Chinese Brain Buster

President Obama and his “United Brain Trust” are landing in China for the first time, meaning Dr. AQ Khan’s detailed letters of Pakistan’s nuclear program didn’t go public by chance. With North Korean nuclear proliferation set to be a main course on his tour, Obama's going to need more Ivy grads to solve this brain buster.

"It should be clear where that path leads," Obama from Suntory Hall in Japan, his first stop. “We will continue to send a clear message through our actions, and not just our words: North Korea's refusal to meet its international obligations will lead only to less security, not more."

Calling himself “America’s first Pacific president,” Obama said he won’t “be cowed” by North Korea, but what about China? In letters sent first to his wife, then to former Financial Times journalist Simon Henderson, and later obtained by the Washington Post, Khan vividly recollects Pakistani-Chinese nuclear relations from beginning to end.

1976. Fours years after India tests its first nuclear device, Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto seeks an audience with Mao Zedong where the two agree to exchange nuclear material. Months later at Mao’s funeral, Pakistani and Chinese generals agree to honor their mutual pact and open the channels.

“Chinese experts started coming regularly to learn the whole technology,” Khan recounts, while Pakistani experts helped “put up a centrifuge plant” in Hanzhong, central China. After passing on European-designed centrifuges to progress China’s uranium-enrichment program, China returned 15 tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a key component for uranium enrichment.

Pakistan manufactured its first bomb by 1982 under the cover of Afghanistan.

But it needed more. General.Zia-ul Haq, having assumed power after executing Bhutto, became paranoid of Israeli and Indian conspiracies to preemptively strike Pakistan's nuclear sites. A general was dispatched to Beijing and he returned to Islamabad with 10 single-kilogram ingots of highly enriched uranium (HEU).

"The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us kg. 50 enriched uranium," Khan wrote.

A gradual surplus of material allowed Pakistan's nuclear scientists to store China's uranium until 1985, and Khan offered to return the uranium to China with Zia’s approval. After a few days, they responded "that the HEU loaned earlier was now to be considered as a gift... in gratitude” for Pakistan’s help.

“In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another,” Obama said in present day Japan. "So the United States does not seek to contain China."

Is he sure?

Raising the nuclear transfer during his talks is unrealistic; America needs Chinese cooperation on too many issues. Besides, Obama can't bring up human rights, Internet, Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Pakistani uranium all at once. Ambush Beijing and pay the price. It’s smile time.

Chinese Ambassador Zhang Wenjin called the dispute “manageable.” Similarly, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley responded, "The United States has worked diligently and made progress with China over the past 25 years. As to what was or wasn't done during the Reagan administration, I can't say."

But Khan’s story is just as relevant today. America still needs Pakistan too much to say anything.

Henderson agreed to The Post's request in the first place because he believes an accurate understanding of Pakistan's nuclear history is relevant for today's U.S. policy-making. For instance, Pakistan is extremely proud of being the only nuclear Islamic state, but also a poor power. India, on the other side, is seething at Pakistani-Chinese cooperation both then and now.

The Indian Times reported, “Khan sees this act of stealing, begging and borrowing to make the bomb as a supreme accomplishment by Pakistan. ‘The speed of our work and our achievements surprised our worst enemies and adversaries and the West stood helplessly by to see a Third World nation, unable even to produce bicycle chains or sewing needles, mastering the most advanced nuclear technology in the shortest possible span of time,’ he boasts in an 11-page narrative.”

Allowing Pakistan and China to pursue their nuclear ambitions together is a zero-sum game because India and America are losing power, comparatively speaking. China is the next big thing in Pakistan and both countries want to keep it that way. China’s friendship with Pakistan counters India, while China is a more viable ally to Pakistan than America.

In a display of tensions, Pakistan Foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit called the story, “yet another attempt to divert attention from the overt and covert support being extended by some states to the Indian nuclear program since its inception and intensified more recently in stark contradiction to their self-avowed commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Neither India nor Pakistan has signed the NPT treaty though, President Obama’s newest obstacle.

Technically no one has a right to criticize Pakistan or China, and they shouldn’t need to deny their relationship. Pakistan has never signed the NPT treaty and China signed in 1992, so no law was broken during the transfer. And nuclear alliances have multiple precedents; France and Israel, Canada and India, America and Britain.

The US–UK Mutual Defense Agreement, dealing exclusively with nuclear transfers, was signed in 1958, ten years before the NPT treaty was created in 1968. However, America and Britain renewed their pact in 2004 until 2014. To condemn a strategic alliance between Pakistan and China would be Western hypocrisy at the highest level.

Except Obama is a champion of non-proliferation, it’s his personal issue. He received his Nobel Prize in large part for his advocacy. How can he look the other way? The letter of the law won’t eliminate nuclear weapons, he needs the spirit. Disarmament will be impossible if the world's greatest powers align themselves in nuclear blocs.

What makes a North Korean-Myanmar connection so wrong? The alleged illegality of a transfer is based on absolute nonproliferation among every state on earth. Otherwise the judgment is moral, subjective, elitist - and that system will ultimately fail.

There is no realistic answer to this dilemma for Obama, who has no choice except to look the other way while in China. More than a few Harvard brains are about to be busted.

But eventually he must confront the full implications of nonproliferation if he wants his dream to come true.

COIN 101

The timing had nothing to do with President Obama, but guerrilla warfare is unconcerned. Breaking news of low morale in Afghanistan is the latest psychological and propaganda blow against the White House.

A survey of soldiers, conducted by the US Army from April to June, found that personal morale had improved from 15% in 2007 to 17.6, but unit morale is down to 5.7% from 10%. Mental health problems, to no surprise, increase with each tour of duty. Military officials are racing to lower the ratio of soldiers to mental health officials from the present 1/1,123 to the military's goal of 1/700.

President Obama can take these statistics with a grain of salt: this time he isn't responsible for sliding morale. And although the work is just beginning, annual Army studies are a positive sign that the military is increasing care and supervision of those on the battlefield. Obama has vocally supported veteran care reform and he must keep pushing.

He needs momentum for the future.

Naturally a connection must be drawn between low morale and mission drift. Those troops Obama deployed in March don't really have a mission other than to follow their orders. Knowing your general is upset with the civilian leadership can't be good, nor can the perception that Obama is in over his head. Soldiers are Americans, and they want answers as bad as the rest of us.

Eventually Obama will make a decision, potentially eliminating the present manifestation of this problem, but it could easily take a new form. Despite a solid strategy and accompanying resources, Afghanistan could still drift off course and return, several years later, to the same debate of more troops/less troops, stay/go.

Judging by the Army's survey, Obama must be especially vigilant of troop morale in the next seven years. Assuming that he'll escalate the war, troops will still be fighting in Afghanistan when he leaves office. The relative stability of Iraq isn't likely to visit Kabul in three to five years.

Afghanistan is pure protracted warfare, from the terrain to culture to history to time.

America began its adventure in 1980 by baiting the Soviets and funding the Mujahideen. Civil war between 1988 and 2000 can't be termed direct warfare, but it was a direct result of American interference. Returning in 2001 continued the war where it left off instead of beginning of a new one.

Add another decade of combat, a decade of nation-building, and America is looking at 50 years. Not a stalemate like Korea - half a century of protracted warfare. That's a lot of tours of duty when it's becoming scientific fact what happens to a soldier's mental health.

Quote of the Day

"I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on."

- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

Obama Down

Three weeks ago we likened America and Afghanistan’s election to a plane caught in a downward spiral.

Concluding that, barring a political stalemate, President Obama’s path would finally, “be clear to launch his strategy - to rush the cabin and pull the plane out of its spiral, or to strap on a parachute and escape the crash,” we predicted, “delay again and hit the ground.”

Though a significant distance remains between the ground and the White House, there’s no question which way the plane is headed. The emergency lights are flashing, oxygen masks dangling above, people are screaming.

In the day’s biggest story, the Pew Research Center had Obama down on all fronts, with a CNN poll close behind. Numbers are down everywhere, from his general approval to the economy to Congress, but nowhere is the damage worse than in Afghanistan, where he's bleeding independents.

Only 36% of respondents approved of his handling of the war. Was this number on Obama’s mind when he reviewed and rejected four options presented by his National Security team? Apparently not.

