Author Archives: Paul Woodward

FEATURE: What’s good for others is good for us

Is (his) biography (our) destiny?
By James Traub, New York Times, November 4, 2007

The United States has had only one foreign policy and one national-security strategy since the transforming events of 9/11 — and this set of doctrines has been shaped by the very distinctive worldview of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the men and women around them. The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a “post-post-9/11 strategy,” in the words of the Princeton Project on National Security, a study that brought together many of the foreign-policy thinkers of both parties. Such a strategy, the experts concluded, must, like “a Swiss Army knife,” offer different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade; must pay close attention to “how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions”; must recognize that other nations may legitimately care more about their neighbors or their access to resources than about terrorism; and must be “grounded in hope, not fear.” A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing “perception of unfairness” around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but “a world of liberty under law”; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.

In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. “There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,” as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. “The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.” Hillary Clinton’s inner circle consists of the senior-most figures from her husband’s second term in office — the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the former national security adviser Sandy Berger and the former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But drill down into one of Washington’s foreign-policy hives, whether the Carnegie Endowment or the Brookings Institution or Georgetown University, and you’re bound to hit Obama supporters. Most of them served in the Clinton administration, too, and thus might be expected to support Hillary Clinton. But many of these younger and generally more liberal figures have decamped to Obama. And they are ardent. As Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council official under President Clinton who now heads up a team advising Obama on nonproliferation issues, puts it, “There’s a feeling that this is a guy who’s going to help us transform the way America deals with the world.” Ex-Clintonites in Obama’s inner circle also include the president’s former lawyer, Greg Craig, and Richard Danzig, his Navy secretary. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

ANALYSIS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Drafting diplomatic cannon fodder

Why diplomats won’t go to Iraq
By Charles Crain, Time, November 2, 2007

At a State department “town hall” meeting on Wednesday, one participant, veteran diplomat Jack Croddy, pointed out the risks of injury and death faced by American diplomats [in Iraq]. But he hit closer to the heart of the matter when he told the director general of the Foreign Service, who was leading the meeting, “It’s one thing if someone believes in what’s going on over there and volunteers, but it’s another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment.” On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was traveling, issued a statement saying, “We must go forward with the identification of officers to serve, should it prove necessary to direct assignments. Should others step forward, as some already have, we will fill these new jobs as we have before —with volunteers. However, regardless of how the jobs may be filled, they must be filled.” [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — The core issue here is that there is an inherent tension between loyalty and intelligence. The willingness to follow orders requires, in part, a willingness to suspend the use of ones own powers of discrimination, analysis, and judgment. Diplomats who are good are doing what they are told and probably not as good at conducting diplomacy.

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Action on Kurdish violence; after the surge

Turkey urges U.S. to take action on Kurdish violence
By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, November 3, 2007

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Friday that Turkey wants the United States to stop talking and start taking action to help end cross-border attacks by Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq.

“We need to work on actually making things happen,” Babacan said at a news conference with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Ankara. “This is where the words end and action needs to start.”

Rice stopped in the Turkish capital for emergency meetings with senior Turkish officials, including Babacan, Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, ahead of an Iraq conference with regional foreign ministers Saturday in Istanbul. [complete article]

The dark side of Iraq’s good news
By Phillip Carter, Slate, November 2, 2007

When Mark Twain lumped statistics together with lies and damned lies, he could have had Mesopotamia in mind. A new set of data from Iraq shows Iraqi civilian deaths on the decline, from 2,800 in January 2007 to about 800 last month. Other reports reveal that tens of thousands of Iraqis have joined local auxiliary forces to secure their neighborhoods and that U.S. forces continue to kill or capture many of the insurgency’s top leaders. Violence is down sharply in most areas. In Baghdad, troops report weeks without a roadside bomb in neighborhoods that used to be hit every day; and in Anbar, things are so good the Marines held a 5K race on the streets of Ramadi two weeks ago.

Still, the truth behind these numbers is elusive. It’s near impossible to discern whether they reflect the success of our military operations or some larger, deeper trends in Iraqi society, such as the success of the Shiite campaign to rid Baghdad of its Sunni residents. The situation does present a paradox, however. If the surge is the reason, as the generals claim, we’re in trouble, because the surge is about to end. If Iraqi reconciliation and ethnic cleansing get primary credit, and the surge is mostly acting as a catalyst, our inevitable drawdown over the next six months to pre-surge levels may not be catastrophic, because the positive trends result more from Iraqi societal shifts and less from American soldiers brokering the peace. As commanders plan for the 2008 reduction in troops, they must try to reconcile these competing explanations and find a way to sustain the success when there are fewer—or no—American soldiers on the streets. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

