Tuesday was the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. It was a solemn day for America and our allies, a day to remember boundless courage and sacrifice as well honor the victims and their families. Elsewhere in the world, however, Tuesday was the day of massive anti-American protests across the Middle East. In the midst of America's most solemn day of remembrance, ruthless animals in Cairo climbed the walls of the American embassy and tore down the American flag, replacing it with the black flag of al-Qaeda. The protesters claimed that it was in response to a film which defamed Mohammed (right, and the al-Qaeda flag on the anniversary of al-Qaeda's greatest triumph was just a coincidence). During the (completely illegal) assault upon sovereign U.S. soil by the same crazed Islamist mobs the Obama administration helped put in charge of the country, the State Department just could not apologize fast enough to the lunatics ripping the Stars and Stripes into thin strips of cloth. The Cairo embassy staff tweeted a condemnation of "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" while those same poor, sweet Muslims were committing an act of war against the United States. Granted, once word of that degrading act got out to the concerned (read "voting") public, the administration quickly slapped on the old cowboy boots and... kind of, sort of walked back the apology. But recent statement from Hillary Clinton walked back that walk-back, condemning the movie and praising Islam as a great religion that is, like, deep and thoughtful and stuff. The State Department has also come under fire for reportedly ordering the Marine guards to carry weapons without ammunition in them, a charge that the Pentagon has denied. However, the State Department has remained silent on the matter.
But as bad as the events in Cairo were, they were nothing compared to what happened in Benghazi, Libya. The embassy staff in Cairo knew that something was coming and were evacuated shortly before the riots began. The consulate in Benghazi was not so lucky. While the mob in Cairo destroyed government property and trespassed on American soil, the assault in Libya had far more devastating results. During protests that echoed those in Cairo, a heavily armed mob laid siege to and then stormed the United States Consulate. In the course of the evening the mob murdered four American citizens, including the Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information manager Sean Smith, and two Marines (possibly part of the ambassador's security detail) who attempted to break the siege but found themselves vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Intelligence experts are highly suspicious of the timing of the attack as Stevens, who is based out of Libya and not Benghazi, should not have been at the consulate at a time when serious riots were expected. What makes it even worse is that virtually no extra security was in place at the "interim facility" that was housing the consulate for the ambassador's visit, which is particularly unusual considering that the consulate did not actually have any Marine guards on staff and was instead relying upon the kindness of strangers, whoops, I mean Libyan security officers (who, according to reports, promptly told the violent mob exactly where the ambassador was hiding). Originally, it was believed that the ambassador had died as a result of the rocket blast that leveled the main building in the embassy compound. Unfortunately, it now appears that the ambassador did not go out so mercifully and may have even been raped before he suffocated to death. I truly hope that this was not the case.
In the days since, the threat of violence has spread even further. Protesters in Yemen stormed the U.S. Embassy on Thursday, burning cars and smashing windows while chanting, "We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God." The U.S. Embassy in Algiers, Algeria (the least creative name combination since New York, New York, which I actually think is a more recent city) has warned all American citizens to avoid non-essential travel as protests take root across North Africa. A Shia group in Iraq (that is all but certainly backed by the Iranian government) has threatened American interests in the region as retribution for supposedly defaming Mohammed. The protests even reached Indonesia as a group named "Sharia for Indonesia" demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta with signs that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. How charming.
Despite the destruction of property and the loss of life, perhaps the most dangerous aim of these attacks was to prohibit the exercise of free speech, especially when it comes to criticizing Islam. A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that it is America needs to do a better job of defending Islam's honor. "It isn't a matter of freedom of speech," Mahmoud Gozlan said. "It's a matter of a holy Islamic symbol." Oh, well, if it's a matter of protecting symbols, how about the Egyptian government apologize to America for defaming the holiest symbol we have: our flag. Of course, this event is not the first time that Islamists have excused horrific actions using the good ol' fashioned rapist's excuse of, "She was asking for it." But this was different, with our attackers operating from a greater position of power than they had ever previously known. Now that they have power, the Islamists are focused on one goal: to make the act of "slandering" Islam illegal on an international level. Tuesday's attacks were particularly severe, especially considering the attacks were carried out by the same people that the U.S. helped in their struggle for "democracy." When al-Qaeda struck the U.S. eleven years ago, the media couldn't shut up about how America had "created" Osama bin Laden by training him, his followers, and the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. Never mind that it actually wasn't true, and that bin Laden and the Taliban both stemmed from the Pakistani ISI and not the CIA, but where is that sort of outcry and "we caused this" attitude when the perpetrators went from ally to murderer within the space of a year?
