StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

As admirable as Prince Harry’s desire to serve in the British military in Afghanistan is/was, the slime of the Drudge Report has once again proven the lowest common denominator aspect of today’s urge to purge (purge as in bulimic expulsion).  So urgent the need for this “bastion” of journalism, that he put Prince Harry’s life in danger, and prompted his redeployment.

His presence there had been kept secret from the public in a remarkable deal between the British military and media. But the secret was revealed in two little-noticed articles in an Australian tabloid magazine, and then blasted into the global media spotlight Thursday by the Drudge Report Web site.

Please!  If you think that this disclosure was appropriate, I again, (dis)respectfully disagree.

Also read:  Fearing that the disclosure would make him a target for Taliban kidnapping, the Prince is returning from Afghan tour.

See Small Wars Journal with its take on this.

Prince Harry

2 Comments »

Just a short post on a new election issue.  Article II specifies that a person must be at least 35 years old,  and says that ”No person except a natural born Citizen” can be president.  John McCain was born of two American citizens, but in the Panama Canal zone.  Never actually a territory of the U.S.  Under U.S. control from 1903 to 1979.  The question raised is whether, despite his obvious citizenship, Senator McCain is a natural born citizen as provided in Article II.

● a law passed in 1790 by the first Congress. It provided that the children of US citizens born outside the US “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” The law is no longer in effect, but it provides some guidance on what the founders had in mind at the time of the Constitution.

● some legal experts find it hard to believe the founders would have considered their own children, if born overseas, to be ineligible for the presidency.

● The plain meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ includes persons who become citizens of this nation ‘naturally,’ that is, by virtue of their birth to parents who are citizens, particularly when the birth takes place on territory occupied and controlled by the United States

Note also, the following:

An interesting sidelight to the story. The late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran unsuccessfully for the presidency in 1964, was born in the Old Arizona Territory before Arizona became a state. McCain says the question of eligibility was settled then when the issue went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Tis quite an interesting issue, and one that is bound to raise the attention of anti-McCain Republicans as well as the usually liberal Democratic extreme.

Gotta hand it to ANewtOne on this one, see here…they tried, but as pointed out in the next link, this particular act was repealed (The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795).  So, the question does remain, not as clear as ANewtOne makes it out to be.  Why?  See this from a column from George Washington University, Does the Constitution Ban a McCain Presidency?

For his part, McCain has given only the dodgiest of answers to this question. According to the Senator, he is a natural born citizen due to the Naturalization Act of 1790. This is quite pathetic. First, as the name itself implies, the legislation in question grants naturalization. Second, the act no longer merits legal weight because it was repealed in 1802. So, no matter how you cut it, that answer makes no sense, which is a shame because I could hardly think of a more important issue for a man running for president than whether or not he is even eligible to run in the first place.

So, what are we McCain supporters to believe?  Another ploy by which partisan group to supercede the primary process?

John McCain, natural born citizen

No Comments »

Blogging is supposed to be full of opinions, observations and sometimes, analysis.  Yesterday, a “trusted friend,” took personal offense at a previous post of mine on the devolution of political discourse on the Internet into real life politics, and proceeded to use it as an “example” in my friend’s terms (of something), and hold it to ridicule.  Its an example of why this blog is near shutdown.  I ask you…what does the headline of this post (re-pasted just below) MEAN???  I’ve never openly criticized or ridiculed this persons’s opinions, and certainly never held any of this person’s articles to ridicule regardless.  Peoples’ sensitivities go off the charts during Presidential campaign years.  It simply isn’t worth it. 

My comments on this can be found in the previous post linked above.

EDITORIAL - DO NOT READ IF “STRAIGHT TALK” WILL OFFEND YOU
- OR -
“How To Win Friends and Influence People“

My comments on this can be found in the previous post linked above.

Just for the heck of it, here’s what has launched my displeasure:

Apparently there are those who do not want us to print the truth these days, or opinion pieces like the one above, or personal commentary. Too bad. While I do not like the talk show host Cunningham’s style, all he did was use Barack Hussein Obama’s full name. Yet McCain apologizes like Cunningham had called Obama some four-letter word. It’s THE MAN’S NAME for heaven’s sake.

Anyone can say or write anything that they want. That is what blogs are for.  None of us, not me nor my “friend” or most anyone else who blogs for fun (not profit) is an expert.  Certainly not in this venue, as an anonymous pseudonym, I am no expert.  Its not intended as such.  For a “friend” to use a post by a “friend” and hold it up to ridicule, as an example of some form of censorship is beyond my acceptance…is one of the reasons why, ladies and gentlemen, that I’ve just about had it.