INTERVIEW: Burma today “is almost like Nazi Germany”

“The opposition has no chance right now, but this is only the beginning”
Maureen Aung-Thwin, of the Open Society Institute, interviewed by Daniele Castellani Perelli, RestDOC, October 23, 2007

“Right now the opposition is under great stress. Burma today is as most repressive as it has ever been: they basically shut down all the cities every night, and they roam the streets and go and arrest people, it is almost like Nazi Germany. That is why the opposition has no chance right now”. Maureen Aung-Thwin, director of the Burma Project/Southeast Asia Initiative of the Open Society Institute, which is part of the Soros Foundations Network, makes no illusions about the future of the “Saffron revolution”, but she observes that the international pressure is growing, especially from the U.S. and also Europe (“can play a big role”), and that’s why she declares herself optimistic: “The trend of history is not towards more repressive dictatorships. It is impossible to totally isolate a whole population from the rest of the world in the 21st century”. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Testifying on AIPAC’s cozy relationship with the U.S. government

Defense may seek Rice and Hadley’s testimony in AIPAC case
By Philip Shenon, New York Times, November 3, 2007

A federal judge on Friday ordered Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, to be ready to testify as defense witnesses at the trial of two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of receiving secret national security information.

The judge, T. S. Ellis III of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., agreed with defense lawyers that Ms. Rice, Mr. Hadley and several other government officials could be subpoenaed because they might help the defendants demonstrate that they were engaged in traditional “back channel” lobbying — not in espionage — in their contacts with the government over Middle East policy.

Justice Department officials who are overseeing the prosecution had no immediate comment on the judge’s ruling or on whether they might appeal the decision. The State Department also declined to comment. The trial in the case is scheduled to begin in January, although a delay is considered likely. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & REFLECTIONS: On dying in Iraq

Requiem for the last American soldier to die in Iraq
By Brian Turner, New York Times, October 31, 2007

At some point in the future, soldiers will pack up their rucks, equipment will be loaded into huge shipping containers, C-130s will rise wheels-up off the tarmac, and Navy transport ships will cross the high seas to return home once again. At some point — the timing of which I don’t have the slightest guess at — the war in Iraq will end. And I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately — I’ve been thinking about the last American soldier to die in Iraq.

huntersmoon.jpgTonight, at 3 a.m., a hunter’s moon shines down into the misty ravines of Vermont’s Green Mountains. I’m standing out on the back deck of a friend’s house, listening to the quiet of the woods. At the Fairbank’s Museum in nearby St. Johnsbury, the lights have been turned off for hours and all is dark inside the glass display cases, filled with Civil War memorabilia. The checkerboard of Jefferson Davis. Smoothbore rifles. Canteens. Reading glasses. Letters written home.

Four or five miles outside of town, past a long stretch of water where the moon is crossing over, a blue and white house sits in a small clearing not far from where I stand now. Chimney smoke rises from a fire burned down to embers. A couple spoon each other in sleep, exhausted from lovemaking. One of them is beginning to snore. I want them to wake up and make love again, even if they need the sleep and tomorrow’s workday holds more work than they might imagine.

Who can say where that last soldier is now, at this very moment? Kettlemen City. Turlock. Wichita. Fredricksburg. Omaha. Duluth. She may be in the truck idling beside us in traffic as we wait for the light to turn green. He may be ordering a slice of key lime pie at Denny’s, sitting at a booth with his friends after bowling all night. What name waits to be etched on a stone not yet erected in America? Somewhere out in the vast stretches of our country, somewhere out in Whitman’s America, out among the wide expanse of grasses, somewhere here among us the last soldier may lie dreaming in bed before the dawn as the sun sets over Iraq. [complete article]

Note about the author: Brian Turner is a poet who has served seven years in the Army, most recently in 2004 as an infantry team leader in Mosul with the Third Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Second Infantry Division. His book of poems, “Here, Bullet,” won the 2005 Beatrice Hawley Award and was a New York Times Editor’s Choice selection. He lives in Fresno, Calif, where he teaches poetry at Fresno State.

Envoys resist forced Iraq duty
By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, November 1, 2007

Uneasy U.S. diplomats yesterday challenged senior State Department officials in unusually blunt terms over a decision to order some of them to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or risk losing their jobs.

At a town hall meeting in the department’s main auditorium attended by hundreds of Foreign Service officers, some of them criticized fundamental aspects of State’s personnel policies in Iraq. They took issue with the size of the embassy — the biggest in U.S. history — and the inadequate training they received before being sent to serve in a war zone. One woman said she returned from a tour in Basra with post-traumatic stress disorder only to find that the State Department would not authorize medical treatment.

