Arab News Blog

Philip Jenkins studied violence in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and found that the Bible is ‘far more violent.’

This conclusion is obvious to anyone who seriously studies the two scriptures. The NPR article quotes someone named Bostom who claims that violence in the Bible has a context but in Qur’an is commanded to be ongoing. This is an extremely ignorant comment and completely untrue.

The passages in the Qur’an that command fighting pertain to the early Muslims’ struggle with the militant pagans (kafirun, kuffar) of ancient Mecca. The mercantile Meccan elite dominate lower Red Sea trade and worshipped star goddesses; they determined to wipe out the new religion of Islam as it gathered converts through the 610s and set up as a city-state in Yathrib/ Medina in the 620s CE. As I have pointed out before, a careful study of the word kafir or infidel in the Qur’an will show that it never is used in an unadorned way to refer to non-Muslims in general. It implies paganism, or alliance with paganism, and often has overtones of militant hostility to Muslims and Islam. In contrast, the Christians are called ‘closest in love’ to the Muslims, and the Children of Israel are repeatedly praised. There is a passage referring to those who commit kufr or infidelity from among the people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians) [2:105]. But this diction demonstrates that the word for infidel does not ordinarily extend to those groups. The ones condemned probably had allied with the pagans who were trying to destroy Islam and kill all Muslims, against whom the Qur’an advises believers to wage defensive war (“kill them wherever you find them” [2:191]– i.e. defend yourself against the fanatic pagans trying to kill you).

There are fundamentalist Muslims who use the word ‘kafir’ to refer to all non-Muslims, but the Qur’an does not support this usage. Anti-Muslim bigots in the US use these simplistic ideas of fundamentalists to condemn Islam and all Muslims.

All you have to do is look at the fate of the conquered Canaanites under Joshua (who were to be wiped out in a biblical genocide) and the fate of the Meccans when the Muslims overcame them (almost none were killed and they went on to flourish in the Islamic empire despite their earlier attempt at mass murder aimed at the prophet and his followers), to see the difference between the two.

Jenkins goes on to caution that Jews and Christians are not more violent than Muslims, despite the differences in scripture.

Actually I figure Europeans polished off a good 70 million people in the 20th century, whereas Muslims probably killed no more than 2 million (mainly in the Iran-Iraq War and Afghanistan, the latter of which a European power provoked). But this vast difference is not because Christian-heritage Europeans are such worse human beings than Muslim Middle Easterners. Rather, Europe industrialized warfare first, and also had the political independence to launch wars.

My experience is, people are people. They’re all equally capable of the same good and evil, across religions and cultures, and how much of each they commit has to do with both their opportunities and their character at any point in history.

The amazing thing is that the West has managed to convince itself that all its wars and killing were someone else’s fault (even though it was mainly elements of the West fighting other elements of the West that produced the charnel houses of the twentieth century).

End/ (Not Continued)

Go to Source

Former Sec. of State James Baker has been helping to roll out a new report, issued by the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Texas, that urges the Obama administration to put forward its own proposal for the final-status boundaries between Israel and Palestine.

The whole report is available in PDF form here. It is interesting because it is the result of a quiet, “Track 2″ diplomatic effort convened by the institute over the past year and a half, in which un-named Israeli and Palestinian participants worked together to present and discuss their own proposals for where the final boundary between the two states should lie, if indeed there are to be two states.

In Haaretz yesterday, Akiva Eldar referred to a recent interview with the National Journal in which Baker– who of course is most famous in the Middle East for the hard-nosed way he dealt with Likud PM Yitzhak Shamir over the settlements issue back in 1991-92– displayed that he is still prepared to play hardball with the present Likud PM.

Eldar quoted him as saying there:

“I would also stress that United States taxpayers are giving Israel roughly $3 billion each year, which amounts to something like $1,000 for every Israeli citizen, at a time when our own economy is in bad shape and a lot of Americans would appreciate that kind of helping hand from their own government. Given that fact, it is not unreasonable to ask the Israeli leadership to respect U.S. policy on settlements.”