"The president and his team discussed the length of time that it would take to implement the options he's been presented," a senior official said. "The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended. After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time to ensure a successful transition to our Afghan partner."

This quote alone is like the rudder flying off, torn away by the wind, or a sudden explosion from an RPG.

“If there is one lesson to be drawn from the withdrawal of Hamid Karzai's main rival from the second round of the elections - and his own subsequent appointment as president for another term - it is that the ability of outsiders to influence the existing politics of Afghanistan is now near zero,” writes Nader Mousavizadeh in Foreign Policy.

Even if Obama could make a difference, the time for action came before anointing Karzai, at least this sequence would keep the culpability on him. But Obama’s drop in approval corresponds to his botched handling of the election. By waiting until after Karzai is elected to hold him accountable, thereby opening the possibility that he won’t, Obama has handcuffed himself to Karzai’s fate.

Time cannot be reversed, but Karzai's victory should have been withheld. Formally addressing Dr. Abdullah’s complaints instead of writing him off would be followed by an ultimatum for Karzai to release his brother, Wali Karzai, vice-president Muhammad Fahim, and all the others before he’s crowned.

Karzai resisted, Obama caved, and now he's in trouble.

The idea that Afghanistan’s election needed to end is valid because it was holding the country underwater. It needed to end right though, which it did not. Thinking long-term, several months to hammer out a political solution is worth the decade an illegitimate election might cost America in Afghanistan. Many players suggested a Jirga. They still do.

And isn’t that President Obama’s proposition, that a few months deliberation is worth years, possibly decades in blood and treasure?

He was wrong to guide Karzai into power and still delay his strategy based on doubt. He’s wobbling, unable to chastise Karzai, then lead the Western parade by being the first to congratulate him, then start second-guessing his decision.

He can’t blame Karzai for his delay because he put Karzai into power. For this Karzai doesn’t need to answer to Obama, Obama must answer to the American people.

Today Karzai is the delay, but yesterday Obama had another excuse and tomorrow he could have a new one. He hasn’t made any attempt to acclimate the American people to his war, no face time, no prime time, almost no time. The leaks and his public relations do most of the talking.

Yet the day will ultimately come when Obama ships his own troops out. He’s building pressure to epic proportions with each day he holes up in the White House in silence.

This isn’t about wanting to hear more, which Octopus Mountain does. Talking about what he’s thinking, making people aware of more troops, is in Obama’s advantage. He promised transparency - does national security mean information blackout? Isn't America tough? We can take it.

Instead he’s losing the initiative and, most importantly, control of his message. He's ignored his main asset of communication, driving down poll numbers, spreading doubt among allies, and boosting moral among the enemy.

President Obama is a logical man so he should understand the gap in his argument. Consider the best pilot on Earth. Even he or she cannot guarantee a safe landing in a storm, especially in certain topography. It’s near impossible to land in an ocean, on a mountain, in a jungle, whether you’re an ace pilot or a passenger.

Afghanistan is going to be a hard landing.

The question remains what Obama will do. No report indicated talks of withdrawal, obviously that kind of leak could end the war in a second. But after Afghanistan ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent a cable warning against a troop build up, General McChrystal was said to be “furious” after receiving a news cable saying Obama had postponed his decision.

Losing McChrystal would be a back breaker.

Still, Obama doesn’t appear willing to jump out the plane despite Eikenerry warning the political situation is too unstable. He simply wants "promises" from Karzai before sending troops in for political cover at home.

Escalation is also less challenging than tactical withdrawal, and a strategy that redeploys America from Afghanistan while fighting beyond its borders and covertly inside would take unimaginable innovation. Getting out is harder than getting in. We doubt the White House, or any government for that matter, is up to the challenge.

Furthermore, leaving Afghanistan likely triggers a moral alarm in Obama, as it well should. You broke it, you bought it sort of thing. Escalation still seems inevitable, the force too great to pull up from.

Or has irony struck? Quick as lightning it can be. Is Obama considering a troop freeze? How long? He's already going to miss General McChrystal and Admiral Mullen's 12 month window. 2010 will come and go. So many questions without answers, although it makes perfect sense - a frozen commander equals frozen troop levels.

This is the equivalent of going down with the ship, crashing, and hoping to survive. Odds are probably 36%.

Tongue Lock

Being the White House spokesman isn't an easy job and Octopus Mountain won't pretend so. It must be aggravating to know so little, relatively speaking, and to constantly have to deny, defend, or explain in relative ignorance. It must be especially annoying, as the President’s mouth and keeper of his message, to lose control of that message due to government leaks.

But blaming the American people is the wrong course when times get rough.

Probed on the latest rumors swirling around Afghanistan, Robert Gibbs replied, “The President will have an opportunity to discuss four options with his national security team tomorrow. Anybody that tells you that the President has made a decision or - what was the artfully used term last night, "tentatively agreed to" - doesn't have, in all honesty, the slightest idea what they're talking about. The President has yet to make a decision.”

Gibbs’s remarks must be placed into context because he engages in semantics. Yes, Obama hasn’t formally decided on his troop level, but the range isn’t wide. According to numerous sources, just one of which being the NYT, the options remain at 20,000, 30,000, and 40,000. So while Obama hasn’t decided on this detail, he has decided beyond doubt to escalate the war.

Troop levels won’t vary too much in total, either 88,000, 98,000 or 108,000, and neither will the mission - destroy al-Qaeda (and the Taliban.)

Administration officials cited Vice President Joe Biden and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, opponents of a build up, as evidence that no decision as been made. As if Afghanistan will be decided by those two. Reports have consistently pegged Obama at the “McChrystal Lite” strategy of 30,000 troops.

The theory isn’t as baseless as Gibbs’s makes it sound. McChrystal, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates, and Secretary Clinton all approve, or do they lack “the slightest idea what they’re talking about?” Gibbs rebutted the man he began by quoting, General James Jones, National Security Adviser.

“Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false,” Jones said the day before. “He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

So no, maybe he hadn’t formally “received final options,” but the process takes place today. Two days is splitting hairs, not reason to believe reports are contrary to the truth. Perhaps Gibbs has become annoyed by the loss of control.

“I think we've been very transparent throughout this process,” he said. “We've let you all know when these meetings are; we've let you know who's in these meetings; we've put out pictures of these meetings. The President is doing this in a very purposeful and deliberate way to get the best decision. And I promise you that when he makes that decision we'll let you know. And as I've said before, the President will take the time to explain that decision and its reasoning to the American people.”

Two contentions. First, deliberation cannot be assumed as the way to get the best decision. Benefit of the doubt over Obama’s stalling is dispelled by his own alleged skepticism of Karzai. Though the White House was the primary, if not sole actor, in pushing Karzai into power, Obama apparently still has own doubts.

The NYT reported Karzai, “is considered by American officials to be an unreliable partner and is now widely derided in the White House.” Some things no amount of time can fix.

Second, and far more offensive, is the notion that “we’ve been very transparent throughout this process.” Plenty of people believe Obama is right to take his time, but we doubt many would say the process has been transparent. Outside of that group, the majority believes he’s been everything but transparent - anti-war, independents, Congress in general and Republicans in particular, foreign nations like Pakistan.

Not being a military man, it must be especially hard to keep up with the Pentagon, who appears in firm possession of Gibbs’s tongue.

“I would counsel you all to - I got asked on Saturday about a story of approving 34,000 troops, only to be asked yesterday about a story of approving nearly 40,000 troops -- this all two weeks after being asked about whether or not we were coalescing around an entirely different option. I don't know that it's annoying as much as it is generally amusing to watch somebody or some group of people decide they know what only the President knows. You know, it keeps me busy and it's in some ways fun to watch two reports that contradict each other be reported virtually simultaneously.”

“Somebody or some group of people” isn’t just the press, it’s the American electorate, every single person who put Obama into power hoping he wouldn't trigger their Vietnam flashbacks. Everyone in America is playing the guessing game because we’ve been given nothing. And it's not fun, but we’re so glad your amused by our desperate attempt to glean the slightest truth.