Yesterday’s internal dissension came amid rising public doubts about diplomatic progress in Iraq and congressional inquiries into the department’s spending on the embassy and its management of private security contractors. Some participants asked how diplomacy could be practiced when the embassy itself, inside the fortified Green Zone, is under frequent fire and officials can travel outside only under heavy guard.

Service in Iraq is “a potential death sentence,” said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. “Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now,” he said to sustained applause. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Syria’s “tall building shaped like a square”

Syria nuclear probe may be inconclusive
By Mark Heinrich, Reuters, October 31, 2007

The IAEA has been studying before-and-after commercial aerial photos of the site and has asked Syria for explanations. But Syria has not replied and the pictures alone are unlikely to yield conclusions, the diplomat told Reuters.

“IAEA experts are looking back at the evolution of this facility. But with these pictures alone they feel they may be unable to draw conclusions,” the diplomat, familiar with IAEA affairs but not authorised to speak on the record, told Reuters.

“If the IAEA got credible indications from anyone of nuclear procurement or activity, that would be different. But imagery of a tall building shaped like a square, that’s not enough (to tell whether or not the site may have been a nuclear site).” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: Time to talk to Iran

Sen. Hagel’s message to Bush
By Chuck Hagel, via The Washington Note, November , 2007

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & ANALYSIS: The Kurdish dilemma

Iraq asks for Iran’s help in calming Kurdish crisis
By Alissa J. Rubin, New York Times, November 1, 2007

Iran has been sympathetic to Turkey’s position, because Kurdish guerrillas have also been attacking Iran, but it has loyalties to Iraq which, like Iran, has a Shiite-majority government. Iran has also worked closely with the Kurdish leadership in Iraq.

In comments at a news conference on Wednesday, the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said that he had discussed the situation with Mr. Mottaki and that he had warned of “serious consequences” if Turkey were to invade Iraq.

“It will have consequences for the entire region,” he said he told Mr. Mottaki.

However, Mr. Zebari also said Iraq needed help from its neighbors on many other issues, such as border security, refugees and economic investment. “The Istanbul meeting should not be hijacked by the P.K.K. terrorist activities in Turkey,” he said. [complete article]

Double-crossing in Kurdistan
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, November 2, 2007

The George W Bush administration would not flinch to betray its allies in Iraqi Kurdistan if that entailed a US “win” in the Iraq quagmire. And it would not flinch to leave its Turkish North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies in the wilderness as well – if that entailed further destabilization of Iran. Way beyond the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) vs Turkey skirmish, one of these two double-crossing scenarios will inevitably take place. Washington simply cannot have its kebab and eat it too.

The Bush administration’s double standards are as glaring as meteor impacts. When, in the summer of 2006, Israel used the capture of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah to unleash a pre-programmed devastating war on Lebanon, destroying great swathes of the country, the Bush administration immediately gave the Israelis the green light. When 12 Turkish soldiers are killed and eight captured by PKK guerrillas based in Iraqi Kurdistan, the Bush administration urges Ankara to take it easy.

The “war on terror” is definitely not an equal-opportunity business. That has prompted Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek to mischievously remark, regarding Turkey, “It’s as if an intruder has gatecrashed the closed circle of ‘we’, the domain of those who hold the de facto monopoly on military humanitarianism.” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Arab nuclear solutions

Gulf Arabs offer to provide uranium to Iran: report
Reuters, November 1, 2007

U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states are willing to set up a body to provide enriched uranium to Iran to defuse Tehran’s stand-off with the West over its nuclear plan, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister told a magazine on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries — Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates — share Western concerns that Iran’s nuclear energy program will lead to it acquiring atomic bombs, a claim Tehran denies.

“We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium in the Middle East,” Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED). [complete article]

Middle East racing to nuclear power
By Dan Murphy, Christian Science Monitor, November 1, 2007

This week Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern country in the past year to say it wants nuclear power, intensifying an atomic race spurred largely by Iran’s nuclear agenda, which many in the region and the West claim is cover for a weapons program.

Experts say the nuclear ambitions of majority Sunni Muslim states such as Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are reactions to Shiite Iran’s high-profile nuclear bid, seen as linked with Tehran’s campaign for greater influence and prestige throughout the Middle East.