Eldar also reported on a phone interview he conducted with Ed Djerejian, who’s the founding director of the Baker Institute and a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Syria, and Russia.

Djerejian told Eldar,

“The Arab-Israeli conflict, and especially the Palestinian issue, remains one of the most contentious and sensitive issues in the entire Muslim world. Osama bin Laden exploits the plight of the Palestinians, as does [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad … This has a direct influence on the United States, which is expending its blood and treasure fighting insurgencies in overwhelmingly Muslim Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We would be naive to think that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will eliminate the problems of terrorism and radicalization in the Islamic world, but it will go a long way toward draining the swamp of issues that extremists exploit for their own ends.”

All excellent analysis. And a very important argument that we should all keep on making…

I was intrigued, however, to read as much as I could of the report itself in order to:

a) Figure out as well as I could at what “level” the Palestinian and Israeli participants were operating, and crucially, How close are they to actually being able to represent the positions of their respective national leaderships?

b) Learn the content of the “U.S. compromise proposal”– actually, three different options for a “compromise proposal– that the Baker Institute people were urging.

On the first of those points, there seemed to be no evidence in the report as to who these people. I believe, based on other evidence, that Yasser Abed Rabboo, who was Abu Mazen’s long-time designated lead person in the “Geneva Initiative” process was one of the participants on the Palestinian side, which would make that team fairly authoritative vis-a-vis the Ramallah leadership.

But who were the Israelis? I don’t know. But whoever they were, on p.5 it makes clear that they were operating on the basis of “reported positions put forward by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert”– which indicates they were people far closer to Olmert’s Kadima Party than to Netanyahu’s Likud.

Which is interesting and very significant.

The initial map those Israelis put forward, which represents a swap of 7.03% of the West Bank’s land against an equal amount of land from inside post-1949 Israel, is on p. 63. On pp. 65 and 67 are maps that are described, on p. 5, as “reflecting reported positions put forward by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.” They represented a swap of 1.9% of the land of the West Bank for land inside post-1949 Israel, on the same 1:1 basis.

Interestingly, regarding the situation in occupied East Jerusalem, the “Palestinian map” presented in the report involved far fewer territorial concessions to Israel in Greater East Jerusalem than did the map that participants in the Geneva Initiative signed off on last September. (Which indicates that Abu Mazen’s position on East Jerusalem has hardened noticeably since then.)

And then, there are the three different options the Baker Institute itself proposes that the Obama administration should choose between if– as Baker and Djerejian urge– Obama moves rapidly to put forward, and hopefully also press very hard for, its own proposal for the final borders.

These three options are mapped out in full on pp. 101, 103, and 105. The first of those represents a 4.0% land swap, the second a 3.4% swap, and the third a 4.4% swap. (It is very common on U.S. diplomatic memorandums for the writer to end up presenting three options, with the hope that her or his boss will pick the “middle” one.)

Details of how these options differ in a number of sensitive areas are presented in the earlier pages.

I don’t have time to write much more about this report. I just want to close by noting three things:

1. The Baker Institute seems to have proceeded in the continuing spirit of the disastrous April 2004 letter in which Pres. Bush assured PM Sharon that the U.S. supported a territorial outcome that would take major account of the existing facts on the ground, i.e. Israel’s completely illegal settlements, and in particular the large settlement blocs. And indeed, the way the various details are portrayed in the maps seems extremely settler-centric– i.e. just about all the maps are described as addressing the issues around this or that settlement bloc, not around the concerns of this or that large Palestinian urban center. Instead of calling an area the “Gush Etzion area”, why not call it “Greater Bethlehem”, and start from the concerns of the Palestinian Bethlehemites who are considerably more numerous than the (illegal) residents of Gush Etzion and who have suffered already for 43 years from the illegal grabbing of their lands. Where is any ethic of care or of respect for human equality in the Baker Institute’s approach?