Many people aren’t amused, including those leaking President Obama’s intel to the press. So we understand your frustration lies more with them, and is simply being taken out on us. But we aren’t to blame for the darkness we find ourselves in.

We suggest you find other prey.

COIN 101

The London Times is reporting that President Obama will ask NATO for 4,000 additional troops to supplement his surge in Afghanistan; the report cites the now-ubiquitous 30,000 troop level. NATO military officials are to meet in Belgium on November 23 at a “force generation” conference

Except the Times also states, "His appeal is set to be largely ignored, however. At present only two Nato members have offered more troops — Britain and Turkey — and no other country is expected to come up with any."

NATO may open its wallet in the end, but the majority of new troops will be American blood.

Qoute of the Day

"There certainly is a rapid response force; I'll take it a step further – it is called a 'Tailored Fest.' I just wish they would not deny stuff that is actually publicly available if you know where to look for it."

- Seymour Hersh, on the reaction to his story

Nuclear Fallout

Seymour Hersh’s latest digging turned up little that isn’t commonly known to those following the region. Pakistan’s thorough denial of his charges aren’t directed at the actual conspiracy so much as the spirit of conspiracy.

For the record, the following doesn’t exist.

Admiral Mike Mullen, asked about increased American insight into the arsenal, said, through his spokesman, “I am not aware of our receipt of any such information.” (A senior military officer added that the information, if it had been conveyed, would most likely “have gone to another government agency.”)

But the corners Hersh shined his light into could already be theorized: America has in-depth knowledge of Pakistan’s nuclear command structure and little knowledge of the actual weapon’s locations. Pakistan lies and America plays along. Nuclear components aren’t truly threatened either. Hersh, while exploring the possibility, never portrays an Islamic fundamentalist coup as realistic.

The report is good for insight into Pakistan’s tactical workings, particularly Pervez Musharraf’s explanation of the underground tunnel network transporting nuclear material out of sight from American satellites. Pakistan didn't need a rumor that America formed special teams to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear weapons during a state of emergency, but the idea itself is nothing out of the ordinary.

Hersh’s bombshell is more of a flash grenade, a pseudo explosion, through no fault of his own. Those feelings that followed unleashed the essence of Pakistan’s fury.

“Pakistan neither needs any American unit for enhancing the security for its arsenal nor would accept it,” Hersh quoted a Pakistani military spokesman as responding to him.

Then, the day after his story broke, the Foreign Ministry reacted, "Pakistan's strategic assets are completely safe and secure. The multi-layered custodial controls, which have been developed indigenously, are as foolproof and effective as in any other nuclear weapons state. Pakistan, therefore, does not require any foreign assistance in this regard. Nor will Pakistan, as a sovereign state, ever allow any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear and strategic facilities. Any suggestion to this effect is simply preposterous."

Pakistani officials accused Hersh of displaying his "well-known anti-Pakistan bias, calling his article, "nothing more than a concoction to tarnish the image of Pakistan and create misgivings among its people."

But Hersh never said anything too controversial, normal rumors in Pakistan really, and he interviewed figures from both sides, even admitting that America's strategy made Pakistan "hate our guts." Hersh’s real message is the continuing fragility of US-Pakistani and Pakistani-Indian relations,. An ugly truth, hence the backlash.

Perhaps part of America’s new propaganda strategy, Ambassador Anne Patterson called the report “false and baseless,” saying the US had no intention of seizing the country’s nuclear weapons. Here we find an answer - Hersh spent as much time analyzing how terrorists or rogue Pakistanis could seize a bomb, but the focus remains on America.

The mere existence of his report is radioactive, not necessarily what’s in it. Contents of rumors over Pakistan’s weapons range on a relative scale, but raising the issue to begin with, for any reason, is an absolute offense. US-Pakistani relations are like a frozen ocean - stable enough to stand on, infinite distrust underneath.

Hersh quotes a senior Pakistani official who, “exploded with anger during an interview when the subject turned to the American demands for more information about the arsenal. After the September 11th attacks, he said, there had been an understanding between the Bush Administration and then President Pervez Musharraf ‘over what Pakistan had and did not have.’

‘Today,’ he said, ‘you’d like control of our day-to-day deployment. But why should we give it to you? Even if there was a military coup d’état in Pakistan, no one is going to give up total control of our nuclear weapons. Never. Why are you not afraid of India’s nuclear weapons?’ the official asked. ‘Because India is your friend, and the longtime policies of America and India converge. Between you and the Indians, you will fuck us in every way. The truth is that our weapons are less of a problem for the Obama Administration than finding a respectable way out of Afghanistan.’”

“They like us better in Pakistan than you Americans,” said one Indian official. “I can tell you that in a public-opinion poll we, India, will beat you.”

That is the spirit in Pakistan.

30,000 Divisions

Published November 7th, 2009 on Technorati

While White House officials experience déjà vu after President Obama’s leading strategy for Afghanistan once again leaked to the press, the Pentagon must be relieved that deliberation over General McChrystal’s review is nearly complete. That sums up how Obama will likely be greeted - with division.

Administration officials disclosed the source of 30,000 new troops in surprising detail: three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y. and a Marine brigade. Another 7,000 will defend ISAF’s new division headquarters in Kandahar. An official announcement isn’t expected until after Obama’s trip to Asia (Nov. 11-19), decreasing the odds that the White House willingly informed the press.

Obama only stands to lose by having his newest strategy batted around in public; conversely the American people benefit by knowing his intentions. Democrats generally opposed escalation before Hamid Karzai wiggled back into power, and must have cringed when Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Karzai’s legitimacy among Afghans was "at best, in question right now and, at worst, doesn't exist."

“If we don’t get a level of legitimacy and governance, then all the troops in the world aren’t going to make any difference,” he told the National Press Club.

But Mullen still supports a buildup.

Republicans can’t any more enthused. 30,000 troops won’t satisfy them because General McChrystal’s strategy isn’t satisfied; McChrystal determined 20,000 troops pose a “high risk” of failure, 40,000 a “medium-risk, and 80,000 a “low risk.” Another delay will similarly rankle the GOP. With Afghanistan’s election over, now Obama wants to debate with America’s allies?

Shouldn’t he have been doing that all along?

Waiting until after Asia is a calculated attempt to drum up troops and resources from Europe. McClatchy reports, “The administration... wants to avoid creating the impression - at home and abroad - that the U.S. ‘is going it alone’ in Afghanistan, said one military official.” But with Canada and the Netherlands due to withdraw in 2011 and Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Australia restrained by domestic pressure, Obama will be hard pressed to evade the impression of “going it alone.”

Time poses a particularly lethal threat. Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, beginning in May, cited a 12-18 month window to reverse the war; General McChrystal, in his August review, warned of a 12 month deadline. In Obama’s plan, the first combat brigade would arrive in March with the other three following at three-month intervals. Thus the full deployment won’t touch ground until 2011, after that 12 month window snaps shut.

Both parties and their supporters can’t like what they’re seeing in Afghanistan. The war will be hard enough to wage in unity, let alone division.

Quote of the Day

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

- General James Jones, National Security Adviser, on rumors of President Obama's decision in Afghanistan.

COIN 101

Another war between Israel and Hezbollah had become a question of when, not if, before the latest Guardian report from Lebanon. According to one Hezbollah commander, the group expects an Israeli attack within the next year and is preparing accordingly.

Though Hezbollah frequently, and falsely, warns of invasion and would fortify its territory regardless of the odds of war, the motion towards battle is shaking the region. Record US-Israel war games, record arms seizure, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon admitting to spying, Lebanese allegations of sabotage - peace is in the other direction.

Instead of ending conflict, the Litani River only altered its landscape. Hezbollah’s armory is no secret. Said the Hezbollah official, “Sure, we are rearming, we have even said that we have far more rockets and missiles than we did in 2006.”

According to Ronen Bergman, author of Israel’s Secret War with Iran, Hezbollah's 40,000 rockets include Iranian-made Zelzal (range 130mi), Fajr-3, Fajr-5 (range 50mi), and 122 mm rockets (with cluster warheads) and Syrian-made 302 mm rockets. Being pushed back 20 miles from the Israeli border merely forced Hezbollah to increase the range of its missiles. Rockets also remain a deterrent more than a tactical weapon.