“To have 13 states in the region say they’re interested in nuclear power over the course of a year certainly catches the eye,” says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior nonproliferation official in the US State Department who is now a fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “The Iranian angle is the reason.” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: U.S. shouldn’t exclude academics critical of its policies

The U.S. blacklisted me. Let’s talk
By Tariq Ramadan, Christian Science Monitor, October 31, 2007

For years, I worked tirelessly in academic and public circles to dismantle the barriers erected by those who see Islam and the West as mutually exclusive, to build bridges of mutual understanding and respect. Since 2001, I have also intensified my work to remind my fellow Western citizens of the fragility of our societies and the precariousness of our civil liberties as we are thrust into this so-called war on terrorism. Since the end of 2004, I have done this primarily in Europe through my academic work, debates, and public lectures and by working closely with European politicians, governmental agencies, and civic institutions. But I have been prevented from doing this work on American soil. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: The rise of racist liberalism

How liberals lost their anti-racism
By Arun Kundnani, IRR, October 3, 2007

A new sentiment has gripped the mainstream of liberal thinking in Britain over the last few years. It is an attitude that regards Muslims as uniquely problematic and in need of forceful integration into what it views as the inherently superior values of the West. For this new breed of liberal, previously cherished norms of multiculturalism should be discarded and the fight for racial and religious equality is irrelevant. The publication this year of Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? how liberals lost their way and Andrew Anthony’s more sharply argued The Fall-Out: how a guilty liberal lost his innocence provide the clearest statements yet of what this new liberalism stands for. Their core argument can be stated straightforwardly: the major problem facing the West is a failure to stand up for its Enlightenment values. Liberalism has been infected by guilt – which prevents it from defending itself against external threats, chief among them ‘Islamism’, which is held responsible not only for terrorist violence but also for Muslim separatism in our cities. What precisely an Islamist is is left unclear; after all, a realistic definition of Islamism – as a wide range of political movements, some violent and some constitutional, generally with social conservatism at their core – would require the reader to pause for a moment before the ritual denunciation of all Islamists as irrational, nihilist and totalitarian.

But Cohen’s and Anthony’s main target is not so much Islamism as the appeasing attitudes they detect among liberals. Anthony writes that, since the 1970s, liberalism has been corrupted by White guilt which leads liberals to think that everything will be OK as long as they don’t interfere in other people’s lives, especially the lives of other ethnic groups. But this is fantasy: in practice, White liberals have not usually shied away from using the power of the state to intervene in the lives of non-Whites, either in Britain or in the neocolonialism of the ‘war on terror’. Moreover, at the conceptual level, liberalism has always lacked the means to generate the kind of social solidarity which Anthony wants to see. Individualist indifference has been a feature of liberal democracy since its inception. The slave-owning liberal democracy of early nineteenth-century America could not be said to be a society suffering from what Anthony calls a ‘guilt-warped vision of the world’, yet Tocqueville wrote of its citizens that ‘each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of the rest’. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: Engaging Hamas and Hezbollah

Engaging Hamas and Hezbollah
By Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, October 29, 2007

Nothing could be easier in the present atmosphere than to accuse anyone who calls for recognition of and dialogue with Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist movements of being closet supporters of reactionary “extremism” or naive fellow travelers of “terrorists.” This tactic is not surprising coming from neoconservatives and Zionists. What is novel is to see it expressed in supposedly progressive quarters.

Arun Kundnani has written about a “new breed of liberal” whose outlook “regards Muslims as uniquely problematic and in need of forceful integration into what it views as the inherently superior values of the West.” The target of these former leftists, Kundnani argues, “is not so much Islamism as the appeasing attitudes they detect among [other] liberals.”

Such views are now creeping into the Palestinian solidarity movement. MADRE, an “international women’s human rights organization,” presents one example. In the wake of the Hamas election victory and takeover of Gaza from US- and Israeli-backed Fatah warlords, MADRE declared that the challenge for Palestine solidarity activists is “how do we support the people of Palestine without endorsing the Hamas leadership?” Calling for what it terms “strategic solidarity” as opposed to “reflexive solidarity,” MADRE defines Hamas as a “repressive” movement “driven by militarism and nationalism,” which “aims to institutionalize reactionary ideas about gender and sexuality,” while using “religion as a smokescreen to pursue its agenda.” Similarly strident and dismissive claims have been made by a Washington-based pro-Palestinian advocacy group. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: Report treats torture-based confessions as news

NPR gives torture credibility
FAIR, October 30, 2007

Good journalists don’t base their stories on highly dubious “facts.” And they try to avoid reports that will encourage violence. Unfortunately, a recent segment on NPR’s Morning Edition (10/26/07) violated both rules.

NPR Iraq correspondent Anne Garrels’ report was based around the accounts of three men who were being held prisoner by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia. The captives were supposedly “renegade” members of Sadr’s militia who said “they were trained in roadside bombs and car bombings in Iran…to attack Americans and sow suspicion and violence between Shiites and Sunnis.” The details of the prisoners’ accounts made up much of Garrels’ report, despite her noting that “the three detainees had clearly been tortured.”