2. All the lines proposed on all the maps presented, by all three “parties” there, are extremely complex and sinuous… in many cases almost ridiculously so.

3. If it was close-to-Kadima people who participated on the Israeli side, then why would we have any reason to believe Netanyahu might be interested in any part of this approach? And/or, is this all part of some plan to needle Netanyahu by trying to deal with Kadima instead of him?

Go to Source

FP/ here

“… Domestic policy isn’t our beat (except when it gets in the way of foreign policy) but we know that in Washington nothing succeeds like success and a vote like this will define the prevailing media narrative on the Obama administration: come Monday they will be seen as either brilliant or bungling. This narrative is going to extend beyond healthcare to other major issues, including foreign policy.

So here’s a quick guide to what the state of the world will be, depending on whether or not the bill goes through.

If health care passes:

Iran: The Islamic Republic is on its last legs, challenged at every turn by the ever-expanding Green movement, which the Obama administration wisely avoided undermining with explicit public support. Instead of a confrontational approach, the U.S. has taken its time to build international consensus, put tough but highly-targeted sanctions in place, and given Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just enough rope to hang himself.

Af-Pak: The offensive in Marjah was a rousing success, al Qaeda leaders are being taken out or arrested left and right, the tide is turning against the insurgency, Pakistan is finally cooperating, Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the greatest U.S. military commander since Douglas MacArthur.

Iraq: The withdrawal of U.S. troops continues on schedule, violence is way down, Iraq’s sectarian are working out their in Parliament rather than in the streets, David Petraeus is the greatest U.S. miltary commander since George Washington.

Israel-Palestine: Finally, a U.S. administration showed some backbone dealing with Israel, condemning the expansion of settlements and working to strong-arm both sides to the table. Netanyahu’s settlement freeze was a step in the right direction. Obama has proven that the White House can be a strong ally to Israel without being a pushover.

Russia: U.S.-Russia relations are better than they’ve been since the 1990s. Thanks to the Obama administration’s less confrontational approach and compromise on missile defense, a successor to the START treaty is near and Moscow is finally starting to cooperate on Iran.

Gitmo/detainees: The Obama administration has restored constitutional norms and proven that the war on terror on terror can be won and valuable intelligence gained without torture or illegal detentions. Dozens of Gitmo detainees have been relocated and the civilian trials for al Qaeda leaders will be a success.

Global warming: Thanks to Obama’s last minute intervention, the climate change summit saved face in Copenhagen. After healthcare, with momentum on its side, the administration will take on energy and finally make cap and trade a reality.

Rahm Emanuel: A fucking genius.

If health care fails:

Iran: With his shameful silence, Obama hung the Green Movement out to dry. Iran is closer than ever to building a nuke, (if Israel doesn’t bomb it first) the Chinese are never going to cooperate on sanctions, and the administration’s engagement strategy has been proven a failure.

Af-Pak: U.S. troops are sinking into a unwinnable quagmire, Marjah was a meaningless backwater, Afghanistan’s corrupt government and incompetent military will never be able to function without U.S. support, Pakistan is placating the U.S. while still not taking the Taliban seriously. Obama should have listened to Joe Biden when he had the chance.

Iraq: The election was marred by fraud, none of the major political disputes have been resolved, the insurgency is biding its time, the U.S. military faces a choice between remaining in Iraq for decades or watching a sectarian bloodbath erupt as it pulls out.

Israel-Palestine: The setttlements continue to expand, Obama is hopelessly unpopular in Israel and unable to influence Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority is a corrupt joke and Hamas will never renounce violence. George Mitchell should quit while he still retains a shred of credibility.

Russia: While Hillary Clinton has tea with Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin is eating Obama’s lunch. Russia is building nuclear reactors in Iran, delaying START again and again, meddling in Ukraine, tightening its grip on Georgia’s breakaway regions and repressing its own people. The reset was nothing more than appeasement, and the U.S. hasn’t even gotten anything out of it.

Gitmo/detainees: Obama hasn’t even been able to close Gitmo, but in any event, he’s putting Americans at risk of another terror attack by not letting interrogators do their job. The civilian trials, if they happen at all, will be a publicity circus that makes a mockery of the fight against terror. The justice department is infested with al Qaeda sleeper agents.

Global warming: Was invented by Al Gore to sell DVDs.

Rahm Emanuel: [Unprintable.]

Go to Source

As far as I can tell, no media outlets whatsoever have picked up on the recent announcement (below, courtesy of a UN news agency) from the UN Secretary-General. The latest figures on internally displaced persons demonstrate the utter disaster which the war in Afghanistan has brought for a wide swath of the population:

IDP numbers up in Afghanistan – UN

KABUL, March 17 (IRIN) – Armed hostilities have boosted the number of internally displaced persons (IDP’s) to over 296,000 but an effective humanitarian response is being hampered by insecurity, the UN Secretary-General says in a new report to the UN Security Council…

“The deterioration of Afghanistan’s security situation has continued, with 2009 being the most volatile year since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, averaging 960 security incidents per month, as compared with 741 in 2008. The situation worsened in January 2010, with the number of security incidents 40 per cent higher than in January 2009,” [the report] said… (link)

Related blog posts:

October 2006: The Senlis Council’s Norine MacDonald reports that IDP’s are “starving” while Canadian soldiers are stationed some 15 minutes away with no mandate to assist them.

November 2007: UNHCR counts 129,000 IDP’s just in southern Afghanistan – a figure which does not include an additional 100,000 people recently displaced by conflict in the south.

May 2008: IDP’s are cautious of returning home. One northerner said: “Commanders and warlords in the north are still seizing people’s land and forcing them to abandon their houses; so how can we return?”

February 2009: UNHCR counts 235,000 IDP’s.

Go to Source

Back in December, when a strange new quasi-news outfit called “IraqSlogger” emerged, I blogged my concerns about the organization here and here.

Now it turns out that Eason Jordan and Robert Young Pelton the two ethically challenged adventurers behind that short-lived project moved on from there to the world of intelligence gathering on contract to the U.S military in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Back in December ‘06, I wrote,

basically, this company is mixing up the job of making available a free news-reporting service with that of hiring themselves out as private intel consultants/providers, offering themselves to the highest bidders. Very disquieting. In my experience, there is quite enough suspicion out there in the world about the role of journalists and the media without a company coming along that explicitly seeks to mix the role of journalists with that of intelligence collectors and analysts.

Boy, did I call that one. (It wasn’t hard. Those guys were pathetic amateurs.)

Go to Source

CIA director Leon Panetta said Wednesday that US strikes against targets in northern Pakistan have left al-Qaeda in disarray and without the command and control necessary to plan and carry out major operations.

The US is claiming a big success in a precision strike on the town of Miranshah in North Waziristan, saying that it killed Husain Yemeni. Yemeni is said to be a liaison between al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Arabs holed up in North Waziristan, north Pakistan. He is also said to have been involved in the bombing of a CIA forward base in Afghanistan in late December, which killed several CIA operatives along with some contractors.

The News reports that: since 9/11 (102 months), Pakistan has suffered a major terrorist bombing roughly once every 10 days. Over these years, there were 332 ‘terrorism-related incidents,’ which killed 5,704 persons (substantially more than died in the September 11 attacks). By city, terrorist bombings clustered this way:

Peshawar: 58 terrorist incidents
Rawalpindi/Islamabad: 46
Karachi: 37
Lahore: 21
Swat Valley: 21
Karachi: 21

In the troubled Northwest of the country, the Taliban of Miranshah in North Waziristan on Wednesday affirmed their commitment to an ongoing truce with the government. The truce is observed by Pakistan as it campaigns in South Waziristan, so as to be able to concentrate on one tribal area at a time. The truce is shaky, and was annulled last summer briefly by the Taliban.

Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus cautioned Pakistan that another terrorist attack on India such as Lashkar-e Tayyiba carried out on Mumbai could spark severe conflict in South Asia. Radicalism in Punjab of the Lashkar sort is an increasing concern among Pakistanis, as this Dawn editorial shows.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s two big rival parties, the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PMLN), have been roiled over comments earlier this week by Shahbaz Sharif, the Chief Minister of Punjab Province, who said that Taliban should not hit the Punjab, since Punjabis had been more or less on the same page in their opposition to military dictator Pervez Musharraf. On Wednesday, the Taliban showed interest in a truce with Sharif. The Pakistani public is outraged at the remarks, seen as cowardly and/or collaborationist.

Female member of parliament Nighat Orakzai (PML-Q) taunted Sharif that if he is so afraid of the Taliban, he can borrow her neck scarf (dupatta), which many Pakistani women wear on their shoulders instead of covering their faces. She dropped hers on the floor of Parliament.

End/ (Not Continued)

Go to Source

WaPo/ here

“… Events are reminiscent of the 1990s, when the bloody Afghan civil war was fueled by an alignment of India, Iran and Russia, which backed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban regime supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia….

India, Iran and Russia have long been averse to any dialogue with the Taliban that could give Pakistan greater leverage in the region or with Washington. All see the various extremist groups based in Pakistan as threats to their security. India is working to rebuild the regional alliance that opposed the Taliban and Pakistan in the 1990s. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited India last Thursday, partly to discuss a common strategy on a post-U.S. Afghanistan. Senior Indian officials have met with Karzai in Kabul and are due in Iran later this month.

Yet Pakistan’s military clearly wants a role in shaping Afghanistan. Islamabad had given the Taliban leadership sanctuary since 2001, but in recent weeks the military has arrested several key Taliban leaders who went around the generals and the intelligence service and were using Saudi Arabia as an intermediary to talk to Kabul. Still left alone, however, are Taliban hard-liners who could promote Pakistan’s security needs in future dialogues with Kabul…”

Go to Source

Just when I thought that all the angles for killing were covered, the New York Times exposes a type of killing force we haven’t seen or heard from before. We have seen there are CIA teams in Afghanistan and Pakistan; there are Afghan special forces operating outside Afghan military command; there are foreign special forces including German ones, Canadian ones and Australian ones; there are unofficial tribal militias; etc. etc. Now this.

It’s a bizarre and intriguing tale:

Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants
By Dexter Filkins and Mark Mazzetti

KABUL, Mar 15 (NYT) – Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States.

The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said…

[S]ome American officials say they became troubled that Mr. Furlong seemed to be running an off-the-books spy operation. The officials say they are not sure who condoned and supervised his work.

It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contractors to act as covert spies. Officials said Mr. Furlong’s secret network might have been improperly financed by diverting money from a program designed to merely gather information about the region.

Moreover, in Pakistan, where Qaeda and Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, the secret use of private contractors may be seen as an attempt to get around the Pakistani government’s prohibition of American military personnel’s operating in the country.

Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he now is the subject of a criminal investigation…

Robert Young Pelton, an author who writes extensively about war zones, said that the government hired him to gather information about Afghanistan and that Mr. Furlong improperly used his work. “We were providing information so they could better understand the situation in Afghanistan, and it was being used to kill people,” Mr. Pelton said…

Mr. Pelton said he had been told by Afghan colleagues that video images that he posted on the Web site had been used for an American strike in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan… (link)

Robert Young Pelton, mentioned in story, is co-author of alternative travel guide The World’s Most Dangerous Places. The website he set up for the contract was an open source project at www.afpax.com, and it is still online.