Rather than painting over the lines of combat, the Litani river buffer zone redrew them. While the days of reinforcing the Israeli border with arms caches, tunnels, and bunkers are over, Hezbollah maintains a presence throughout southern Lebanon. Individual villages are being “hardened” as the first line of defense and its fighters still inhabit the hills.

"We had to blow up or leave some of our bunkers and fighting positions, but we still have plenty of capabilities in the south,” said the Hezbollah commander.

But the real line of control is being established on the Litani’s northern banks, where Hezbollah is securing the entrances to Beirut and the strategic Beqaa Valley. Lebanon’s dominant agricultural region happens to house opium farms, Hezbollah training camps, and “fallout” shelters - locations considered outside of Israel’s range.

Believing that Israel realizes the southern Litani is mainly a distraction and will aim for the valley, Hezbollah's backbone, the group is busy fortifying the entire region. “We expect the Israelis to come soon," said the commander, if not this winter, then they will wait until spring, when the ground isn't too soft for their tanks."

Militaries must prepare at all times for battle so the latest information isn’t out of the ordinary. A lack of political progress makes the trend extraordinary though, counterinsurgency being equal parts politics and military. Israel and Lebanon haven’t improved relations after 1701, providing the potential spark to piling dynamite.

It's a bad sign when rumors of war are being fueled by Israel's need for a distraction. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems unconcerned with repairing Israel’s aggressive persona, criticizing the UN for not enforcing 1701 and denouncing the Goldstone report while playing the war crimes card in Lebanon.

"It is a war crime that the U.N. Security Council should have a special meeting over," he told reporters in Tel Aviv. "A major component of this shipment were rockets whose only goal was to hit civilians and kill as many civilians as possible — women, children, old people.”

While Israel won't admit that disproportionate force in Gaza or Lebanon targeted the civilian populations, the results indicate a policy of punishing their democratic tendencies. But this strategy hasn’t produced the desired reaction.

Hezbollah didn’t improve its standing in the last election and it shouldn’t have. Hezbollah suffered from high expectations, the decision to hand the entire country to the March 8th bloc being too heavy for independents. Hezbollah did what it needed to do - retain the support it had. After all, it had seen a rough couple of years.

Hezbollah didn’t make the leap, but holding its ground proved that Israeli attacks are futile. Hezbollah stands a greater chance of being defeated on the political battlefield than on the conventional. Israel can't pin down Hezbollah precisely because it forgoes the political for the military. Barring a particularly disastrous error, Hezbollah will never lose its political support among its Shia base, and hence cannot be defeated militarily.

The relative impunity Hezbollah still operates under is explained partly by its popular power and partly by Lebanese president Michel Suleiman, who, in Israel’s mind, has gone soft on the group. Suleiman sided with Hezbollah multiple times in the sense that he condemns Israeli aggression - espionage, warplanes, drones, naval routes, land disputes.

Given that both Suleiman and Hezbollah are concerned of an Israeli assault, the possibility likely factored into speeding up formation of Lebanon’s parliament. Hezbollah has ten seats in Lebanon’s parliament no matter what Israel does on the battlefield, successfully transitioning into the political stage of guerrilla warfare.

The most logical means to disarm Hezbollah is locked inside Lebanese politics. Hezbollah’s arms are a major point of contention in Lebanese negotiations and though unrealistic, Nasrallah is more likely to give his soldiers and arms to the Lebanese army than the UN.

Israel can claim Hezbollah is to blame for everything and that if it simply disarms, there would be no war. But until Israel improves the political facet of its counterinsurgency, Hezbollah will remain entrenched, loaded, and waiting.

Waziristan: Preparing to Storm

Although the Dawn reported that Operation Rah-i-Nija (Path to Salvation) entered its second phase two weeks ago, the other day produced a more accurate account. Regardless, the Pakistani army overwhelmed the TTP and holds the higher hand - literally.

One official boasted, “We have beaten them at their own tactic. This has been the classic Mehsud tactic, encircling and ambushing the enemy from the ridges and commanding features and we did the same to them. They were not prepared for this.”

The first phase, reportedly aimed to capture all major TTP towns in South Waziristan, is nearing completion. 450 militants have been killed in 21 days, according to Major General Athar Abbas. Sherwangi, Kotkai, Kaniguram, Sararogha, Karama, and Ladha Fort have fallen, and the army is preparing to storm Mehsud’s regional HQ in Laddah, the final act of phase one.

Pakistani soldiers are busy clearing mines and funneling into Makeen from Razmak to the north. Troops captured Sheen Sar and the Hanrai Tangi area near Sararogha, and Panj Plorai and Ashkar Kot from the Razmak side. Makeen is the next target and the field is being prepared for battle.

The TTP is not looking good. After putting up stiff resistance initially, Pakistani officials are mocking the TTP’s retreat. Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi told reporters, "The operation so far has been very successful. The resistance that we were expecting initially did not come with the same swiftness we were expecting.”

“We have broken the myth of Taliban’s invincibility and we have also broken the myth that South Waziristan is a no-go area,’ a senior military officer bragged.

The TTP has lost the first of its battles if true. Losing towns isn't as important as putting up resistance. Territory can be retaken, but reputation, once spoiled, is hard to rebuild. The battle is far from over and the TTP might have something up its sleeve, but it’s losing the battle of perception.

In a positive but uncertain sign, no massive attacks have occurred for a week, only the failed assassination of Brigadier Sohail, the third since Waziristan was invaded. Obviously, a week of peace in a modern society like Pakistan demonstrates the opposite view. More attacks are likely coming, it’s just a matter of when.

More than its performance on the conventional battlefield, “victory” to the TTP is won through unconventional attacks on the state. It cannot afford to go silent, especially since it's waging an ineffective guerrilla war in the traditional "fish in water" sense. Political administration officials say almost 99% of the Mehsud population left South Waziristan, leaving the army to attack at will.

If the TTP is permanently crippled then it could be defeated once the tribes return, but anything less will fail to fully capitalize on this opportunity.

Two questions going into Laddah. The government and TTP are locked in a fierce propaganda war, each trying to paint the other as cowardly. The government reports, in addition to taking most militant strongholds with relative ease, fleeing Taliban leaving ammunition caches behind.

Feeling the heat, Hakimullah Mehsud told his fighters in a radio address, “Remember this is the commandment of God that once fighting starts with the enemy, you cannot leave the battlefield without permission from your commander, and don’t look for excuses to run away from the fighting. Of those, who do run away, such people will go to hell.”

Hakimullah also challenged the perception that he was retreating. TTP commanders, The News reported, claim, “their withdrawal from their former strongholds was tactical and that they were planning to launch scattered attacks on security forces.”

The question, then, is what he’s planning to do. Has the TTP been routed, shocked by the Pakistani army scaling mountains, and retreating? Is it tactically withdrawing from towns, assuming it can retake them, and preparing hit and run guerrilla warfare? Or is it attempting to stall until winter?

Qureshi told CBS that Pakistan would go as far as it could until mid-December.

“We would want to achieve our objectives as much as possible before the winter sets in,” he said, “and it seems, as things are going on, that we might be able to do so ... I can't give you a date but that area becomes very cold (by late December). We want to operate and establish our foothold before that."

Maybe the TTP is combining two or more strategies. It’s lost the momentum and the TTP must reverse the swing, but the Pakistani army will fight relentlessly until it no longer can. Surviving may take precedent, which Pakistan must then be vigilant of. Security officials claim Uzbek fighters have relocated to North Waziristan, where Hafiz Gul Bahadur enjoys a truce.

That means they’re waiting to fight.

Secondly, for all the conspiracy theorists, Information Minster Qamar Zaman Kaira and military spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas finally gave them something real to chew on. Abbas said at a press briefing that a large quantity of Indian arms and ammunition, literature, medical equipment and medicines had been recovered from Sherawangi area, near Kaniguram.

India denied the report, as if it would ever admit to the charge. We don’t believe that RAW, along with the CIA and Mossad, funded the TTP to spark a war with Pakistan that would lead to its self-destruction; Hakimullah didn’t need additional motivation to launch his bombing spree.

That said, reports from the field indicate the TTP's arsenal of guns is modern, not cobbled together from relics of past conflicts. Either someone’s importing them or stealing them, or both. Waziristan is a nightmare in reality, but a political scientist’s ideal experiment.

We’re about to see a reaction.

Under Pressure

He was the first to congratulate and the first to rebuke. “I emphasized that this has to be a point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter,” President Obama said of his phone call to Hamid Karzai the morning of his "victory."

That chapter, titled “Anti-Corruption 101,” was recited by a number of Western leaders, most pointedly by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Recently he told reporters amid falling poll numbers, “I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption.”

Karzai has played his part, vowing to tackle corruption and form a national unity government, but like a predator patiently awaiting the right sized prey, he and his team finally spotted their target. Kai Eide, the UN’s Afghan envoy, didn’t go beyond what world leaders are ordering, but he lacks the raw power.

"We can’t afford any longer a situation where warlords and power brokers play their own games,” Eide said on Thursday. “We have to have a political landscape here that draws the country in the same direction, which is in the direction of significant reform.”

Though Obama told Karzai, “The proof is not going to be in words. It’s going to be in deeds,” world leaders should take notice of Karzai’s reaction. It’s closer to his true feelings than his formal response to the West.

“Over the last few days,” read a Foreign Ministry statement, “some political and diplomatic circles and propaganda agencies of certain foreign countries have intervened in Afghanistan’s internal affairs by issuing instructions concerning the composition of Afghan government organs and political policy of Afghanistan. Such instructions have violated respect for Afghanistan’s national sovereignty.”

This statement targets every foreign power in Afghanistan, not just the UN. Karzai is sending a message to back off, and a silent warning that he’ll exploit foreign “intervention” if pushed to the wall.

Clearly relations between America and Afghanistan remain on the rocks. Obama was never a fan of Karzai and seems unhappy as ever. Though America was instrumental in guiding Karzai to power, it came down hard on him during the runoff speculation in order to portray legitimacy. Karzai, believing he already won, felt betrayed.

Karzai went so far as to refuse special envoy Richard Holbrooke, forcing Senator John Kerry to make an emergency appearance. Kerry was hailed for his diplomatic maneuvering and saw his stock rise in the White House, but he’s headed in Holbrooke's direction after making similar remarks on corruption and “cronies.” Admiral Mike Mullen could be next.

A secondary omen is found in Karzai’s syntax. Having made a point to refuse the guilt of corruption, Karzai told a news conference after assuming office, “Afghanistan has been defamed by corruption. Our government has been defamed by corruption. We will strive, by any means possible, to eradicate this stain."

“Our government has been seriously discredited by administrative corruption,” he said. “We will try to remove this stigma from our soil and our country in any possible way."

Except the word “defame” means to ruin a good reputation, which the Afghan government never had when it came to corruption. A “stain” implies that the problem comes from the outside, a spill, not internal bleeding. “Administrative corruption” doesn’t account for a stolen election.

Karzai’s own brother, a CIA asset and drug warlord, isn’t a stain, but a drain. Yet Kerry defended Wali Karzai, leaving us to wonder whether America is as insincere about corruption as Karzai appears to be.

The West always had a high chance of alienating Karzai due to political pressure in their own countries. Karzai knows this, which is why he isn’t that afraid. He knows Obama needs him to succeed, that at least part of his criticism is pandering for the homeland, that America lacks real power to control the Afghan government.

Karzai could change, anything is possible, but applying extreme pressure will more likely turn him to dust than a diamond.

KAL's Cartoon: Hamid Karzai

KAL's Cartoon

Quote of the Day

"There is a sense of confusion and anxiety among ordinary people."

- Al Jazeera's Nour Odeh, reporting from Ramallah, where supporters protested for PA President Mahmoud Abbas to run for reelection

Back to Violence?

The shock is only good for a second or two before the mind acclimates to reality. Dropping out of an election he just called for, Mahmoud Abbas’s decision is right on cue given the recent disruptions to a two-state solution.

“I have told our brethren in the PLO that I have no desire to run in the forthcoming election," Abbas said in a speech broadcast live from his headquarters in Ramallah.

Before anyone compares him to Dr. Abdullah, Abbas declared, "This decision does not at all amount to bargaining or political maneuvering... It is worth noting that I shall take other steps when the time comes."

It’s also worth noting why he’s jettisoning his post.

“We're at cross roads,” he said. “We have made lots of sacrifices in order to be able to have a right to a state. Since the Oslo agreements in 1993, all these agreements are based on land and on peace and an end to Israel occupation of 1967. We've pledged with Israel to reach a two-state solution but month after month we've seen nothing but complacency and procrastination."

Naturally Israel has most to do with Abbas’s decision and Hamas must have worn him out too. But make no mistake, President Obama and his team are part of the problem. Abbas had warned him about going soft.

“We were optimistic when President Obama announced the need for a complete halt to settlements including natural growth,” Abbas said. “We were surprised by his [later] support for the Israeli position... We were surprised by the United States’ closing its eyes to the Israeli position.”

To quote a Haaretz report, “’The problem is Israel and its positions,’ Abbas said, but associates said he really meant Obama, not Israel. They said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's praise for Israel's stand in favor of curtailing but not halting settlement construction stunned Abbas.”

“There was high expectation when he arrived on the scene,” Nabil Shaath, Abbas’s aide and chief of Fatah’s foreign affairs department, said of Obama. “He said he would work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that it would play a major role in improving the American and Western relationship with the Muslim world. Now there is a total retreat, which has destroyed trust instead of building trust.”

"Nineteen years after trying to achieve a two-state solution, maybe the president has come to his moment of truth...He feels betrayed by Arabs, Israelis, some Palestinians and to a certain extent by the Americans," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

These revelations barely fit the definition. Intra-relations between America, Israel, and Palestine are clearly fraying, though the unison and bluntness on Obama is a first. Abbas’s subtraction is a simple equation. His credibility in shambles after the Goldstone affair, Israel and America tried to force him into negotiations through public and private pressure.

But Abbas wasn’t kidding when he warned something had to give. America, told for ten months that failure to freeze settlement expansion would dead-end the peace process, persisted and met with rejection. Told to come back with a real offer, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returned with smoke and mirrors. Several days later Abbas is out.

“We have tremendous respect for President Abbas and the leadership he has offered the Palestinian people for decades,” Mrs. Clinton said Thursday, but the reality is America never gave him a chance.

The latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about to unfold. Though beliefs and emotions lay on the table, the power vacuum in Palestine is growing beyond prediction. Some Fatah officials believe Abbas is bluffing, pointing out that elections might not even happen. The PLO has denied Abbas’s request, though he reportedly told the PLO executive committee, “It's time for you to find another donkey."

Then he has to worry about Hamas. Political chief Khaled Meshaal called the move to hold elections “illegal and unlawful” before a reconciliation deal is reached. “Reconciliation first and then we go to elections,” he insisted.

Hamas is deep in its game and thus difficult to analyze. Looking strong as it steamed towards reconciliation and becoming a legitimate player in negotiations, delaying its signature after the Goldstone affair sent its stock falling again. But Abbas appears to have put Hamas back in the driver’s seat.

More than a few Fatah officials expressed doubt in holding January elections, insisting that reconciliation must come first. Hamas vows to block voting, meaning Fatah, in firm control of the West Bank, cannot expand its power in Gaza. Also, Fatah is worried that without Abbas, its most popular politician not named Marwan Barghouti, Hamas prime minister Ishmail Haniyeh will run a close race.

Hamas officials are privately hoping to win big with Abbas out of the way, even if this requires signing the reconciliation agreement. The prospect of a rising Hamas makes America’s decisions all the more confusing. Abbas was all the West had, but it abused him nevertheless. Now the Palestinian’s most moderate leader has just been compromised.

With Hamas poised to close the gap, who else is America going to turn to? Prime Minister Salam Fayyad appears the best bet, maybe only bet, but championing unilateral statehood rules him out in Israel. This lack of foresight, of a Plan B, is summarized in one line by Nabil Shaath.

“It really is like telling the Palestinians to go back to violence.”