3 Comments »

Shocked, but somehow not too surprised.  Just released!  More than 1% of all American adults is behind bars.  Think of that, let it sink in.  We are the most incarcerated nation in the World.  That’s more than 2.3 million people.

All of this is from the usually reliable Pew Research in a report titled One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, unless of course the information contradicts something else that you might read on the subject (stuff like that happens - yeah!  really, it does).

“There is no question that putting violent and chronic offenders behind bars lowers the crime rate and provides punishment that is well deserved,” said Adam Gelb, director of the Pew Center’s Public Safety Performance Project and one of the study’s authors. “On the other hand, there are large numbers of people behind bars who could be supervised in the community safely and effectively at a much lower cost — while also paying taxes, paying restitution to their victims, and paying child support.”

About 91 percent of incarcerated adults are under state or local jurisdiction, and the report documents the tradeoffs state governments have faced as they have devoted ever larger shares of their budgets to house them. For instance, over the past two decades, state spending on corrections (adjusted for inflation) increased by 127 percent, while spending on higher education rose by 21 percent. For every dollar Virginia spends on higher education, it now spends about 60 cents on corrections. Maryland spends 74 cents on corrections per higher-education dollar.

Here are some of the tidbits from the report:

White men 18+: 1 in 106
All men 18+: 1 in 54
Hispanic men 18+: 1 in 36
Black men 18+: 1 in 15
Black men 20-34: 1 in 9
White women 35-39: 1 in 255
Hispanic women 35-39: 1 in297
All women 35-39: 1 in 265
Black women 35-39: 1 in 100

A map of prison population trends from the Pew Research Report

Between 1985 and 2005, the Texas prison population jumped 300 percent, forcing a vast expansion of prison capacity. After investing $2.3 billion to add 108,000 beds, Texas didn’t get much of a breather. Within less than a decade, its prisons were teeming and experts forecast the arrival of another 14,000-17,000 inmates within five years. In 2007, legislators from both parties decided it was time for a course change. Rather than spend $523 million on more prison cells, they authorized a virtual makeover of the correctional system. Anchoring their approach was a dramatic expansion of drug treatment and diversion beds, many of them in secure facilities. Legislators also approved broad changes in parole practices and expanded drug courts. In all, the reforms are expected to save Texas $210 million over the next two years—plus an additional $233 million if the recidivism rate drops and the state can avoid contingency plans to build three new prisons.29 “It’s always been safer politically to build the next prison, rather than stop and see whether that’s really the smartest thing to do,” said state Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, chairman of the senate’s criminal justice committee. “But we’re at a point where I don’t think we can afford to do that anymore.”

At the start of 2008, the future looked promising in the Lone Star state. For the next five years, new projections by the Legislative Budget Board show, the prison trend is a flat line.

This is where the criminologists have to step in and explain things to me. I’m sure that they will.

criminology, Texas prison system, U.S. 0ne in one hundred

4 Comments »

EDITORIAL  - DO NOT READ IF “STRAIGHT TALK” WILL OFFEND YOU
- OR -
“How To Win Friends and Influence People“

Well, now I’ve “done and gone it!”  It appears that one of my trusted blogging friends has taken this post personally.  I am truly sorry for that.  Before anyone who follows the link from that post to here goes off believing what was written in that blogger’s post has merit or accurately depicted what I wrote, take a deep beath and think again (and please note that the blogger in question is unmentioned and unlinked)!  This post (mine) addresses the singular question of Senator Obama’s name (Hussein) and whether the use of it by the talk show host, Cunningham (in whatever way and tone of voice he used it) was appropriate or not.  Nothing else!  Yet, the rejoinder in my blogging friend’s post alludes to a much broader objection than I could have inferred from reading my post.  Therein lies one of the problems with this exchange (it is one-sided).

I do not proclaim to stifle “free speech,” nor do I reject what might be the “truth.”  What I reject is innuendo.  What I reject is blanketly calling people names and launching implications based on what amounts to be circumstantial evidence.  I have seen no real evidence other than one blogger quoting another blogger (perhaps quoting another blogger) that Barack Obama is a Muslim, practicing or otherwise (many of these same people who make this statement were “concerned” over Governor Romney’s Mormonism as something that should be avoided in our POTUS).  Is Obama a liberal Democrat.  Yeah, I think he is.  Is he as anti-American as some people, including my blogging buddy makes him out to be?  Really?  Please, spare me the pain of actually commenting on that allegation. 

There are implications that Obama consorts with terrorists (in my blogging buddy’s posts and elsewhere), yet other than the fact that he was introduced by his predecessor to former members of the Weather Underground, this does not mean that he was consorting with a terrorist.  Yet, those who take this information as fact and then run with it (to where one must consider) would have you believe that there is a continuing relationship between Ayers and Dohrn (to my knowledge there is not a continuing relationship).  Damn it!  I was a block or so away from the building that the Weather Underground accidently blew up in Greenwich Village in 1970.  For that matter, I was then involved in preparations for the March on Washington, and involved in coordinating activities of local universities in the following months after the Kent State shootings.  I guess that makes me a terrorist as well (come and get me “guys”).

Take it as you will.  Or not.  I have no intention of voting for Obama or any Democrat in the upcoming election.  I voted for Senator McCain this morning in the primary election.  Bloggers have influence over how other people think (this particluar blogger - my blogging buddy - is fancied as an information resource).  That, either way, is a reality.  There is always going to be a question of unsubstantiated “facts” and the use of contradictory sources in sequential posts.  Contrary to the blogger friend in question, I will not link to the post in which this one is referenced (derisively I might add) and note that the blogger is unmentioned herein…I will not engage in such things with someone whose friendship I value and trust.  Differences of opinion often occur, both in real life and in the blogosphere.

Such is life.  Time will pass, as will this little “tiff” or difference of opinion.  Those of you who followed this blogger’s post (note that the blogger is unmentioned) in which mine was mentioned, may actually get through this entire BOLDED section, and still conclude that I am full of shit…others before you have done so.  If that is your conclusion, then “so be it.”  I can’t do a thing about it. And to my friend, I say, “I guess that you’ve somehow proven your point.”

ORIGINAL POST:  Very simply people, the days of decency in American political discourse are behind us because the indecency of discourse prevalent on the Internet has very clearly bled into real politics.  I hear it or read it everyday.  This devolving of American discussion is striking and it is upsetting.  It shows the ignorance of those who use it, and detracts from the process itself.

McCain rebukes radio host for Obama talk
Radio talk show host Bill Cunningham’s mocking and harsh criticism of Democrat Barack Obama upstaged Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s rally today in Cincinnati.

If you think that its “cute” or appropriate, then you are as guilty as the next ignoramous. Among many things, John McCain is a gentleman. Consider that before you flame me…because anyone who does will simply be showing his or her ignorance.

A Host Disparages Obama, and McCain Quickly Apologizes
Responding to questions from reporters, Mr. McCain said he did not hear what Mr. Cunningham had said; when he arrived, Mr. Portman was on stage, he said.

“Whatever suggestion that was made that was any way disparaging to the integrity, character, honesty of either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton was wrong,” Mr. McCain said. “I condemn it, and if I have any responsibility, I will take the responsibility, and I apologize for it.”

Mr. McCain called Mr. Obama a “man of integrity” and said he was someone he had come to know “pretty well and I admire.”

He also said that it was not appropriate to invoke Mr. Obama’s middle name.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you all think that the dirty politics, character assassination, innuendo, mudslinging, rhetoric, slurring is appropriate, then you are not only wrong, but you show your ignorance.  If you resort to innuendo, to posting pictures dredged up by Matt Drudge and consider it to be constructive to the American political process, then I hope you lose your voter registration card. IMO, you are one of the people who is a poster child for requiring an IQ test to vote.  If you don’t like what I’ve written, or if you take offense at it…too bad! Don’t read my stuff!  You probably have too little of substance to offer anyway.

Obama’s campaign swiftly praised McCain’s comments. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “We appreciate Senator McCain’s remarks. It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues.”

Ladies and gentlemen. IMO, the broad reaching general ignorance of the American public is being shown by the lowest common denominator of language and discussion that not only pervades the Internet, but has clearly become acceptable in public. It can only bring to level of political discussion down to the gutter. All too many people are guilty.  I’m proud of the way John McCain handled this situation.  I’m proud to support a man of John McCain’s integrity and stature.

American political ignorance, McCain, Obama

15 Comments »

There’s something thats been going around the blogosphere recently (its not a virus).  A blog called the Pakistani Spectator has been “interviewing” bloggers from around the world.  Not too sure of the reasons (might be exactly what they say) or if there are any ulterior motives (probably not), but because of a comment that I wrote at the Right Truth (Debbie is among the myriad bloggers who have been interviewed) about how unlikely it would be that I would get interviewed, I got interviewed (proving only that the “editors” of Pakistani Spectator saw my comment).

Well, for those of you who don’t already know alot of these things, here is a link to that interview.  For those of you who don’t already know that I am brutally honest, some of what I wrote is, well…brutally honest.  Having been interviewed a few times in real life, this was an interesting experience.

Proving the extraordinary “pull” of the interview with The Pakistani Spectator (or the total lack of interest in what I “said”), take a look at this from the Site Meter (as of 1510 2/26/08):

Previously, Debbie Hamilton of Right Truth, Roger Gardner of Radar Site and Courtney from GrEaT sAtAn’S gIrLfRiEnD have also been among those interviewed.

