Yet rejects calls for negotiation.  He does note that the focus on Iraq has been costly as far as Afghanistan is concerned, but seems to think of our focus as primarily military.  What would have been the result if we had not abandoned Afghanistan economically and diplomatically?

Top officer offers a dire assessment on Afghanistan

Two editorials in the paper today--one on the current mood in the US and the odd reaction to the concept of empathy as a "taboo" and the other on the failure of dealing with the poverty behind the Afghan insurgency--sadly went very well together.   Sadness, anger...somehow these things need to be channeled into seeing thing more, not less clearly...

In search of empathy

The truth behind Afghan insurgency

An editorial by James Carroll today looked at the way in which Iranian protests are rooted in "shared assumptions of a revolutionary theocracy" by focussing on the meaning of “Allahu Akbar,’’ a rallying cry of the demonstrations.

"Though not a Muslim, I understand that it is better translated as “God is greater’’ - greater than any conception of God, or any way of knowing God. Indeed, God is greater than greatness. This phrase, that is, embodies the key theological insight that no human manifestation is sacred as God is sacred - no idol, no doctrine, no government, no revolution, no power.

Everything I've ever read suggests that aerial bombing strengthens the resolve of the people being bombed to resist--the exact opposite of what the intended purpose is supposed to be.  Now using this same strategy in areas where you are fighting terrorists and killing civilians in "collateral damage" has the effect of taking people who might have been neutral or even opposed to terrorist groups and tactics and convincing them that their real enemy is the country who is doing the bombing (that is us).

This article links a recent surge in suicide bombings in Afghanistan with the large number of civilian deaths that resulted from US bombing.

Suicide attacks wreak havoc in Afghanistan

And "Talk of the Nation" yesterday revolved around the question of why, when the Taliban's policies are so harsh, is it growing in popularity in Pakistan.  One reason goes back to the chaos caused by previous interventions by the West--leaving the people looking for some group imposing order and some system of justice.  Another--the current use of drone bombers--which one commentor points out is threatening to draw in people in Baluchistan--expanding both the population and the area of anti-US support.

What's the appeal of the Taliban?

Argghh!  It's so frustrating.  Why do we keep pursuing a policy which is not only morally reprehensible, but is totally counterproductive!

I'm doing a copy and paste of this story rather than a link 'cause it was one of three stories in the "Polictical Notebook" section of the paper today--and underneath the much more important headlining story that "Barack"has soared in popularity as a boy's names this year.

I liked this editorial written by two Professors from Tehran University (one current, one former) about the response in Iran to Obama's recent attempt to reach out diplomatically to Iran.  Interesting that from their perspective the Western media has misinterpreted the response of Ayatolla  Khamenei "by saying that he had rebuffed, dismissed, or "brushed aside" Obama's important overture."  And that instead "the instant response by the leader has been widely interpreted in Iran as a sign of respect for Obama."

A New Season in Iran relations

Very intriguing article today about Sufi Muslims.  It gave mostly a history with some background about beliefs--and in the context of thinking about why cultivating relationships with Sufi Muslims would be a beneficial strategy in the war on terror.  I would also have like to see more about their beliefs, but still thought it was good to see something on the subject as the Western concept of Islam often seems so narrow.

Mystical Power

The Paradox of Muslim Weakness

The Rise in Extremism - Part 1 and Part 2

For a quick read, an excerpt from "Part 1" about the Saudis acknowledgement that a rise in education may be essential in helping to curb the influence of terrorism in their country:

"Just as importantly, the Saudis realized that their schools and curricula needed serious reevaluation. Saudi writers, academics and some officials acknowledged that parts of the curriculum promoted intolerance of non-Muslims and propagated extremist interpretations of Islam. Some teachers were radicals themselves and were either removed or retrained. Officials report that they are in the process of revising curricula after scrutiny by Saudis inside the kingdom and outside organizations. In addition, they explore ways to introduce new teaching methods to promote critical thinking among Saudi students as opposed to simple rote learning. Saudi youths learn that Islam has different schools of interpretation, or mathhabs, which should promote a more pluralistic view of Islam and delegitimize radical clerics who practice excommunication."

Editorial by Andrew Bacevich critiquing the Bush legacy of National Security Policy and contending that this is the main challenge Obama will face if elected:

"Throughout the long primary season, even as various contenders in both parties argued endlessly about Iraq, they seemed oblivious to the more fundamental questions raised by the Bush years: whether global war makes sense as an antidote to terror, whether preventive war works, whether the costs of "global leadership" are sustainable, and whether events in Asia rather than the Middle East just might determine the course of the 21st century."

I recently heard a very alarming interview with Seymour Hersh regarding the Bush Administration's current strategy in Iran. Whether one agrees with Hersh or not, I think it is important for us as U.S. citizens to remain as informed as possible about Iran. I, for one, am afraid of the way in which the Administration has made an end run around the Constitution with the aid of some members of the Congress such that the Executive and not the Congress is making decisions as far as going to war (without formal declarations).

Here are some excerpts from Hersh's recent article in The New Yorker:

"Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program....But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature....

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”

The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran."

And this from the end of the article giving details about th Ahwazi and Baluchi groups: "The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists."

Here's a different article--one on the current status of negotiations between the EU and Iran: "Iran sound positive note on nuclear incentives plan"

I liked the distinction this editorial made between appeasement and talking to the enemy (a distinction that Pres. Bush's recent remarks totally ignored). And here's Pres. Bush's reaction to the fact that our "preemptive" war on Iraq has created more terrorism: "I know people are saying we should have left things the way they were, but I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don't care if it created more enemies. I had to act." (From an interview with Richard Engel)

"Sitting down at the nuclear table with Iran"

To me, one of the most dangerous ways in which the Bush Administration has tampered with the constitution has been the suspension of habeas corpus. This editorial by James Carroll discusses a court case in which 35 American protesters will appear in court--each of them adopting the identity of a prisoner at Guantanamo--in order to highlight the fact that the Guantanamo prisoners do not have the same right to appear. The editorial goes on to describe the fact that the supreme court has twice ruled against the administration's suspension of habeas corpus, and that the FBI has condemned the interrogation methods as illegal. I think it's important in this election to pay close attention to the candidates take on this. McCain in particular it seems to me has changed his views in a way that seems to pander to fear, rather than to the law.

"Guantanamo's day in court"