Go to Source

MEPGS: Excerpts:

As US officials appear to be backing away from a confrontation with Israel in the wake of Vice President Biden's controversial visit, there are more than a few bruised feelings on both sides. More important, it seems likely that the Israeli- US relationship is in for even tougher times in the weeks and months ahead.  To begin with, it is clear that orders came from the top, no less than President Obama, that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was to be confronted over the embarrassing decision......... The scolding delivered Secretary of State Clinton, over the phone to the Israeli Prime Minister and in person to Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, was exceptional both in its tone and the scope of its demands.      According to published reports, Clinton not only insisted that the Israelis find a way to insure that such an embarrassment never be allowed to take place again but added three new demands.  First, the US wants assurances, the now delayed "proximity talks" transition to direct talks on all topics [Previously this was an Administration assumption].  Second, they said they wanted Israel to make a gesture to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who was already ambivalent about the value of these talks.  Finally, and most controversial, Israel was to find a way to halt construction of the new housing units.        According to informed sources, a short deadline was set for Israel to respond -- a deadline that has not been met.  Moreover, the tone employed by Clinton outraged Israeli officials.  Said one well-placed source, "They don't talk to [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez that way."  As this drama was unfolding, a number of senior level Administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel were trying to calm the waters.  Others, like CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, were, in effect, adding fuel to the fire, when in Congressional testimony, he alluded to the lack of progress on Arab-Israeli talks causing additional problems for US military planners , already engaged in combat in the muslim world.  Moreover, according to well-placed sources, withholding US military and intelligence cooperation is "one of the sticks" the Administration wielded in its conversations with Netanyahu and Oren.

      Even if, as many observers believe, this imbroglio in contained, a number of key officials say it is only a matter of time before Israel and the US are once again at loggerheads, if not over the peace process then over a strategy for dealing with Iran.  Part of the reason for Biden's visit to Israel and that of a number of other top civilian and military leaders there in recent weeks, is to make certain, in the words of one top US official "...that Israel is `on board'" with the American approach to handling Iran's headlong rush towards nuclear development.      US officials candidly share political strategy with the Israelis regarding their approach to implementing new sanctions against Teheran at the UN and elsewhere [US officials have even gone so far as to try to enlist Israeli cooperation in fending off Congressional attempts to pass legislation penalizing foreign companies doing business with Iran.  As one top US official puts it, "We know the Hill's intentions are good.  Just the way they are going about it will upset our plans to work with other countries who will see their efforts as an attempt to impose `extraterritoriality' on them"].      The first goal is to get a new resolution from the Security Council.  At latest count, eleven of the fifteen members have informally signed on.  Brazil and Turkey continue to be a problem.  Lebanon, with its dominant Iranian-backed militia, Hezbollah, is considered a lost cause.  But the big prize remains China and its veto.  So, far US officials have not given up hope on gaining China's acquiescence to a mild resolution but may well have to settle for an abstention.  The importance of the UN vote lies in its acting as a catalyst for other nations, notably the European Union [EU] to impose a series of much stronger, if not exactly "crippling" sanctions on Iran.  And the target will be the Revolutionary Guards, which according to some top US officials, now control more than one-third of the Iranian economy [The prospect of imposing sanctions on oil imports, upon which Iran, ironically is dependent because of its limited refining capacity, has been pretty much taken off of the table -- partly, say top US officials because of the difficulty of enforcing such a regime and according to others, because in could impose "undue" hardship on the average Iranian].      ........But with thousands of American troops destined to remain in next door Iraq

for the foreseeable future and thousands more going into battle

daily in Afghanistan, another Iranian neighbor, the last thing the US military, including Defense Secretary Gates, wants is a military confrontation with Iran.      But if, as some experts argue, sanctions are doomed to failure, what are the other options?  One US expert, close to Gates as well and National Security Advisor Jones, argues that it is time to jettison this "sanctions fantasy" and prepare to deal with a nuclear armed Iran.  According to well-placed officials, this would mean a continued tightening of sanctions and eventual isolation of Iran from most of the world's commerce.  However, opponents of this approach argue that should Israel get wind of "post nuclear planning" for Iran, Jerusalem would be sure to act unilaterally..      Already frustrated by a timetable that has slipped from last December to April for UN sanctions action [considered a good time with Japan as Security Council Chair for the month and preceding Lebanon's assumption of the role], it is clear that the Israelis are running out of patience.  Moreover, intelligence sources believe that while the Israeli security establishment still is unsure of its ability to mount a highly effective attack on Iran proper, it has become increasingly confident of its ability to withstand and defeat any Iranian retaliation, notably a missile attack launched by Hezbollah on Israel's north.

    


A number of well-placed sources say that for Israel, 2010 is the year of decision.  If by the end of the year, Iran has not started to retreat in the face of international pressure, then Israel will begin to seriously prepare for military action.  As one top US official puts it, "Israel hasn't made the decision to act.  But it has crossed the psychological barrier to act." If true, then today's tensions with Washington will seem quite modest. "

Go to Source

Last fall, an American special forces commander acquired the fawning nickname “Lawrence of Afghanistan” after he published a study on military tactics in Afghanistan. Based on his own experiences, Major Jim Gant advocated for an alternative to reigning counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy and apparently caught the attention of General McChrystal, who widely redistributed the report.

The report involves a case study in Kunar province where his team of special forces operated in 2003. At first this involved Armed Reconnaissance Patrols through the countryside, “basically announcing our presence and inviting contact, friendly or hostile.” At one village, they were told there was a “problem” in a different village called Mangwel, to where his eight-man team then went and subsequently met a local leader, Malik Noorafzhal.

Here’s how Gant recounts the forming of a significant relationship with Noorafzhal, a tribal leader in Kunar province:

… there was a “highland” people and a “lowland” people… The highland people had taken and were using some land that belonged to the lowland people. The Malik told me the land had been given to his tribe by the “King Of Afghanistan” many, many years ago and that he would show me the papers. I told him he didn’t need to show me any papers. His word was enough. He then told me he had given the highlanders 10 days to comply with the request or he and his men would retake it by force…

He had asked for help, a thing he later would tell me was hard for him to do (especially from an outsider) and I had many options. Could I afford to get involved in internal tribal warfare? …

I made the decision to support him. “Malik, I am with you. My men and I will go with you and speak with the highlanders again. If they do not turn the land back over to you, we will fight with you against them.” …

Without going into further detail, suffice it to say that the dispute with the highlanders was resolved… (link to pdf)

The current term for actions of this sort is ethnic cleansing, which according to a US State Dept study “entails the systematic and forced removal of members of an ethnic group from their communities to change the ethnic composition of a region.” When official enemies do this, it is cause for an international crisis and accompanying vilification in the media. However, when our side does it, few so much as take notice.

Even on its own terms, Gant’s approach, as he describes it, hardly merits the term strategy as tribal alliances like the one he modeled are quite ad hoc and don’t readily lend themselves to horizontal spread. Thus the basic requirement, under military doctrine, of “unity of effort” would be elusive at best.

In a review of Gant’s paper the Long War Journal similarly notes some fundamental flaws in his argument:

[Gant] himself points out that he and his team were safer in the village than in their outpost, and that he was unable to prevent the attacks the village suffered as a result of its cooperation. In other words, there’s a real confusion about who was protecting whom… (link)

It is worth noting, however, that one innovation which Gant proposes appears to have been taken up by US military commanders. The latest military jargon for COIN theorists and commentators insists that troops have to live among the people. General McChrystal himself told the New York Times about his hopes in such terms, saying “we literally want to go in there and squat among the people.”

Recent announcements indicate that that approach is being operationalised and the above comments from the Long War Journal thus apply equally to McChrystal’s emerging strategy.

Go to Source