“There was blood all over their clothes,” Garrels reported. “They were in such bad shape they couldn’t walk. They had to be dragged onto the chairs, and one of them was just sobbing.”

Given the brutal treatment of the three men, there is no reason to put any stock whatsoever in the claims they made in the presence of their captors. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Mukasey: Bush and Cheney’s defense attorney

Nominee’s stand may avoid tangle of torture cases
By Scott Shane, New York Times, November 1, 2007

In adamantly refusing to declare waterboarding illegal, Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is steering clear of a potential legal quagmire for the Bush administration: criminal prosecution or lawsuits against Central Intelligence Agency officers who used the harsh interrogation practice and those who authorized it, legal experts said Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled a confirmation vote for Tuesday amid deep uncertainty about the outcome at the committee level. If Mr. Mukasey’s nomination reaches the Senate floor, moderate Democrats appear likely to join Republicans to produce a majority for confirmation. But a party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee, which seemed a possibility, could block the nomination from reaching the floor.

The biggest problem for Mr. Mukasey remains his refusal to take a clear legal position on the interrogation technique. Fear of opening the door to criminal or civil liability for torture or abuse, whether in an American court or in courts overseas, appeared to loom large in Mr. Mukasey’s calculations as he parried questions from the committee this week. Some legal experts suggested that liability could go all the way to President Bush if he explicitly authorized waterboarding. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: American courts are fully capable of trying suspected terrorists

How to try a terrorist
By John C. Coughenour, New York Times, November 1, 2007

In 2001, I presided over the trial of Ahmed Ressam, the confessed Algerian terrorist, for his role in a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. That experience only strengthened my conviction that American courts, guided by the principles of our Constitution, are fully capable of trying suspected terrorists.

As evidence of “the inadequacy of the current approach to terrorism prosecutions,” Judge Mukasey noted that there have been only about three dozen convictions in spite of Al Qaeda’s growing threat. Open prosecutions, he argued, potentially disclose to our enemies methods and sources of intelligence-gathering. Our Constitution does not adequately protect society from “people who have cosmic goals that they are intent on achieving by cataclysmic means,” he wrote.

It is regrettable that so often when our courts are evaluated for their ability to handle terrorism cases, the Constitution is conceived as mere solicitude for criminals. Implicit in this misguided notion is that society’s somehow charitable view toward “ordinary” crimes of murder or rape ought not to extend to terrorists. In fact, the criminal procedure required under our Constitution reflects the reality that law enforcement is not perfect, and that questions of guilt necessarily precede questions of mercy.

Consider the fact that of the 598 people initially detained at Guantánamo Bay in 2002, 267 have been released. It is likely that for a number of the former detainees, there was simply no basis for detention. The American ideal of a just legal system is inconsistent with holding “suspects” for years without trial. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Rumsfeld’s “snowflakes”

From the desk of Donald Rumsfeld . . .
By Robin Wright, Washington Post, November 1, 2007

In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid “physical labor” and wrote of the need to “keep elevating the threat,” “link Iraq to Iran” and develop “bumper sticker statements” to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.

The memos, often referred to as “snowflakes,” shed light on Rumsfeld’s brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. Spanning from 2002 to shortly after his resignation following the 2006 congressional elections, a sampling of his trademark missives obtained yesterday reveals a defense secretary disdainful of media criticism and driven to reshape public opinion of the Iraq war.

Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said. The memos are not classified but are marked “for official use only.” [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

ANALYSIS: Musharraf’s quest for extraordinary power

Musharraf faces up to an emergency
By Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times, November 2, 2007

With Admiral William J Fallon, US commander of CENTCOM, due in Pakistan on Thursday to finalize collaboration on pressing issues concerning the “war on terror” in Pakistan and Afghanistan, besides addressing the tension over Iran, top decision-makers in Islamabad are in a quandary. The issue is whether Pakistan can afford to take bold steps in the “war on terror” without taking extraordinary steps to solidify the regime of President General Pervez Musharraf.

The matter is one of extreme urgency. Almost the entire North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas have revolted against the state of Pakistan in favor of the Taliban. And polls conducted by US institutions suggest the hunt for al-Qaeda is extremely unpopular in Pakistan, which also faces wave after wave of suicide attacks in its bigger cities.

The Pakistani Taliban have refused offers of a ceasefire in North Waziristan and South Waziristan, and are extending their engagement of Pakistani troops in the Swat Valley in NWFP where Pakistani troops face attacks from all sides, including the local population. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail