Pigeon held in India on suspicion of spying for Pak :
NEW DELHI: Indian police are holding a pigeon under armed guard after it was caught on an alleged spying mission for arch rivals and neighbours Pakistan, media reported on Friday. . .
The pigeon had a ring around its foot and a Pakistani phone number and address stamped on its body in red ink. . .
Officials have directed that no-one should be allowed to visit the pigeon, which police say may have been on a “special mission of spying”.
The bird has been medically examined and was being kept in an air-conditioned room under police guard. . .
This is not a normal part of the world.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
$55 Per Pakistani Civilian Death a Bargain Compared to Bailouts at Home
The AP is reporting on deaths in the drone and bomber strikes in the rugged remote tribal areas in Pakistan. Reports of militant deaths from the air and in ground battles have come from the U. S. and Pakistani sides without independent press verification. In fact, there have been so many reported militant deaths that I have wondered how many people are left to kill. Here is information from AP that raises the question of how many deaths have in fact been civilians, from Pakistani Airstrike Kills Many Civilians: Official:
Dilla Baz Khan was pulling a woman from the rubble of an air raid when Pakistani jets screamed back into the valley for a second bombing run, killing scores of people in a village locals say had been supportive of army offensives against militants along the Afghan border.
Khan and other survivors said Tuesday at least 68 villagers were killed in the weekend airstrikes, sharply contradicting initial army accounts that the dead were Islamist militants. A local administration official said $125,000 had been paid in compensation to victims. . .
The Pakistani military regularly claims to kill many militants in airstrikes, shelling and ground operations in the northwest, but rarely mentions civilian deaths. It is unclear whether that is because such deaths do not occur, or simply because the army does not report them.
Independent accounts of army operations in the tribal regions are extremely rare. The area is largely out of bounds for reporters and highly dangerous to visit because of the likelihood of being abducted by militants, who still control much of the area. . .
They said most families in the village have sons in the security forces and it had a history of cooperating with the army. He said the owner of the house that was bombed initially, Hamid Khan, has two sons serving in the paramilitary Frontier Corps.
"This house was bombed on absolutely wrong information," said Khanan Gul Khan, a Sara Walla resident who was visiting a relative in the hospital. "This area has nothing to do with militants." . . .
He said an official from the Khyber administration visited him Monday and gave him $220 to compensate for the loss of four relatives, including his brother. "He said, 'We are sorry for this, and we pray for your early recovery,'" he said.
Pakistan has no money for any of this. They are basically doing what they are doing on IMF funds. Thus the U. S. and its IMF poodle are paying $55 per corpse. Somehow one wonders what any semi-educated Pakistani thinks of this, assuming he/she knows at least a little about the bailouts following the global financial crisis.
Does this person think that America has its priorities straight?
America is busily killing Muslims in one of the most strictly Muslim parts of the world, and there is not even any oil there. Any "victory" will be temporary, because they hate us there as infidels and occupiers. Perhaps we will get Mr. bin Laden, assuming he is still alive. Short of that, it is difficult to see the long-term upside from all the resource expenditure there.
Meanwhile, the NFIB report on small business in March continues to show no real improvement. The big guys traded on the stock market are gaining market share from the little guys. Big whoop. The money-printing continues to largely be wasted on current consumption at home and one-use bombs etc. in Asia.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Dilla Baz Khan was pulling a woman from the rubble of an air raid when Pakistani jets screamed back into the valley for a second bombing run, killing scores of people in a village locals say had been supportive of army offensives against militants along the Afghan border.
Khan and other survivors said Tuesday at least 68 villagers were killed in the weekend airstrikes, sharply contradicting initial army accounts that the dead were Islamist militants. A local administration official said $125,000 had been paid in compensation to victims. . .
The Pakistani military regularly claims to kill many militants in airstrikes, shelling and ground operations in the northwest, but rarely mentions civilian deaths. It is unclear whether that is because such deaths do not occur, or simply because the army does not report them.
Independent accounts of army operations in the tribal regions are extremely rare. The area is largely out of bounds for reporters and highly dangerous to visit because of the likelihood of being abducted by militants, who still control much of the area. . .
They said most families in the village have sons in the security forces and it had a history of cooperating with the army. He said the owner of the house that was bombed initially, Hamid Khan, has two sons serving in the paramilitary Frontier Corps.
"This house was bombed on absolutely wrong information," said Khanan Gul Khan, a Sara Walla resident who was visiting a relative in the hospital. "This area has nothing to do with militants." . . .
He said an official from the Khyber administration visited him Monday and gave him $220 to compensate for the loss of four relatives, including his brother. "He said, 'We are sorry for this, and we pray for your early recovery,'" he said.
Pakistan has no money for any of this. They are basically doing what they are doing on IMF funds. Thus the U. S. and its IMF poodle are paying $55 per corpse. Somehow one wonders what any semi-educated Pakistani thinks of this, assuming he/she knows at least a little about the bailouts following the global financial crisis.
Does this person think that America has its priorities straight?
America is busily killing Muslims in one of the most strictly Muslim parts of the world, and there is not even any oil there. Any "victory" will be temporary, because they hate us there as infidels and occupiers. Perhaps we will get Mr. bin Laden, assuming he is still alive. Short of that, it is difficult to see the long-term upside from all the resource expenditure there.
Meanwhile, the NFIB report on small business in March continues to show no real improvement. The big guys traded on the stock market are gaining market share from the little guys. Big whoop. The money-printing continues to largely be wasted on current consumption at home and one-use bombs etc. in Asia.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Afghan War from a Canadian Perspective
In The Last Surge, Macleans, a Canadian periodical, has a balanced, Canadian-centric look at the road ahead in Afghanistan.
Regardless of Pakistan's apparent very strong progress against its own Taliban, even holding out the hope for capture of Messrs. bin Laden and Zawahiri, Afghanistan is the opposite of the nuclear power that Pakistan is.
Of course we can "win" the war in Afghanistan on strictly military terms. This comes at a significant financial cost to this country and is an inflationary thing, as wars always are.
As EBR has consistently said, however, we know (sort of) who we are fighting against in Afghanistan. Who are we fighting for?
This article is a concise review of the situation in Afghanistan. It is worth a read.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Regardless of Pakistan's apparent very strong progress against its own Taliban, even holding out the hope for capture of Messrs. bin Laden and Zawahiri, Afghanistan is the opposite of the nuclear power that Pakistan is.
Of course we can "win" the war in Afghanistan on strictly military terms. This comes at a significant financial cost to this country and is an inflationary thing, as wars always are.
As EBR has consistently said, however, we know (sort of) who we are fighting against in Afghanistan. Who are we fighting for?
This article is a concise review of the situation in Afghanistan. It is worth a read.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Pakistanis Slow in Behaving 100% Like a Client State; American 'patience wearing thin'
Anyone who thought that Barack Obama was the peace candidate has another think coming. In an unusually blunt article, the NYT is running Pakistan Told to Ratchet Up Fight Against the Taliban. Here are excerpts:
The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban inside its borders, warning that if it does not act more aggressively the United States will use considerably more force on the Pakistani side of the border to shut down Taliban attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said.
The blunt message was delivered in a tense encounter in Pakistan last month . . .
For their part the Pakistanis interpreted the message as a fairly bald warning that unless Pakistan moved quickly to act against two Taliban groups they have so far refused to attack, the United States was prepared to take unilateral action to expand Predator drone attacks beyond the tribal areas and, if needed, to resume raids by Special Operations forces into the country against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.
A senior administration official, asked about the encounter, declined to go into details but added quickly, “I think they read our intentions accurately.” . . .
“We’ve offered them a strategic choice,” one administration official said . . .
DoctoRx here. The horse's head that was part of the offer related, one would expect, to withdrawal of IMF financial support.
“We’ve offered them a strategic choice,” one administration official said, describing the private communications. “And we’ve heard back almost nothing.” Another administration official said, “Our patience is wearing thin.”
(There is much more in the article.)
What was it the young John Kerry said about being the last soldier to die for a mistake?
Cambodia, anyone?
From Mr. Obama's standpoint, the truth is that this Times article should never have run. Team O should have worked its will on the Paks (as they call themselves) in deep secret; or should have done what it was going to do in deep secret if it couldn't win adequate cooperation from them. This article depicts a frustrated, warlike administration. This article also follows reports of a screaming match between administration personnel and Hamid Karzai around the time of the election fraud in Afghanistan.
It is unclear how much financial impact the surge in Pak-ghanistan will have, but tar babies suck one in, and the reminder that the U. S. but not China, India and Brazil is weighed down by wasteful foreign wars can only hurt the dollar.
If America or its more-or-less client state Pakistan is going to wage war in Quetta, let us hope that it is not on the 18 months time line that the President has just announced is his policy with the surge in Afghanistan.
Timelines aside, it is looking more and more that the Bushbama Continuity is greater than expected. It is not just Big Finance. It is the military-industrial perpetual war policy. Economically, these are mistaken and potentially disastrous policies.
We should be aggressively building up our medical, environmental, information and other cutting-edge technologies. That's ultimately how we can continue the amazing global rise of American influence. What is happening is eerily similar to what George Orwell predicted in 1984: Oceania in perpetual inconclusive war with shadowy villainous types in Asia and environs.
And some entity is watching and recording everything you read on the Internet.
And when healthcare "reform" is implemented as the Party in power wants, Government will ultimately know, or have the ability to know, every detail it wants to know about your personal health status. The right to medical privacy will be gone. It will only exist as an argument to justify abortion.
The Times article presents America as bullying a weak, conflicted impoverished state. The bullying that is coming out of healthcare reform and possibly out of energy policy will show that the era of big government is back with renewed force.
The traditional role of gold for individuals is as protection against various depradations of state power. Short-term momentum moves aside, the more anxious more people get about the enlargement of the state--with sound money of no real concern to Barack Obama-- the more there will be a continued bid under gold. Fundamentally, gold is neither cheap nor dear versus the alternatives, but over a period of years, it should be uncorrelated with other financial assets and thus may well prove to be currently "underowned" by the public.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban inside its borders, warning that if it does not act more aggressively the United States will use considerably more force on the Pakistani side of the border to shut down Taliban attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said.
The blunt message was delivered in a tense encounter in Pakistan last month . . .
For their part the Pakistanis interpreted the message as a fairly bald warning that unless Pakistan moved quickly to act against two Taliban groups they have so far refused to attack, the United States was prepared to take unilateral action to expand Predator drone attacks beyond the tribal areas and, if needed, to resume raids by Special Operations forces into the country against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.
A senior administration official, asked about the encounter, declined to go into details but added quickly, “I think they read our intentions accurately.” . . .
“We’ve offered them a strategic choice,” one administration official said . . .
DoctoRx here. The horse's head that was part of the offer related, one would expect, to withdrawal of IMF financial support.
“We’ve offered them a strategic choice,” one administration official said, describing the private communications. “And we’ve heard back almost nothing.” Another administration official said, “Our patience is wearing thin.”
(There is much more in the article.)
What was it the young John Kerry said about being the last soldier to die for a mistake?
Cambodia, anyone?
From Mr. Obama's standpoint, the truth is that this Times article should never have run. Team O should have worked its will on the Paks (as they call themselves) in deep secret; or should have done what it was going to do in deep secret if it couldn't win adequate cooperation from them. This article depicts a frustrated, warlike administration. This article also follows reports of a screaming match between administration personnel and Hamid Karzai around the time of the election fraud in Afghanistan.
It is unclear how much financial impact the surge in Pak-ghanistan will have, but tar babies suck one in, and the reminder that the U. S. but not China, India and Brazil is weighed down by wasteful foreign wars can only hurt the dollar.
If America or its more-or-less client state Pakistan is going to wage war in Quetta, let us hope that it is not on the 18 months time line that the President has just announced is his policy with the surge in Afghanistan.
Timelines aside, it is looking more and more that the Bushbama Continuity is greater than expected. It is not just Big Finance. It is the military-industrial perpetual war policy. Economically, these are mistaken and potentially disastrous policies.
We should be aggressively building up our medical, environmental, information and other cutting-edge technologies. That's ultimately how we can continue the amazing global rise of American influence. What is happening is eerily similar to what George Orwell predicted in 1984: Oceania in perpetual inconclusive war with shadowy villainous types in Asia and environs.
And some entity is watching and recording everything you read on the Internet.
And when healthcare "reform" is implemented as the Party in power wants, Government will ultimately know, or have the ability to know, every detail it wants to know about your personal health status. The right to medical privacy will be gone. It will only exist as an argument to justify abortion.
The Times article presents America as bullying a weak, conflicted impoverished state. The bullying that is coming out of healthcare reform and possibly out of energy policy will show that the era of big government is back with renewed force.
The traditional role of gold for individuals is as protection against various depradations of state power. Short-term momentum moves aside, the more anxious more people get about the enlargement of the state--with sound money of no real concern to Barack Obama-- the more there will be a continued bid under gold. Fundamentally, gold is neither cheap nor dear versus the alternatives, but over a period of years, it should be uncorrelated with other financial assets and thus may well prove to be currently "underowned" by the public.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
U. S. Pushing Pakistan Toward Chaos as Dollar Traders See Policy Incoherence in Washington
The U. S. has been forcing an essentially bankrupt Pakistan to accept money to stay afloat on the condition that it fight our war for us by attacking their internal Taliban in South Waziristan. These Taliban are somewhat like our rural Appalachian citizens. The feeling I get from Pakistan's press is that it is a sophisticated country far more worried about India than what they regard as their hillbillies. Now there is carnage in town, all in retaliation for the civil war U. S. forced Pakistan to wage. A civil conflict is brewing there. Mrs. Clinton has just arrived. The trajectory is that of Viet Nam. Advisers, etc. The U. S. is widely unpopular in Pakistan.
For a view on the subject from der Spiegel in Germany, click HERE.
The French Government thought it had pulled off a big win when it went heavily into debt to help the fledgling United States gain independence from the British. What of course actually happened is that soon enough, language, historical and cultural ties won out and the special relationship between the U. S. and England was formed. As for the French, a financially-strained country soon turned to internal terror. A system of government that had been stable for centuries--which is how they got so many Louis's--was torn apart, leading to decades of turmoil.
It can't happen here . . . can it?
In its current time of economic difficulty, when Citigroup may be entering receivership one way or another, the U. S., as with any country, needs to be certain that it can afford to wage and win a war in a remote part of the world, even if that war is justified (no comment on that part). I am skeptical that both of those conditions are true, much as I disapprove and more than disapprove of the Taliban and of course al Qaeda. And I am disappointed that Barack Obama--who should in good conscience refuse the Nobel Peace Prize given that he has ramped up wars in two countries only months into his first year as President--has pursued policies in Pakistan that have already led to the deaths of hundreds of innocents, probably with many more to come.
Al Qaeda is gone from Pakistan, but we remain despite being greatly disliked. U. S. strategy is to rebuild Afghanistan on China's dime while we have more and more homelessness in this country. It's not a coherent strategy-just like Cash for Clunkers and homebuyer's tax credits. Any wonder why the dollar is sinking against trade partners that are not wasting money on foreign wars?
Copyright (C) Long Lake 2009
For a view on the subject from der Spiegel in Germany, click HERE.
The French Government thought it had pulled off a big win when it went heavily into debt to help the fledgling United States gain independence from the British. What of course actually happened is that soon enough, language, historical and cultural ties won out and the special relationship between the U. S. and England was formed. As for the French, a financially-strained country soon turned to internal terror. A system of government that had been stable for centuries--which is how they got so many Louis's--was torn apart, leading to decades of turmoil.
It can't happen here . . . can it?
In its current time of economic difficulty, when Citigroup may be entering receivership one way or another, the U. S., as with any country, needs to be certain that it can afford to wage and win a war in a remote part of the world, even if that war is justified (no comment on that part). I am skeptical that both of those conditions are true, much as I disapprove and more than disapprove of the Taliban and of course al Qaeda. And I am disappointed that Barack Obama--who should in good conscience refuse the Nobel Peace Prize given that he has ramped up wars in two countries only months into his first year as President--has pursued policies in Pakistan that have already led to the deaths of hundreds of innocents, probably with many more to come.
Al Qaeda is gone from Pakistan, but we remain despite being greatly disliked. U. S. strategy is to rebuild Afghanistan on China's dime while we have more and more homelessness in this country. It's not a coherent strategy-just like Cash for Clunkers and homebuyer's tax credits. Any wonder why the dollar is sinking against trade partners that are not wasting money on foreign wars?
Copyright (C) Long Lake 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
How Difficult Asian Geopolitics Aid the Price of Gold
From Dawn.com:
The Pakistani Taliban have claimed responsibility for a brazen weekend attack on the army's headquarters compound in the city of Rawalpindi.
Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq called The Associated Press on Monday and said the attack that killed 20 people was only the first in a planned series of strikes intended to avenge the killing of their leader Baitullah Mehsud in a CIA drone attack in August.
He said the raid on army headquarters was carried out by a Punjabi faction of the militant group and it had given orders to other militant branches across the country to launch similar operations.
He also warned the army that if it launched a planned offensive into Waziristan it would be its undoing.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama authorized, directly or indirectly, that CIA drone attack.
If he wants to be a war president, then in good conscience he should refuse the Peace Prize. He can say that he will be pleased to accept it if it is reoffered after he has fought and won the good fight and helped bring peace to a tortured region. If he wants to be a "peace now" president, then it is hard to see how he believes that an America of questionable financial solvency should be so involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Please recall that the Mehsud tribal leader that our country killed (in cold blood) has not been asserted to have been involved in fighting in Afghanistan. What did that killing have to do with the Afghan insurgency?
The game of tit for tat amongst tribes and factions in Pakistan is a difficult one for America to play now.
Here is what Pakistan is really concerned about, also from today's Dawn.com: Massive war games showcase deepening India-US ties:
NEW DELHI: India and the United States began a massive joint military exercise on Monday, underscoring their deepening security ties they view as crucial in a troubled South Asia region.
Pakistan created the Taliban, very likely with U. S. assistance and encouragement, during the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. Months of reading Dawn.com tell me that Pakistan regards its Taliban as country bumpkins. Meanwhile, Pakistan has fought three wars with India and developed nukes because India had them.
Think of Pakistan as Cambodia, Afghanistan as Viet Nam, and Obama as Nixon. Nixon's expansion of the Viet Nam War to Cambodia was useless to our Viet Nam effort and may have led to the murderous Pol Pot regime coming to power in Cambodia. It would be quite an irony, and a sad one, if Mr. Obama followed the Nixon example with similar results.
The greater the U. S. military involvement in the internal affairs of faraway people, the greater the chance that via one route or another, we will get more rather than less involved. Such is the nature of positive feedback loops. Given our economic and financial problems, is President Obama willing to demand the domestic stringencies necessary to fight an expanded war in Asia if he deems it necessary without resorting to out-and-out money printing to finance it?
The above represents another argument for gold ownership as a hedge if our role in the Afghan war or the Pakistan civil conflict expands and the answer to the above question is the answer Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Bush II gave.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
The Pakistani Taliban have claimed responsibility for a brazen weekend attack on the army's headquarters compound in the city of Rawalpindi.
Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq called The Associated Press on Monday and said the attack that killed 20 people was only the first in a planned series of strikes intended to avenge the killing of their leader Baitullah Mehsud in a CIA drone attack in August.
He said the raid on army headquarters was carried out by a Punjabi faction of the militant group and it had given orders to other militant branches across the country to launch similar operations.
He also warned the army that if it launched a planned offensive into Waziristan it would be its undoing.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama authorized, directly or indirectly, that CIA drone attack.
If he wants to be a war president, then in good conscience he should refuse the Peace Prize. He can say that he will be pleased to accept it if it is reoffered after he has fought and won the good fight and helped bring peace to a tortured region. If he wants to be a "peace now" president, then it is hard to see how he believes that an America of questionable financial solvency should be so involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Please recall that the Mehsud tribal leader that our country killed (in cold blood) has not been asserted to have been involved in fighting in Afghanistan. What did that killing have to do with the Afghan insurgency?
The game of tit for tat amongst tribes and factions in Pakistan is a difficult one for America to play now.
Here is what Pakistan is really concerned about, also from today's Dawn.com: Massive war games showcase deepening India-US ties:
NEW DELHI: India and the United States began a massive joint military exercise on Monday, underscoring their deepening security ties they view as crucial in a troubled South Asia region.
Pakistan created the Taliban, very likely with U. S. assistance and encouragement, during the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. Months of reading Dawn.com tell me that Pakistan regards its Taliban as country bumpkins. Meanwhile, Pakistan has fought three wars with India and developed nukes because India had them.
Think of Pakistan as Cambodia, Afghanistan as Viet Nam, and Obama as Nixon. Nixon's expansion of the Viet Nam War to Cambodia was useless to our Viet Nam effort and may have led to the murderous Pol Pot regime coming to power in Cambodia. It would be quite an irony, and a sad one, if Mr. Obama followed the Nixon example with similar results.
The greater the U. S. military involvement in the internal affairs of faraway people, the greater the chance that via one route or another, we will get more rather than less involved. Such is the nature of positive feedback loops. Given our economic and financial problems, is President Obama willing to demand the domestic stringencies necessary to fight an expanded war in Asia if he deems it necessary without resorting to out-and-out money printing to finance it?
The above represents another argument for gold ownership as a hedge if our role in the Afghan war or the Pakistan civil conflict expands and the answer to the above question is the answer Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Bush II gave.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Favorable Portents Overseas; Green Shoots?
There are some political green shoots happening overseas. For example, in Lebanon, the political winds seemed to be strongly going Hezbollah's way. Thus it was surprising to view the following headline today on Bloomberg.com: Lebanon Elects Pro-West Alliance as Hezbollah Challenge Fails.
Here are the essentials, with the final paragraph below perhaps the most important:
Lebanon’s pro-Western coalition defeated the Iran-backed Hezbollah bloc to win re-election in a vote that may help President Barack Obama reinvigorate peace efforts in the Middle East.
The governing alliance headed by Saad Hariri gained 71 seats in yesterday’s election to the 128-member parliament, according to official results announced by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud at a press conference in Beirut today. The Hezbollah-led grouping won 57 seats, he said.
Victory for Hariri’s coalition comes days after Obama’s June 4 visit to Cairo and his call for a “new beginning” between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Hezbollah has opposed American policy in the region, mocked Arab allies of the U.S. for failing to help the Palestinians, and resisted international efforts to disband its militia, which fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006.
“This was the first real victory by pro-American groups in the ideological battle that has defined this region in the last 10 years,” said Rami Khouri of the American University of Beirut. Previously, “every time the U.S. tried to help somebody in the region, it hurt them and they lost.”
Another green shoot in Pakistan, where informed opinion I have seen was that most of the country regards the Taliban as over-zealous country bumpkins, reports that their sort of savagery is creating its own backlash, from Dawn.com: Villagers angered by mosque blast attack Taliban.
Here is most of the story:
UPPER DIR: Two Taliban commanders and their four fighters were killed in an armed action taken by a tribal Lashkar in the Doog Darra area of Upper Dir district on Sunday. (Ed.: I believe a tribal Lashkar is a militia.)
(According to AP news agency 11 militants were killed in the attack.)
The Lashkar was formed in Hayagay Sharqi, and was supported by people of Hayagay Gharbi, Doon, Kilot and Miana Doog villages, after the suicide attack on a local mosque during Friday prayers that killed over 30 people, including several children.
The Lashkar stormed Taliban bunkers in Doog Darra, Salam Bekay, Ghazigay, Shatkas, Panaghar and Maluk Khwar and torched about 20 houses of people who harboured militants.
People from several other villages joined the Lashkar to expel Taliban from their area.
According to local people, both sides were using heavy weapons in fierce clashes between the Lashkar and the Taliban.
Sources said the village force was attacking Taliban positions in Shatkas, Miana and Doog Bala.
Meanwhile, people of Maluk Khwar and Panaghar villages, who were active supporters
of the militants, also parted ways with them after the mosque blast and announced support for the tribal Lashkar and vowed to evict militants from the area.
Doog Darra area, it may be mentioned, was attacked by planes in the third week of May.
Two men of the Lashkar identified as Shah Khalid and Mohammad Ayaz were injured in Sunday’s clash.
The militants, holed up in their stronghold of Shatkas and Gazigay, were putting up stiff resistance, the sources said.
Agencies add: The incident underscored a swing in the national mood towards a more anti-Taliban stance . . .
Other articles I have read in Dawn.com indicate that the locals' anger toward the U. S. and the national government over drone airstrikes has often been overcome by a greater anger at the disgusting, totalitarian tactics of the Taliban.
Finally, while this is not really "new" news, the belated acknowledgement of the success of the surge strategy in Iraq has finally occurred in Obama Central of the mainstream media --- Newsweek. Fareed Zakaria writes in the current issue in Victory in Iraq:
When the surge was announced in January 2007, I was somewhat cautious about it. I believed that more troops and a proper counterinsurgency strategy would certainly improve the security situation—I had advocated more troops from the start of the occupation—but I believed that the fundamental problem in Iraq was political discord among the country's three main sects and ethnic groups. The surge, in my view, would alleviate those tensions but also postpone the need for a solution. Only a political agreement among these groups could reach one.
I was wrong in some ways. First, the surge turned out to be a more sophisticated strategy—encompassing political outreach to the Sunnis—than I had imagined.
It's hard to believe Newsweek is crediting George W. Bush not just with a military success but with a "sophisticated strategy".
Much that happens in the world is cyclical. The international news has been generally unpleasant since September 11, 2001. In retrospect, the economy has stank or at best mouldered since early 2001. When America said goodbye to the Truman Presidency in 1953 with his miserable 23% approval rating and then suffered through a recession from 1953-54, how many foresaw a decade of peace, prosperity, and booming stock market? And how many people on the morning of November 22, 1963 foresaw the troubles of the next two decades?
So let us hope that despite the numerous policy mistakes of the past year and past decade that have allowed Big Finance to lead us to the current economic disaster, cyclical and other forces will erode its primacy and allow natural forces to do what America likes to think it does best-- make money. And let brutes such as the Taliban and Hezbollah fall of their own weight without American bombs trying to do it from the air.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Here are the essentials, with the final paragraph below perhaps the most important:
Lebanon’s pro-Western coalition defeated the Iran-backed Hezbollah bloc to win re-election in a vote that may help President Barack Obama reinvigorate peace efforts in the Middle East.
The governing alliance headed by Saad Hariri gained 71 seats in yesterday’s election to the 128-member parliament, according to official results announced by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud at a press conference in Beirut today. The Hezbollah-led grouping won 57 seats, he said.
Victory for Hariri’s coalition comes days after Obama’s June 4 visit to Cairo and his call for a “new beginning” between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Hezbollah has opposed American policy in the region, mocked Arab allies of the U.S. for failing to help the Palestinians, and resisted international efforts to disband its militia, which fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006.
“This was the first real victory by pro-American groups in the ideological battle that has defined this region in the last 10 years,” said Rami Khouri of the American University of Beirut. Previously, “every time the U.S. tried to help somebody in the region, it hurt them and they lost.”
Another green shoot in Pakistan, where informed opinion I have seen was that most of the country regards the Taliban as over-zealous country bumpkins, reports that their sort of savagery is creating its own backlash, from Dawn.com: Villagers angered by mosque blast attack Taliban.
Here is most of the story:
UPPER DIR: Two Taliban commanders and their four fighters were killed in an armed action taken by a tribal Lashkar in the Doog Darra area of Upper Dir district on Sunday. (Ed.: I believe a tribal Lashkar is a militia.)
(According to AP news agency 11 militants were killed in the attack.)
The Lashkar was formed in Hayagay Sharqi, and was supported by people of Hayagay Gharbi, Doon, Kilot and Miana Doog villages, after the suicide attack on a local mosque during Friday prayers that killed over 30 people, including several children.
The Lashkar stormed Taliban bunkers in Doog Darra, Salam Bekay, Ghazigay, Shatkas, Panaghar and Maluk Khwar and torched about 20 houses of people who harboured militants.
People from several other villages joined the Lashkar to expel Taliban from their area.
According to local people, both sides were using heavy weapons in fierce clashes between the Lashkar and the Taliban.
Sources said the village force was attacking Taliban positions in Shatkas, Miana and Doog Bala.
Meanwhile, people of Maluk Khwar and Panaghar villages, who were active supporters
of the militants, also parted ways with them after the mosque blast and announced support for the tribal Lashkar and vowed to evict militants from the area.
Doog Darra area, it may be mentioned, was attacked by planes in the third week of May.
Two men of the Lashkar identified as Shah Khalid and Mohammad Ayaz were injured in Sunday’s clash.
The militants, holed up in their stronghold of Shatkas and Gazigay, were putting up stiff resistance, the sources said.
Agencies add: The incident underscored a swing in the national mood towards a more anti-Taliban stance . . .
Other articles I have read in Dawn.com indicate that the locals' anger toward the U. S. and the national government over drone airstrikes has often been overcome by a greater anger at the disgusting, totalitarian tactics of the Taliban.
Finally, while this is not really "new" news, the belated acknowledgement of the success of the surge strategy in Iraq has finally occurred in Obama Central of the mainstream media --- Newsweek. Fareed Zakaria writes in the current issue in Victory in Iraq:
When the surge was announced in January 2007, I was somewhat cautious about it. I believed that more troops and a proper counterinsurgency strategy would certainly improve the security situation—I had advocated more troops from the start of the occupation—but I believed that the fundamental problem in Iraq was political discord among the country's three main sects and ethnic groups. The surge, in my view, would alleviate those tensions but also postpone the need for a solution. Only a political agreement among these groups could reach one.
I was wrong in some ways. First, the surge turned out to be a more sophisticated strategy—encompassing political outreach to the Sunnis—than I had imagined.
It's hard to believe Newsweek is crediting George W. Bush not just with a military success but with a "sophisticated strategy".
Much that happens in the world is cyclical. The international news has been generally unpleasant since September 11, 2001. In retrospect, the economy has stank or at best mouldered since early 2001. When America said goodbye to the Truman Presidency in 1953 with his miserable 23% approval rating and then suffered through a recession from 1953-54, how many foresaw a decade of peace, prosperity, and booming stock market? And how many people on the morning of November 22, 1963 foresaw the troubles of the next two decades?
So let us hope that despite the numerous policy mistakes of the past year and past decade that have allowed Big Finance to lead us to the current economic disaster, cyclical and other forces will erode its primacy and allow natural forces to do what America likes to think it does best-- make money. And let brutes such as the Taliban and Hezbollah fall of their own weight without American bombs trying to do it from the air.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Clinton's "Mortal Threat" Statement and Mullen's Pakistan Visits Mean that Pakistan Could Become Obama's Viet Nam
The New York Times is reporting that Taliban Seize Vital Pakistan Area Closer to the Capital.
While investors are paying close attention to every month-to-month economic jiggle, those with more experience remember that in prior to the 21st century, everyone recognized that data always vary from month to month and that year to year comparisons are stabler. That was until our government deliberately moved away from leading off its economic press releases with year-year changes to now emphasize month-month changes in order to distract the populace from noticing unpleasant trends.In any case, enough economists are still watching year-year and smoothed trends that you will gain limited competitive advantage from making decisions based on the same data, though of course one needs to keep one's knowledge base current. Watch for outlier events, such as news of the insertion of American military "advisers" into Pakistan (not that they are not there already). Afghanistan is not really a country as we in the West think of one, but Pakistan is a real country. Any U.S. move to "defend" Pakistan will come with the argument that it has nukes etc., etc. If President Obama wants to go that route, Pakistan's economy is alive only because of IMF sufferance, so it will have to go along with almost anything the U.S. wants. Here are some snippets from the Times article that may make you wonder if American "advisers" or an actual U. S. armed forces presence are in fact coming:
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was concerned that Pakistan’s government was making too many concessions to the Taliban, emboldening the militants and allowing them to spread by giving in to their demands.
“I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists,” Mrs. Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill.
She added that the deterioration of security in nuclear-armed Pakistan “poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world.”
A senior American official said Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were prompted in part by news of the Taliban takeover in Buner. The officials said that the further erosion of government authority in an area so close to the capital ought to stir concern not only in Pakistan but also among influential Pakistanis abroad.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, arrived in Islamabad on Wednesday for the second time in two weeks, reflecting the sense of alarm in the Obama administration. He was scheduled to meet with Pakistan’s top military and intelligence commanders.
The "mortal threat" terminology means that an overt U.S. military presence in Pakistan is being seriously and I suspect favorably contemplated at the highest levels of the Obama administration. Two visits by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs within two weeks is proof positive that such a scenario is realistic rather than an obscure blogger's fantasy.
War is bad, but war at a time of economic depression is more than bad. If war involving the U.S. should come to Pakistan, gold will tend to strengthen, as may the dollar (at first), and very possibly so will Treasuries. If so, EBR believes that the Treasuries should be sold on any price strength but gold should be held and/or purchased.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)