Finally, I have to say that the media's manipulation of the coverage has been nothing less than disgusting. Instead of demanding answers from the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department (aka, the guys who ignored the threats, failed to put adequate security in place, and then scrambled to lick the boots of the monsters who killed Americans on sovereign U.S. soil), the American media has pounced at the throat of Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Romney said, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." And the media have hammered Romney for those statements. Here is just a brief run-down on the articles a quick Google search for "Romney embassy attacks" brought up (I'd link to the sites, but frankly I don't want to give them traffic. Feel free to search for yourself, though): "FactCheck: Romney gets it backward on embassy attacks," "Foreign Policy Hands Rip Romney's Cairo Statement" (from the always fair Huffington Post), "Romney on Embassy Attack Is No Ronald Reagan in 1980," then we go to, "Embassy politics: the eerie similarities between 1980 and 2012," and finally the piece-of-crap de resistance "The Mohammed movie and the embassy attacks: Romney betrays free speech" which actually says that the rioting, murdering Islamists are protecting free speech by limiting it, or some crap. When you look at the headlines, some truly eerie similarities emerge, with different authors sometimes using the same supposedly "catchy" phrase word-for-word (yes, I know that happens sometimes, but I'm going somewhere with this). All of this anger and animosity toward Romney makes a lot of sense in light of a "hot mic" moment caught on tape at Romney's press conference on Wednesday when reporters were recorded coordinating questions to focus on Romney's "tone" and then the follow-up questions based on that line of reasoning. The thinking by the media was to control the course of the press conference and put Romney on the defensive from the beginning, no matter who he called on to ask a question. To be fair, this happens quite often, according to experts, but it also goes to show that the mainstream media have simply become conformist lapdogs to the administration instead of honest, bold journalists willing to break from the pack to get the scoop.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Haqqani Network
The Obama administration has made it very clear that they intend to improve America's image in the Muslim world. They are doing this, of course, by not closing Guantanamo Bay, launching a record number of drone strikes, killing the most notorious Islamist in world history in the middle of Pakistan without Pakistan's permission, and making a public spectacle of the accidental Koran burnings that should have been handled discreetly (not that I have a problem with the first three). Now the administration is taking further steps to make friends in Pakistan by declaring the politically connected Haqqani network as a terrorist organization because of their continued support of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
So who exactly are the Haqqani network? Many officials in the United States government, particularly within the military, have called the Haqqani network the greatest threat to continued operations (and eventual peace) in Afghanistan. The Haqqani network, named after the influential Haqqani clan, operate out of North Waziristan in Pakistan and has thrown their impressive weight behind the Taliban. They provide a level of coordination and sophistication to the Taliban fighters that otherwise might not be possible. The Haqqanis run their own training camps for foreign fighters, secure financial support from wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf as well as money funneled from any number of legitimate (and illegitimate) businesses, engage in kidnappings and smuggling, and extort local tribal leaders to provide resources and to support the Taliban. The Haqqani network has extensive connections within the Pakistani government, especially the Pakistani army (who have refused to launch offensives into Haqqani territory even with concrete evidence of the presence of senior al-Qaeda leaders) and other security services. Pakistan also views the Haqqani network as a useful proxy to push Pakistani interests in the ever-shifting political landscape of Afghanistan. In that way, the Haqqani network could be seen as Pakistan's version of Hezbollah, taking advantage of the chaotic situation in a war-torn region (Lebanon for Hezbollah, Afghanistan for the Haqqani network) for the benefit of a nearby Islamist state. The Haqqani network has been accused of targeting Indian construction projects in Afghanistan as well as attacking NATO forces on the ground. For example, the Haqqani network has been blamed for recent suicide bombing in Kabul carried out by a young man believed to be only 14 years old.
The decision to declare the Haqqani network a distinct terrorist organization, intended to give counter-terrorism officials more authority to shut down Haqqani military operations in Afghanistan and cut off funding, was hotly debated within the administration. While counter-terrorism experts and military analysts praised the move, many officials within the State Department and the White House warned that it would make the eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan even more difficult. That is not an idle worry. According to officials, the attack in Kabul was only the opening salvo in response to the declaration (because the best way to prove that you're not a terrorist group is to organize a suicide bombing). In addition, the declaration has angered many members of the Pakistani government who have connections with the Haqqanis, further eroding an already tenuous diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. The situation within Pakistan is growing increasingly dangerous, as well. Last week a car filled with explosives crashed into a vehicle operated by the United States Consulate in Peshawar and detonated, leaving several members of the consulate staff and dozens of bystanders injured.