For everyone’s (or anyone’s) convenience, here is a link to all of my posts in which the word Pakistan is mentioned.

Pakistani Spectator

8 Comments »

Its natural bio-terrorism.  And if you really care about the health and welfare of our fighting men and women, you have got to read The Iraq Infections website, and especially this article on Acinetobacter Baumannii.  Also see The Invisible Enemy at Wired that starts with, “The Pentagon created the perfect machine for saving the lives of soldiers wounded in Iraq. But then GIs started getting sick. The culprit: a drug-resistant supergerm infecting the military’s evacuation chain.”  This is a five page article and its worth reading, even though I won’t summarize it here.

Its clear that this threat, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, is making its way home from the battlefields of the War on Terror.  It has long been known that during a National health crisis, the potential for additional deaths due to antibiotic-resistant hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) running rampant could become a serious problem.  Its a concern shared by many in the disaster response and medical responder communities.  Now, we face the problem in frontline battlefield hospitals, and its coming home.

“The outbreak,” according to a Defense Department fact sheet, “appears to have started during the care of patients (both US military and non-US) in the combat support hospitals of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
[::]
Once the bacteria has gotten a foothold at the frontline surgical sites, it begins “traveling with patients or on patients from Iraq all the way back to Walter Reed, with stops along the way through the evacuation chain and getting into our hospitals.

This is a health crisis in real time. Its growing, and its growing unabated. And its estimated that 90-100,000 people die yearly in the U.S. from HAIs.

One soldier, Sgt. David Emery was wounded by an IED in February 2007.  Doctors were in the process of saving his severely injured leg when it became infected with acinebacter.  Doctors were forced to amputate.  Its a growing problem…and most people aren’t aware of it.

Researchers say they don’t know exactly how acinetobacter baumannii first made its way into frontline treatment facilities. Early suspicions pointed to the possibility that the germs, mixed with soil, were blown deep into penetrating wounds. Some physicians speculated that bacteria residing in the combat zone had settled onto the skin of service members-lying dormant until open wounds allowed the bugs to create havoc. Small-sample testing, however, has indicated little or no evidence of problem-causing acinetobacter in Iraqi soil. And the only Iraq or Afghanistan veterans so far showing signs of acinetobacter colonization on their skin are those who have spent time in casualty treatment centers.

Moreover, say scientists, nothing in the character of the outbreak would indicate that it originated as a result of intentional biological attack.

From March 2003 to March 2005 acinetobacter infections attacked more than 250 patients at U.S. military healthcare facilities.

Two key issues seem behind the persistence of the outbreak. A number of infectious disease specialists point to difficulties in completely ridding hospital environments of acinetobacter. Doing so, they say, requires more stringent cleaning than that typically sufficient to kill other bacteria. Additionally, several express concern that policies on antibiotic use differ at commands and hospitals along the casualty evacuation chain.

So…its natural…its not man-made…but yet, it is bioterrorism on the battlefields. And we’re still losing the battle against this enemy.  The biggest problem with this enemy is that it is able to steal resistance capabilities from other bacteria with which it comes into contact.  Thus, its virulence.  And BTW, you should spend a moment reading the first comment to this post shown below.

acinetobacter baumannii, antibiotic resistant hospital acquired infections, The Invisible Enemy

12 Comments »

This morning reveals that the winning political parties in Pakistan’s election, Pakistan’s former prime minister Nawaz Sharif (R) and Asif Ali Zardari (L), leader of the Pakistan People’s Party said that they would work together to form a coalition government at a news conference in Islamabad Thursday to replace the defeated party of Pervez Musharraf. Perhaps so.  But the words of confrontation from both Sharif and Zardari might have a double edge.  But here is Musharraf’s spin (or is he being genuine?).

Further, the contradictions are obvious:
● Musharraf’s political supporters, who won just 40 of 272;
● Bush administration officials have said they would still like to see Musharraf as part of a power-sharing deal;
● Sharif and Zardari announced that they would join forces and exclude the remnants of Musharraf’s party in their coalition
● Sharif (referring to Musharraf) - “He is not capable of giving any kind of help anymore.”
● Zardari (referring to Musharraf) - “We are not looking at the pro-Musharraf forces,” he said. “I do not believe the pro-Musharraf forces exist.”

Those are “fightin’ words.” I hesitate to consider the implications of the reaction of a former military coup leader being confronted with the loss of his position and being excluded from the going forward ogvernment.

The conclusion I reached in my recent post, Musharraf - Unimpeachable? was that “we sit back and watch as events unfold over the next few days/weeks.” 

That followed a previous post the other day, I asked the question, Musharraf Loses - Who Wins? (UPDATE), to which unfortunately, insight (or hindsight) can now be applied. However vague my point might have been, the more direct point was to address the idealistic approach with my usual bluntness. Oh yeah???!!! So what if the people voted, and nothing really changes?

Per this article, Pakistan’s Victors May Lack Strength to Oust Musharraf (another link in case you detest the NY Times and won’t read it)…can it be that some of my very intelligent readers miss the point that Pakistan is not really a democracy?

This week’s election will leave President Pervez Musharraf weakened in his post, but continuing returns and haggling over the new government on Wednesday showed his opponents likely to fall short of the numbers needed to impeach him.

The Pakistan Peoples Party, which won the most seats in the new Parliament, said it would not move against Mr. Musharraf if it could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to remove him or change the Constitution.

“Musharraf is our problem,” said Ahmad Mukhtar, who successfully contested a seat against a powerful ally of Mr. Musharraf, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussein. “Today we don’t have the two-thirds majority. It is very difficult to talk about impeachment.”

My own opinion is that this isn’t over by a long shot. And speaking of long shots, how about this one…call it sort of a P.O.M.A. “vision.” It was Musharraf who made agreements with the Taliban in Waziristan, right? Without a simple majority, the Bhutto Party cannot act. A coalition is needed. And yet the Bhutto’s have already proclaimed that they will not work with the former Adminstration. Indeed.

I suggest that we sit back and watch as events unfold over the next few days/weeks.

Let us wait and see. Consistently, I have not trusted the situation in Pakistan. Simply just by calling it a democracy does make it one.

This same article raised an important caution:

Perhaps because he lacks sufficient numbers in the new Parliament, Sharif appeared to have softened his insistence that Musharraf be impeached. The coalition between the parties of Zardari and Sharif would fall short of the two-thirds majority needed in the lower house for impeachment.

And even though analysts said they were likely to stitch smaller parties into the government, the coalition would still need control of the Senate. Currently, the party that has supported Musharraf, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, dominates the upper house.

Even so, the balance of power now rests with Musharraf’s opponents, who will control the Parliament and name a new prime minister.

Shall we dance?

coalition, Musharraf, Sharif, Zardari

No Comments »

The other day, I asked the question, Musharraf Loses - Who Wins? (UPDATE), to which unfortunately, insight (or hindsight) can now be applied.  However vague my point might have been, the more direct point was to address the idealistic approach with my usual bluntness.  Oh yeah???!!!  So what if the people voted, and nothing really changes?

Per this article, Pakistan’s Victors May Lack Strength to Oust Musharraf (another link in case you detest the NY Times and won’t read it)…can it be that some of my very intelligent readers miss the point that Pakistan is not really a democracy?

This week’s election will leave President Pervez Musharraf weakened in his post, but continuing returns and haggling over the new government on Wednesday showed his opponents likely to fall short of the numbers needed to impeach him.

The Pakistan Peoples Party, which won the most seats in the new Parliament, said it would not move against Mr. Musharraf if it could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to remove him or change the Constitution.

“Musharraf is our problem,” said Ahmad Mukhtar, who successfully contested a seat against a powerful ally of Mr. Musharraf, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussein. “Today we don’t have the two-thirds majority. It is very difficult to talk about impeachment.”

My own opinion is that this isn’t over by a long shot.  And speaking of long shots, how about this one…call it sort of a P.O.M.A. “vision.”  It was Musharraf who made agreements with the Taliban in Waziristan, right?  Without a simple majority, the Bhutto Party cannot act.  A coalition is needed.  And yet the Bhutto’s have already proclaimed that they will not work with the former Adminstration.  Indeed.

I suggest that we sit back and watch as events unfold over the next few days/weeks.

impeachment, Musharraf, Taliban

3 Comments »

Unsubtantiated rumors.  Anonymous sources.  Spurious innuendos.  Character assassinations.  Smear campaign.  New York Times, Washington Post.  So who’s behind the “information” and who are these anonymous sources? 

Clearly the allegations have been flatly denied.  The question is still, “and sir, when did you stop beating your wife?”  When both Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh are up in arms about something like, and actually agreeing with the other, “its SHOWTIME!“ 

I’ve got some suspicions.

McCain

No Comments »

The headline says it all: Pakistanis Deal Severe Defeat to Musharraf in Election.  Now, we see what happens next.  Clearly, this is a rejection of Musharraf’s policies.  It may also indicate a defeat for the U.S.

From unofficial results the private news channel, Aaj Television, forecast that the Pakistan Peoples Party would win 110 seats in the 272-seat National Assembly, with Mr. Sharif’s party taking 100 seats.

Mr. Musharraf’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, was crushed, holding on to just 20 to 30 seats. Early results released by the state news agency, The Associated Press of Pakistan, also showed the Pakistan Peoples Party to be leading in the number of seats won.

Bhutto’s party, the PPP seems to have been the biggest winner.  The bigger question remains to see how the transition to a new leadership will unfold.  Pakistan isn’t the U.S.

This link should give updates: Pakistan election

UPDATE: As discussed below in my comment, there has been announced “peace agreement” in Northern Waziristan.  Andy Cochran of the Counterterrorism Blog notes:

We’ll see how the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their terrorist associates in North Waziristan react to this announcement. The Dawn article also noted, “Significantly, militants in North Waziristan remained neutral as security forces launched an operation in neighbouring South Waziristan against militants led by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan chief Baitullah Mehsud.” Paul Cruickshank posted on February 5 that “Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Pakistani Taliban, whom the CIA believe ordered the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, also orchestrated a plot last month to attack Barcelona and other European cities.” Prior to that, on January 22, Evan Kohlmann posted a NEFA Foundation interview with Taliban spokesman Taliban spokesman Zahidullah Mujahid, who denied both Taliban involvement in the Bhutto assassination and close coordination between the Taliban and Mehsud. On January 14, Olivier Guitta posted that a Taliban leader in Waziristan stated, “It is impossible to stop us. We have spies all along the border who tell us about the U.S. patrols. We also have spies inside their military bases.”

Reaching premature conclusions little more than a few hours after the polls close is…well, premature.  No one knows what will happen next.  A year ago, loads of people were believing that the Taliban were defunct.

Musharraf

7 Comments »

Just the other day I commented on the growing tensions in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and other places).  I suspect that many are still looking at this region through (rose colored) filters.  Today’s updates show more than 3 dozen people exploded to death in a suicide attack in Kandahar (Afghanistan) and growing concerns as low turnout (in some cases, even lower than expected) raises early questions about the “vote” in Pakistan.

Afghanistan (blaming the Taliban):

The blast came one day after Afghanistan’s deadliest suicide attack since the Taliban was ousted in 2001. At least 100 people were killed Sunday when a bomber blew himself up in a crowd of people watching a dogfighting competition outside Kandahar City.

Pakistan (where violence and confusion surpress turnout):

Voter turnout was low; in the North-West Frontier Province, which abuts the lawless tribal areas, turnout was only 20 percent, according to election officials. In Peshawar, the provincial capital, Islamic militants prevented many women from voting. Election officials estimated that only 523 of 6,431 registered female voters at six polling stations cast ballots.

So the question remains, is there anyone seeing this?  Are people in our own State Department recognizing that the tribal influences in both of these countries is likely the greatest and very real impediment to the establishment of a “democracy” in this region?  Or will transparently biased reporting from Mohammed in Bashur, for example, continue to paint a rosy picture?

Kandahar, State Department, Taliban, tribal influences

4 Comments »

A couple of weeks ago, I posted on an unlikely pattern of occurrences where a very small sample of contributors (to RealClearPolitics) represented an unrealistically high percentage of the subjectively selected “articles that passed a certain threshold.”  These are entries, and by their nature, their common characteristic is that they have been subjectively selected from a pool of say a 500-1000.  These entries derive from sources estimated at over 100 (perhaps more, perhaps a few less).  It didn’t make sense then, and it continues to make no sense.

So in another very informal review of the data, we once again find a statistically unlikely anomaly.  As of 10:30am Central (Feb. 17), two contributors’ entries now represent an unlikely 21% (thats twenty-one percent or 8 out of a “sample” of 38) of the subjectively selected few (those entries with ten or more “votes”).  If you look at those with the “most votes in the last 7 days” and add one contributor, the statistics are no less striking with the three yielding 12 of the 50 entries, or 24% of the total.  UPDATE: A quick review this morning (Monday, Feb. 18 at 0628 Central) reveals that 3 contributors represent 13 of the 35 entries with ten or more votes - or a whopping 37% of that subset.  That, my friends, is a statistical impossibility (or is that improbability)???  How about 13 or the 52 over the last seven days (that’s 25% for the statistically challenged)?  UPDATE 2 (as of approx. 8pm Central - 2/18/08): 11 of 30 from the same three contributors (one has 5 of the 30), these being the ones with ten or more “votes.”  Bit more than a coincidence?  UPDATE 3 (Feb. 19 at 0530 Central):  This morning’s stats show the same three submitters with 12 of the 30 front page qualifiers (with one poster claiming a whopping 6 - that’s 20 percent, or half of those from the three obvious ones).  Final UPDATE (because it is so ludicrous at 8pm Central):  Of 24 front page entries, the same three contributors now have 11 entries - that’s 45.8% (one has 5, or 20.8% and the other two have 3 each, or 12.5% each).  It is a statistical improbability.  Well, I lied!  Another UPDATE even more astoundingly and statistically unlikely as of 1400 Central, Feb. 21.  One contributor now has 5 of the 19 front pagers, or an astonishing 21.3% of the total.  From one person.  Well that person is either brilliant, insightful and otherwise precient, or there is something else afoot.  What say yea all?

Oh, sure, its a silly thing, especially in the scope of the World’s problems.  But it is still cheating.

Cheating at Real Clear Politics, statistical improbability, statistics dont lie

14 Comments »

I have reached a point of great concern.  Those of you who have read here long enough already know of my dimly lit outlook for “democracy” in Afghanistan and Pakistan - those two “countries” separated by the arbitrariness of the Durand Line and linked by the tribalism that now threatens the rend both from the center.  Add to that mess, the emerging conflict spawned by a re-emerging Russian bear to stop Kosovan independence along with the “unrest” in Africa, and what you have is a World full of tension, conflict and nationalistic chauvinsism…and if to that, you add the Islamic fundamentalist jihad that continues to spread unrelented like a global pandemic, and you get a boiling cauldron of a witches brew of violence that has to worry even the most naïve observers. 

Yet, it is that naïveté that leads somehow more sophisticated people to believe that one political candidate or the other will be better or worse for our nation as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century (among those naïve souls are the candidates themselves).  But is also that naïveté that permits those casual observers of World events who deem themselves “experts” because of the “bully pulpit” they’ve created in the blogosphere to believe that the World is stabilizing because the “surge in Iraq worked” (or didn’t), that creates perhaps our greatest issue.  The “PEOPLE” see the World stabilizing as if through some self-fulfilling prophecy, that they write that “all is well” on one front or the other, that in fact, it is well.  Well, dear readers, I believe that it is not “all well.”

In Afghanistan, a suicide bombing has killed atleast 80 in Kandahar at a dog fighting festival (too bad Michael Vick is serving time in prison).

The governor of Kandahar, Asadullah Khaled, said the dead numbered 80 and the wounded over 90. A spokesman for the ministry of health in Kabul, Dr. Abdullah Fahim, said the Kandahar hospital had received 67 bodies. The death toll exceeded 67 because some families had taken bodies straight home for burial from the scene of the blast, he said.

“This is the action of the enemies of our country,” said Mr. Khaled, the governor. “They do not let Afghans enjoy their lives and have a peaceful life.”

A spokesman for the Taliban, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, denied that the Taliban had carried out the attack and suggested it was the result of internal fighting within the Afghan government. “We did not carry out this blast in Kandahar, we strongly reject that,” he said in a telephone call.

Indeed, I maintain that Hamid Karzai continues to rule and live at the pleasure of the warlords (and their friends, the resurrected Taliban). Those who fail to recognize that tribalism, and not democracy or federalism, rule, are naïve.

In Pakistan, where just 6 weeks ago a returning Benazir Bhutto knew that she would be assassinated, was of course, assassinated.  And now, as the supposedly democratic elections there have been not one, but two separate bombings that have killed a total of oalmost 60 people (or it the body count higher?).  Northwest Pakistan, stronghold of the tribes including the Pashtun, continues to be the area in which violence is spawned and fomented.  Even the Bajaur tribal district where one supposedly “knowing” blogger has a source named Mohammed who continues to spin the violence as a temporary sidetrack. That level of naïveté is dangerous in a World where diplomacy is far from effective. We continue to underestimate the impact of tribalism on the stability or instability of regions like this.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in December highlighted the extent of Pakistan’s instability, and violence has continued unabated since. Extremists have threatened candidates from all parties. Fazal Rahman Kakakhel, the Vice President of the Awami National Party, a secular group representing Pakistan’s Pashtun ethnic group, was assassinated in Karachi on February 7th. Two days later a suicide bombing in the North-West Frontier Province killed over twenty-five at an ANP rally. Even conservative Islamic parties who are not believed to be sufficiently radical have been threatened; Maulana Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Islami party, “has been reduced to campaigning via phone and CD after warnings of a suicide attack.”

It was on February 9th, I believe that a suicide bombing rocked the Northwest section of Pakistan and killed atleast 25 people:

A powerful bomb killed at least 25 people at an opposition party rally in Pakistan’s turbulent northwest Saturday, according to government officials.

The explosion in the city of Charsadda ripped through a crowd of supporters of the secular Awami National Party moments before the party’s provincial president arrived, witnesses said. The source of the blast was unclear, but government officials blamed a suicide bomber.

With national elections only nine days away, the bombing raised concerns the government would postpone the vote in troubled North-West Frontier Province, near the Afghan border. The region has been the site of repeated clashes between Taliban fighters and the Pakistani military, as well as suicide bombings.

But Pakistani government officials moved swiftly to allay fears they might delay the vote, which had already been postponed after the Dec. 27 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

There are those who believe that the “election” will not solve the problems of Pakistan.  I am among those who hold that belief.  The Northwest tribal region is boiling over - Secular-Islamist Clash in NW Pakistan.

A showdown is shaping up in Pakistan’s turbulent northwest between secular-minded ethnic Pashtuns and those who support Taliban-style Islamists — a conflict that is likely to sharpen regardless of which side wins Monday’s elections.

Politicians and analysts fear the vote for a provincial assembly, which is being elected at the same time as the national parliament, will produce a coalition powerless to curb the frontier region’s slide toward domination by Islamic militants.

Five years ago, hard-line religious zealots swept to power in North West Frontier Province’s regional government. They capitalized on Pashtun anger over the U.S. invasion that toppled the Pashtun-dominated Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan as well as President Pervez Musharraf’s move to sideline mainstream political parties opposed to his military rule.

And yet, still, the election plans continued…to the point where just this weekend, another suicide bombing has ripped this pre-election.  The death toll in the latest bombing is approaching 50 as the election draws near.

Pakistan vowed Sunday to hold parliamentary elections despite a suicide attack on a campaign rally that killed up to 46 people, rattling voters already wary of the militant violence that has overshadowed the Islamic nation’s next step toward democracy.

Its time to lay aside all of the happy talk!  Any implication of voting irregularities in the Pakistani election will lead to an explosion of violence. 

And finally, there is Kosovo where a declaration of independence is looming, along with the fear and dread of the reaction that it will bring.

The move is expected to be quickly followed by formal recognition by the United States and many, but not all, of the European Union’s member states. Some E.U. countries, including Spain, fear that Kosovo’s independence will embolden separatists elsewhere on the continent.

Kosovo’s Serb minority, which makes up about 10 percent of the province’s population of 2 million, has resisted the independence move, and Russia and its ally Serbia, which regards Kosovo as an integral and historically precious part of its territory, are expected to swiftly condemn Thaci’s declaration.

“We are all expecting something difficult and horrible,” Bishop Artemije, the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church, said Saturday in Mitrovica, a city in northern Kosovo. “Our message to you, all Serbs in Kosovo, is to remain in your homes and around your monasteries, regardless of what God allows or our enemies do.”

Now that Kosovo has made it official and has declared its independence from Serbia and pledged to pledged to make it a “democratic, multiethnic state,” watching the response of the Serbs and the Russians will be important.  I can only hope that the State Department (among others) is watching as these World events unfold. Indeed, the World is about to boil over, in my opinion.

Karzai, KLA, Kosovo, Kosovo Liberation Army, Pakistani elections, Pashtun, State Department, Taliban

No Comments »

In his last press conference before yielding the Russian Presidency to his handpicked successor, Dmitri A. Medvedev, and taking over as Russian Premier, Putin blasted the West.  As many people watch the American Presidential race, the fact is that Putin’s actions now will influence the next Administration.  The Cold War is back.

In a confident and forceful public performance in which he described many of Russia’s continuing policy choices, Mr. Putin spoke bitingly of his international critics and defied Washington by refusing to back down from threats to aim strategic missiles at the Czech Republic, Poland and Ukraine.

Doubt it?  This nuclear threat should not be taken lightly, and it is tied to the possible breakaway of Kosovo from Serbia.  Although it is an unspecified retaliation, it is a threat nonetheless.

In a vintage performance, the former KGB spy laced almost five hours of invective with crude insults, threats and admonitions often expressed in the argot of the Russian street.

Reserving his greatest ire for the United States, which he accused of harbouring a colonial mentality towards Russia, Mr Putin again said that Europe would pay the consequences for a Washington-backed plan to erect a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

“Our generals, our security council, consider these moves a threat to our national security,” he said. “We asked our partners to stop but no one listened to us. So if they continue we will have to react appropriately by retargeting our missiles.” Mr Putin also made similar threats against Ukraine if it joined Nato.

Vladimir Putin is emerging as the next dictator of Russia. Watch as the story begins to unfold and remember that you read it here.

Cold War - Perception versus Reality (UPDATED), with other related posts linked within this one (two from a year ago).

Kosovo.  Putin argues that any breakaway from Serbia will be illegal, that the U.S. and Europe supporting the Kosovo breakaway as illegal and immoral.

There has been speculation that Moscow could retaliate by recognising the breakaway Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and the separatist Moldovan enclave of Trans-Dniester.

Watch these developments carefully ladies and gentlemen.

Abkhazia, Kosovo, Moldovan, Serbua, South Ossetia

5 Comments »