War Crimes Not Created Equal

Overwhelmed by isolation, Senator Jim Webb left Yangon with the only prize he could hope - John Yettaw. But his hands felt empty. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi Ha had been sentenced days before to three years hard labor and Webb’s appearance, the first by an American official in ten years, failed to undue her punishment.

Shocked by how low Myanmar had slipped since he first visited eight years ago, Webb attempted to formulate a strategy when he returned to Washington. In the process he stumbled upon a greater truth that applies the world at large.

“The United States needs to develop clearly articulated standards for its relations with the nondemocratic world,” Webb wrote in a NYT op-ed. “Our distinct policies toward different countries amount to a form of situational ethics that does not translate well into clear-headed diplomacy.”

America could use articulation with democratic and nondemocratic states alike. A current case in point - Sri Lanka.

Steady pressure is mounting on Colombo to speed up the release of Tamil refugees, promote political equality, and address accusations of human rights violations and war crimes. Government inaction and two unflattering reports from America and the EU fueled rumors that General Sarath Fonseka of the Sri Lankan army would be investigated by US officials while on vacation to see his family.

According to Al Jazeera, Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama said US authorities were trying to force Fonseka to testify “as a possible source” against Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the defense secretary and brother of Mahinda Rajapakse, the Sri Lankan president.

Finally the bluff was called, with the help of intense diplomatic pressure. A Foreign Ministry statement reported, “The Chief of Defense Staff General Sarath Fonseka left the United States this morning to return to Colombo. He was not subjected to any questioning prior to his departure by the United States Department of Homeland Security or any other agency of the US Government.”

America made the correct decision to let Fonseka go. The time to investigate Sri Lankan war crimes and interview key participates isn’t while they visit relatives, but the time must come eventually as America’s soft treatment has attracted scrutiny.

Sri Lanka is settling into the common pattern that Webb described: “distinct policies toward different countries.” Sure enough, in every direction we see, “a form of situational ethics that does not translate well into clear-headed diplomacy.”

Take Iran and Afghanistan's elections. President Obama withheld the hammer on Tehran because he was afraid to be seen as meddling, but still lobbed all the fire he could without crossing reds line, a policy that earned him scorn from the right.

Yet those same Republicans cast Dr. Abdullah into the garbage and are eager to begin Karzai’s second act. Obama responded by congratulating Karzai on his victory, one that Abdullah declared “illegal," and everyone is either happy or faking it. The difference between Iran and Afghanistan: Obama needs Karzai and not the Ayatollah.

Needs dictate America’s situational ethics more often than justice, creating the foggy diplomacy plaguing today’s world. She’s peeping under the blindfold.

Condemnation on human rights rings loudest where America's interests are fewest - Sudan, the DRC, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea - and where it needs leverage - China, Russia, Venezuela. Silence and condonation in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indian-ruled Kashmir, Kyrgyzstan, and Sri Lanka is the situational ethics that Senator Webb speaks of.

America allows Israel to wage disproportionate warfare against Hezbollah and Hamas despite the suffering of local populations, the opposite strategy proposed for Afghanistan. War crimes bounce off Israel like Superman for a simple reason: America needs Israel to prune Hezbollah and Hamas, to keep them in check, or it has no way to counter them.

Each time Israel hopes to finish the job, but it always comes up short for America.

Sri Lanka is of the same mold. America had no reason to halt the Sri Lankan army as it marched through Tamil territory and broke the Tiger’s back. The world, possibly through the UN, may have stopped Sri Lanka with a real effort, but in reality the West was rooting for the government. The Tigers had their hands all over Asia and war crimes were a necessary price to chop them off.

The opposite played out in Georgia during its war with Russia in 2008. American officials flocked to Tbilisi to portray Russia as a brute and Georgia as the poor victim. Even though both sides sparked the conflict, America supported Georgia with its full power because that was the need. Never mind that America is deliberately invading Russia's backyard.

The Iraq war is another possible example of need trumping justice.

Now, need is a pillar of realism. America’s actions could be perceived as correct through this prism, but it's weighed on an ends-over-means scale. The Iraq war will succeed or fail based on its long-term stability. The end of Afghanistan is beginning to outweigh the means of 9/11, courtesy of Hamid Karzai. Hezbollah and Hamas cannot be defeated regardless of force applied.

Sri Lanka is no different, the war will be judged on the end result. Many Tamil refugees summarize themselves in this thought, desiring “liberation,” as the government called it. Except the price was extremely high, exceeding Gaza, Lebanon, possibly post 9/11 Afghanistan in casualties. No one actually knows because Sri Lanka won’t allow a true outside investigation.

America would be wise to push for one through the UN, the only means available. Sri Lankan officials claim 41,685 people have been relocated to their homes, but that leaves over 250,000 in the squalor of Malik Farms. The government says it's weeding out hundreds of Tigers in disguise, but tales from the camps indicate an oppressive state.

“The government told these people it would look after them,” said Veerasingham Anandasangaree, a Tamil politician and staunch supporter of the war against the Tigers. “But instead they have locked them up like animals with no date certain of when they will be released. This is simply asking for another conflict later on down the road.”

Without political and social progress Sri Lanka will revert to a state of warfare. Maybe not to the same intensity, and the Tigers may take a lesser form, but the current situation is moving in the wrong direction. Speaking of realism, Sri Lanka will resist any attempt to investigate the war or issue punishments, opting for the Gaza route.

Yet the two conflicts swing wildly in America, from the moderately harsh reaction to Sri Lanka to condemning Goldstone in the House. US officials wouldn't dare think for a second of detaining an Israeli general.

This “does not translate well into clear-headed diplomacy.”

Hillary Clinton's Diplomacy Inaction

Like a room filled with methane, the combustible element of failure waited silently for a spark. Neither special envoy George Mitchell nor President Obama could budge the Palestinians from their demand for an Israeli settlement freeze.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with an established pro-Israeli bias, is known to bite. Coming off a three day jaunt in Pakistan that left America with even less friends, she detonated another bombshell in another conflict, her diplomacy more stagecraft than statecraft.

“What the prime minister has offered, a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described, no new starts, for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior to negotiations,” an upbeat Clinton said in Jerusalem, next to the solemn Benjamin Netanyahu.

An Israeli cheer session so late in the hour poses obvious obstacles to a two-state solution, indicated by the Palestinian’s swift and harsh response. Nabil Abu Rdainah, spokesman for PA president Mahmoud Abbas, warned, “The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel's intransigence and America's back-pedaling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon.”

Senior negotiator Saeb Erekat added, “Pressuring Palestinians to make further concessions to accommodate Israeli intransigence is not the answer.”

But Clinton wasn’t so wrong to state her true position as to retreat from a hail of missiles under a two-face shield. “This offer falls far short of what our preference would be,” she said a day later in Marrakech, “but if it is acted upon it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth."

"Successive American administrations of both parties have opposed Israel's settlement policy," she argued. "That is absolutely a fact, and the Obama administration's position on settlements is clear, unequivocal and it has not changed.”

Several Palestinians thanked her for “clarifying,” including PA Foreign Minister Riad Malki.

Yet the next day she deployed another character, mixing a take-it-or-leave-it approach to the Palestinians with praise for the White House. She told Al Jazeera, “I think it is important for your viewers to say to themselves, 'well, we can continue with what we have now – which is a halt to nothing – or we can halt all new settlement activity'.”

“It is not everything that the president asked for,” Clinton stressed, “but it is much closer to anything that anyone has ever achieved in getting an Israeli government to agree. The Israelis have responded to the call of the U.S., the Palestinians and the Arab world to stop settlement activity by expressing a willingness to restrain settlement activity.”

Claiming that Israel is responding to Palestinian calls is incomprehensible given how they just responded. Clinton herself admitted that Israel hasn’t met US conditions. And in the Arab world, Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa vented, “The Americans couldn't bring something serious... I'm really afraid we're about to see failure... failure is in the atmosphere.”

Clinton defended Israel before adding, “I think, as you know, President Obama clearly said he wanted to see an end to settlement activity.”

But that's the problem - no one knows where the White House stands on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Obama gave away Jerusalem at an AIPAC speech then waxed poetically about the Palestinian cause in Cairo. His personal affirmations of Palestine clash a circle that includes Dennis Ross, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and lesser known pro-Israelis. No Palestinian commands his ear.

