faltering effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions got a new lease on life on Saturday, as delegates from 187 countries agreed to negotiate a new accord over the next two years — pushing the crucial debates about United States participation into the administration of a new American president.

(emphasis added)

I should add that Bush also got India and China to agree that they would have to take "measurable steps" to reduce carbon emissions. Their concessions at Bali are tantamount to Bush saying he'll withdraw American troops from Iraq "as Iraqis stand up": meaningless, ambiguous and ultimately up to India and China to decide how and when to measure emissions.

So there will be two more years of "jaw, jaw, jaw," as Churchill might have put it, altho in this context, not approvingly I'm sure.

Can you imagine what might have happened in this country if, instead of wasting nearly a trillion dollars on a quixotic quest to quickly inflame the Iraqi quagmire, Bush had instead tackled global warming and climate change, if only for the protection and security of this nation?

If Osama bin Laden is truly bent on destroying the American way of life, he need only wait a few decades. In fact, he can claim credit for it, since he will have distracted this country at nearly its last possible chance to prevent a worldwide catastrophe that will level the entire global economy, if not the entire global power structure.

He might, indeed, have his caliphate after all, simply because Bush had not the wit, had not the capacity, had not even the horse sense, to close the barn door.

Despite Bush's flummoxed approach to foreign policy and to world leaders, the world itself still looks to the US for a lot. Like it or not, interventionist or not, America is a beacon of prosperity and freedom, so if we think a problem is serious enough to tackle (that doesn't involve invading another country and raping its sovereignty), the world will sit up and take notice.

Even China. Even India. Maybe especially China and India, since they are clearly modeling their future economies on our own. We were, after all, wildly successful in preaching the "benefits" of capitalism, while conveniently leaving out some of the shortfalls (to-wit, a real lack of accountability).

You know something? Guess what? This is going to require sacrifice from everyone but especially from those who can afford it the most, meaning us. Again, imagine that foolish trillion spent in a good cause, as a show of good faith, trying to implement reduced carbon technology for India, for China, for Brazil and Argentina and Venezuela.

In America.

Do you think we might have been taken seriously at Bali? Do you think there would have had to be arm-twisting to get nations to show up to Bush's climate summit next year (presumably featuring the next GOP nominee)?

A trillion dollars, "all in" as they say in poker, means either you're a particularly inept bluffer or you've got an inside flush: you're taking the game seriously.

But no, we live in this reality, the one where an incompetent boob was elected (yes, the elections might have been stolen, but they simply shouldn't have been that close to begin with). He raped and pillaged our economy, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while paying lip service to anything that really matters: health care, poverty, crises that affected millions of people.

One trillion dollars. I keep shaking my head at that.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The mystery of the sub-continent

By Carl


We're all fairly aware of the troubles in Pakistan: suspension of civil rights, a madman desperately holding onto power by playing the terror card, a woman poised to reclaimer family's rule, a nation deeply torn by radical political views... yes, I'm still talking about Pakistan... so as I pondered these things this week, I wondered about something.

Pakistan and India have long had enmity and conflict with each other. At one point, in 1998, they each showed the other its dick by testing nuclear weapons and missile systems.

So why has India kept so quiet over a turmoil in its neighbor's house? There seems to be an answer and it's the horns of the dilemma India finds itself on:

Delhi has a very high stake in the political and security situation in Pakistan stabilising as soon as possible. The future of a tentative peace process that has been under way for nearly four years depends on this.

But increasingly, it is alarmed at the intensity of the confrontation between the Pakistani military and militants in the volatile tribal areas.

Historically some of the militant groups in Pakistan have had links with militants fighting Indian forces in Indian-administered Kashmir.

In the past few years the level of violence in Kashmir has come down and India is keen to keep a lid on it.


India fears a worsening of the situation in disputed Kashmir

But there's a growing perception here that the militants are gaining some ground in Pakistan, a situation which has huge potential consequences for India.

So we see this: India has kept to the sidelines because Musharraf has cracked down on the militants, which means Kashmir has been much more peaceful, while on the other hand, it sees the very same militant groups that it is battling in Kashmir positioning themselves to take power (and the Pakistani nukes).

In other words, as it stands down, it simultaneously has had to stay alert.

Another dilemma: by their silence, India has supported Musharraf. Now that Benazir Bhutto is back, there's a conflict: do you back the dictator who's power structure is shaky, or the former president who is not a guarantee of peace in Pakistan, and is not officially backed by the United States, so not even guaranteed a seat at the table?

The US has remained fairly neutral throughout the history of the India-Pakistan conflicts, with a small lean towards India (world's largest democracy, after all, and a great place to outsource jobs to), until September 11, when the US made a strategic decision to hop under the covers with Musharraf. That couldn't have made India happy, although I'm sure it understood the need.

What you may not be aware of, however, is that shortly after that new approach to Pakistan by the US, the conflict in Kashmir intensified, including a bombing in the Indian parliament. By 2002, Musharraf promised hsi crackdown on the Kashmir militants, and by 2003, things had started to settle down.

A very difficult, complicated puzzle is in place, but then, India invented chess. One would imagine they have some experience in these.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)