Akiva Eldar, chief political commentator for the Ha'aretz, commented, “It is a betrayal. The secretary of state, I assume with the full support of the president, has turned around after 10 months of negotiating the precondition of freezing settlements... she says there is no precedent to preconditions.”

If Obama truly believes in a settlement freeze, his message is being hijacked by Clinton’s seesawing. Abu Rudeina told the AFP upon her arrival in Cairo, "Clinton's backtracking on her remarks, especially with regard to the partial freeze of settlements, is not sufficient to restart negotiations with Israel."

The White House must turn its extravagant production into reality. Clinton gave a show, not a serious effort to launch negotiations, and it fell apart. The PA told America point blank that a settlement freeze is the door to negotiations, yet US officials all the way to President Obama are still looking for a window.

“We should not put the credibility and the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority again under jeopardy if the Palestinian Authority will accept anything less than a total freeze,” said Malki. “It will be detrimental to the future and the existence of the Palestinian authority as a whole.”

America needs to get on the right side of the settlement issue and stay there. The PA’s demand for a freeze works both ways - while it stalls negotiations, it also unlocks them. “We do not put conditions for resuming negotiations,” Erekat said, “but we want the talks resumed on the basis of the provisions of the road map, which stipulates the cessation of all forms of settlement activity in the Palestinian territories.”

"We have shown a willingness to do unprecedented things to relaunch the process," Netanyahu retorted. “But we are encountering the opposite from the Palestinians. We are encountering preconditions from the Palestinians that haven't been set in all the 16 years of the peace process."

Except preconditions didn’t exist because settlement expansion hadn’t progressed to its current point; now a settlement freeze is required to restore a sense of balance to the region. Clinton brushed on a valid point, saying, “There has never been a precondition. It's always been an issue within the negotiations.”

The most practical solution is to freeze all settlement activity in order to restart negotiations, then negotiate the status of future settlement growth. However, focusing solely on settlements diminishes the wider picture.

Softening on one final-status issue creates the impression that America will soften on all issues. Palestinians are bent on a settlement freeze because they believe they’ll get fleeced in final status negotiations. Serious doubts exist that refugees will return home or that a Palestinian state will operate under its own sovereignty. They need to get something while they can.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas explained, “Jerusalem was in danger, and without Jerusalem, there will be no peace.”

Clinton also misses the point when she applauds Netanyahu for making a fair offer. Muslims don’t like Netanyahu and they don’t like America covering for him. Clinton, "can praise Mr. Netanyahu if she wants," Moussa said, "but we're not impressed. We see the policies of Mr. Netanyahu as a major impediment toward peace.”

"I know Netanyahu is pragmatic and everyone tells me he has changed," Abbas reportedly told officials last week. "But I don't see it. I fear it's the same Netanyahu of 1996. How much longer can I still give him credit? I'm willing to give Netanyahu one more chance. But we have no more than two to three weeks during which something must happen.”

President Obama will fail to bring peace to Israel and Palestine if he pursues his current course. A settlement freeze must be supported because it is impermanent, to be determined in final status negotiations. His position mustn’t change through himself or his officials. Whipping back and forth is aggravating the peace process, not providing stability or clarity.

And Abbas is being generous - most Palestinians have no faith in Netanyahu. They aren’t buying the show.

Neither Mitchell, Clinton, nor Obama have produced tangible results through their diplomacy. America must change the reality on the ground, not dress it up, to jump-start the peace process.

Quote of the Day

"The cancellation of the second round of elections has shown that the decisions about Afghanistan are made in Washington and London, even though the announcement took place in Kabul. What is surprising is that just two weeks ago in the election they said the votes belonging to puppet Karzai were all fraudulent, and not acceptable. But now with these fake votes, they have selected Karzai, and immediately Washington and London have sent Karzai messages of congratulations."

- The Taliban, celebrating

Reasonable Doubt

The feeling is mutual

Doubt is an icy drip when it creeps into the mind. Hope can hold out indefinitely against the longest odds, and it can evaporate on contact with reality. Pain, a shattered heart unable to overcome the rational signs that something isn’t going to happen, isn’t what it’s supposed to be.

President Obama was billed as a man of intelligence, a thinker, a contemplator, a wise man. While some of his decisions and appointments haven’t panned out, Obama appears to stand on the right side of many issues and uses charm to keep doubts at bay. But his overall handling of Afghanistan is beginning to conjure a terrible feeling that he fails to understand this war.

The White House has done itself no favor in freezing General McChrystal’s review. Deliberate too long and the war could slip past the point of no return, leaving the blame for Obama. Conversely, deliberate but ultimately run with McChrystal and people will question why the wait. Obama’s search for a middle strategy is producing the opposite effect. Instead of moderate and cool, he appears unable to decide when there is no middle answer.

But he surpassed the controversy over General McChrystal with his handling of Afghanistan's election.

Assuming, as many US officials did, that Karzai would ultimately emerge victorious, Obama is staring at the worst possible outcome. Most everyone agrees that Karzai and his men attempted to steal the first round, after which he resisted the world on a runoff until America brought down its full wrath. He’s then crowned president less than 48 hours after Abdullah’s boycott to a chorus of American support.

Karzai couldn’t walk a more illegitimate path to power, and his illegitimacy is now tied to Obama. Beyond bringing an occupying army to Afghanistan, America is Karzai’s only line of defense. It's going to be a Taliban Christmas.

That Obama had no choice has some merit. With power-sharing a dead-end, no options remained other than defaulting the presidency to Karzai. But while Obama had his hands cuffed for the runoff, many decisions over the last nine months could have wrought a different outcome, or at least a different perception.

The wrong moves were made at every stage. The White House falsely hoped for a clean election, praised the first round too soon, failed to hide its displeasure for a runoff, and couldn’t wait to usher Hamid Karzai into power after Dr. Abdullah’s withdrawal. Defending Obama becomes harder with each decision.

Consistency lacked in his approach from the beginning, hastily deploying 21,000 troops and trainers based on a Bush administration review instead of his own. The fanfare of April faded into grim warnings or silence. Officials, notably Vice President Joe Biden, have taken to bashing Bush’s review as “irrelevant," explaining why Obama’s strategy needed amending right out the gate.

Unreasonable goals are another byproduct of misunderstanding. Protecting the election was never possible, contrary to the mission of his deployment, nor was a fair election. Lack of security led to low turn out and ripe opportunity for fraud, both of which left crippling marks on the election’s legacy. And Afghanistan’s democracy didn’t transfer power peacefully or legitimate.

Karzai came to power through fire. Democracy maybe, but Afghanistan is in a war, not a tube.

Obama potentially sealed his fate with the White House’s handling of Dr. Abdullah. Not only was his withdrawal met with indifference, officials went after him personally. No one gave any credibility to Abdullah, insulting him by portraying Karzai as the fairer man. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released her statement before Abdullah had formally withdrawn, so eager was she to eject him from the process.

It was too much trouble to visit him in person, hear his concerns, support his valid contentions. The White House couldn't risk alienating Karzai, but it forgot, or ignored, the power of perception at a critical phase of the war, upsetting Afghans and Americans by hailing this farce of an election.

Obama is waging his greatest gamble yet, one with unlimited power to expose him. All along he preached legitimacy, using it as an excuse not to deploy troops into an uncertain environment. Now he's sacrificed legitimacy for expediency at the last moment and destroyed the environment he seeks to send troops into, defying his self-stated goals in the process.

He was out of options, but President Obama is limited because of past errors. It’s become fair game to question whether he and his team truly understand the nature of Afghanistan.

Perception, if not reality, is tilting towards no.

No Change in Afghanistan

[Note: This analysis was written on November 1st, roughly 10 hours after Dr. Abdullah announced his boycott. It needed rapid revision 14 hours later when Karzai was declared president to the White House's twisted relief.]

Only in a democracy as backwards as Afghanistan’s can political chaos give birth to universal agreement. In the 12 hours since Dr. Abdullah’s decision to boycott an election runoff, all parties agreed that the gravest change yet won't lead to any change.

Perhaps this is the greatest sign that change needs to happen or else America could be finished in Afghanistan.

Unanimity between American officials suggests they were prepared for Abdullah’s decision. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to minimize collateral, saying before his press conference began, “I don't think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election. It's a personal choice... We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward."

Because an American presidential candidate dropping out of the election due to fraud is so common. Acting as the first responder, White House advisers and support from both parties soon joined Clinton to bolster the American line. They did so, however, with stunning ignorance of public perception.

"We are going to deal with the government that is there," David Axelrod, White House senior adviser, told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And obviously there are issues we need to discuss, such as reducing the high level of corruption. These are issues we'll take up with President Karzai."

As in, Hamid Karzai is officially president. More than his opponents would be infuriated by this hollow victory - Karzai doesn’t want the election handed to him either.

Though Karzai remarked, “Dr Abdullah's decision has disappointed us,” his spokesman, Waheed Omar, told Al Jazeera, “His withdrawal should not alter the process. We believe that the elections have to go on, the process has to complete itself, the people of Afghanistan have to be given the right to vote. The process should go on and the people of Afghanistan should be given the chance to vote.”

Meanwhile Daoud Ali Najafi, chief of the Independent Election Commission (IEC), told Reuters that Afghanistan's constitution demanded a run-off despite Abdullah's decision. At least Karzai, realizing how dangerous a default presidency would be, is trying to create an image of legitimacy. Not so in America.

“The president wanted an election that proceeded in the constitutional way, a runoff was called, and Abdullah exercised his rights as a candidate,” Axelrod said. “He's made a political decision to withdraw from the contest. That doesn't markedly change the situation. Abdullah Abdullah has established himself as the leader of the opposition. Every poll that was taken there suggested he was likely to be defeated anyway.”

Afghanistan's democracy is demonstrating the full power of its warped influence. Backing up Axelrod were White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, who summarized the US position as, “I think everyone expected that President Karzai was going to be re-elected. So Dr. Abdullah's exit from this race, I think, really says more about the fact that he knew he wasn't going to win."

What happened to corruption, fraud, and political cronyism? What happened to hearts and minds in Afghanistan? Only polls matter now? Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf told Reuters, "There will be no change of policy as far as we are concerned.”

Certain proof that America needs to alter its policy.

The typeset tone from Washington suggests it was actually unprepared for this latest cataract, otherwise its reaction would differ from monotony and hastiness. Why rush to discard Abdullah if his defeat is inevitable? Why not take his charges seriously, instead attacking him personally, and promote a sense of credibility before he bows out? Why disenfranchise his supporters without a second thought? Because the White House is scared of alienating Karzai.

But President Obama must think long-term. He and his officials are obsessed with ending the election cycle in the quickest and easier manner. Initiating a troop deployment appears simpler with Abdullah’s withdrawal, yet the opposite is more likely. Forfeiting the presidency to Karzai or supporting a single-candidate election will complicate the ground militarily, politically, and culturally.

A forked road, Karzai harbors short and long-term risks. America is unlikely to succeed in running counterinsurgency, where political legitimacy is key, through a de-facto president with less than half the country’s support. The White House, believing the proverbial good girl can change a bad guy, is unlikely to alter Karzai's behavior and the war will deteriorate as a result.

Furthermore, an illegitimate election will undermine Karzai’s political survival. Neither his internal opponents nor those American allies who doubt him will forgive or forget what is transpiring. With the Taliban adding a final element of opposition, dissent against Karzai could build to the point of bringing him down. Then America would be left with no one to execute a counterinsurgency.

Though Karzai will likely fall into power, as US officials claim, this potential inevitability becomes the reason why perception is so critical. America must take a giant step back from Karzai - and stick that “he wouldn’t have won anyway” line about Abdullah back in the closet. Unequivocal support for Karzai is feeding the perception that he’s an American puppet, not the representative of Afghanistan.

"It's a fiasco," said Peter Galbraith, the former UN official. "There is no way that Karzai can escape the taint of fraud. He is going to be seen as illegitimate by most of the Afghan people."

As White House officials frequently point out, no strategy can succeed without a legitimate government. A change in that belief leads to no change in Afghanistan.

Media Wars

The volley was swift and merciless. In a coordinated assault, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told CNN that, “Fox is widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news organization like CNN is.”

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel followed with his own volley: “It's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. More importantly, is not to have the CNNs and others in the world basically be led and following Fox, as if that, what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization.”

When asked to elaborate on his colleague’s statements, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded, “I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. All - the only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station, if you watch - even - it's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming, it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view.”

But rather than launch the Fox Wars, President Obama has fallen into an ongoing media war.

Most, if not all, news organizations are guilty to varying degrees of the charges levied against Fox. Money and ratings, the lifeblood, are generated by opinion as much as fact. Mainstream media as a whole distorts and suppresses “the truth.” Blaming one news network over another is dangerous because many tracks lead to the same abyss.

That the White House uses CNN to disseminate its message against Fox and praises CNN in the process is an example of a good dog. CNN and Fox are both sensational and politically motivated, relegating foreign policy to the basement. Wolf Blitzer is as repetitious as Sean Hannity, though Blitzer feeds on the minute.

MSNBC is no different. Rachel Maddow and Keith Oberman were sucked into the war after a revealed meeting with President Obama. Maddow and Oberman's comparisons to Sean Hannity and Bill O’ Reilly are well deserved. These people equally relish provoking a media war, spreading propaganda, playing the game, limiting the time for serious discussion. They are clones.

All news organizations have their bias, subtle or overt. The BBC portrays a stealthy anti-Western tone because Europe wants to hear it. Al Jazeera reports what Muslims want to know. The Indian Times is anti-Pakistani. In a country as populous and diverse as America, a media war between ideologies is inevitable, local to national.

President Obama was foolish to enter for that reason; either he’s allowing his circle to speak for him or he’s lost control. Of course Fox opposes the government. That’s its game, one the White House played right into Murdoch’s hands. Was there any doubt Fox’s ratings would rise?

"We may be No. 1, but there is sort of an insurgent quality to Fox News," said senior political analyst Brit Hume. "And that's kind of our attitude: 'Hoist a Jolly Roger, pull out our daggers and look for more throats to slit.' This is tremendous fodder for us. My lord, we've been living on it."

Obama could be in serious trouble if Hume’s attitude has permeated deep into Fox, a high possibility, but Obama isn’t Octopus Mountain’s concern. Ultimately he will rise or fall on Afghanistan and health care. His staff is another matter, creating chaos in the media early in the administration. The present phase of war is just beginning.

This war isn’t aimed at the government though, but the American people. The media attempts to block the world out while appearing to let it in. The media is a manifestation of The Cave.

Fox has its own way of suppressing foreign policy - by attacking President Obama. By attacking him personally, by ad homonyms, through repetition. MSNBC passes itself off as a Washington insider, but its information suffers from an equal lack of depth as Fox. MSNBC is Obama’s guard, Fox the assailant. Each plays its part, and for this reason they make sense.

CNN is the worst of all news organizations. CNN doesn’t do foreign policy, it whitewashes. When it does foreign policy, the conversation is either a nonversation or exposed as the fraud that it is. Pair Michael Ware or Rory Stewart with David Gergan, Emanuel pals James Carville and Paul Begala, William Bennett, John King, Gloria Borger, Anderson Cooper especially.

We’ve seen it, and it doesn’t look pretty.

Fox and President Obama will receive all the attention, but their battle is inconsequential to the one being waged by the media against the people. Foreign policy is being snuffed out by sensationalism and entertainment, by distractions, deception, and distortions. By weak foreign policy that toes the government line - and secures access into the White House.

Octopus Mountain was designed to fill a void and we’re growing more resolved by the day. We believe the American people aren't as stupid as we're taken for. The old media is dying. A new media is in creation, and possibly a new war.

The Finest Propaganda

Dated, but gets the point across.

The Finest Propaganda

Plays during NFL games. If you don't make it to the NFL, why not join the Marines?

The Finest Propaganda

The Finest Propaganda

Quotes of the Day

“We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward. I don’t think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election. It’s a personal choice which may or may not be made.”

- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, disregarding Abdullah's claim that "a transparent runoff is not possible."

"My commitment is to a cause, not myself personally."

- Dr. Abdullah, during his press conference to formally announce a boycott