In the end, the debate comes down to this: should diplomatic or military options take priority in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in the Comments and by answering this week's poll.
So who exactly are the Haqqani network? Many officials in the United States government, particularly within the military, have called the Haqqani network the greatest threat to continued operations (and eventual peace) in Afghanistan. The Haqqani network, named after the influential Haqqani clan, operate out of North Waziristan in Pakistan and has thrown their impressive weight behind the Taliban. They provide a level of coordination and sophistication to the Taliban fighters that otherwise might not be possible. The Haqqanis run their own training camps for foreign fighters, secure financial support from wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf as well as money funneled from any number of legitimate (and illegitimate) businesses, engage in kidnappings and smuggling, and extort local tribal leaders to provide resources and to support the Taliban. The Haqqani network has extensive connections within the Pakistani government, especially the Pakistani army (who have refused to launch offensives into Haqqani territory even with concrete evidence of the presence of senior al-Qaeda leaders) and other security services. Pakistan also views the Haqqani network as a useful proxy to push Pakistani interests in the ever-shifting political landscape of Afghanistan. In that way, the Haqqani network could be seen as Pakistan's version of Hezbollah, taking advantage of the chaotic situation in a war-torn region (Lebanon for Hezbollah, Afghanistan for the Haqqani network) for the benefit of a nearby Islamist state. The Haqqani network has been accused of targeting Indian construction projects in Afghanistan as well as attacking NATO forces on the ground. For example, the Haqqani network has been blamed for recent suicide bombing in Kabul carried out by a young man believed to be only 14 years old.
The decision to declare the Haqqani network a distinct terrorist organization, intended to give counter-terrorism officials more authority to shut down Haqqani military operations in Afghanistan and cut off funding, was hotly debated within the administration. While counter-terrorism experts and military analysts praised the move, many officials within the State Department and the White House warned that it would make the eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan even more difficult. That is not an idle worry. According to officials, the attack in Kabul was only the opening salvo in response to the declaration (because the best way to prove that you're not a terrorist group is to organize a suicide bombing). In addition, the declaration has angered many members of the Pakistani government who have connections with the Haqqanis, further eroding an already tenuous diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. The situation within Pakistan is growing increasingly dangerous, as well. Last week a car filled with explosives crashed into a vehicle operated by the United States Consulate in Peshawar and detonated, leaving several members of the consulate staff and dozens of bystanders injured.
In the end, the debate comes down to this: should diplomatic or military options take priority in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in the Comments and by answering this week's poll.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Canada Breaks Ties With Iran
Because I missed the previous two weeks due to increased duties at work (and the weekend-long black hole that was Star Wars Celebration VI), I will be putting up a triple-header tonight and throughout this week to get back on schedule. With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, let's begin.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird shocked the diplomatic world when he announced that Canada was officially closing its embassy in Tehran. The reasons range from Iran's support for the mass-murder in Syria to its nuclear weapons program. Reaction to the news has been mixed. The Israelis, of course, loved the show of support (however indirect). Meanwhile, a number of former ambassadors for Canada have been highly critical of shutting down Canada's "window" into a highly unstable region. The Iranians, meanwhile, have shown that they are masters of irony by declaring the "extremist government" of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be engaged in a "radical foreign policy." Of course, the Iranians have also accused the Israelis as the masterminds of the move, encouraging Harper's government to put the interests of Jews ahead of those of Canadians (because everybody knows how vital the Canadian-Iranian relationship has been).
So, as many have asked, why evacuate embassy personnel now? Baird told reports that the primary reason for the move was to protect the diplomatic staff. That begs the question of what type of threat has the Canadian government spooked. It would not be the first time that an embassy in Tehran has experienced trouble. Last November a horde of protesters stormed the British Embassy, destroying government property and holding seven members of the diplomatic staff hostage until their uneventful release a short time later. And, of course, there was the siege of the American embassy in 1979 that saw over fifty Americans held captive for 444 days. But there have been no apparent threats of such actions against the Canadian embassy. Some regional experts, such as University of Toronto professor Ramin Jahanbegloo (winner of U of T's prestigious "coolest name" award) believe that the evacuation was a preemptive move to protect Canadian diplomats in the event of an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program. If (at this point, it's more like when) the Israeli's strike, any country that has shown significant support will be targeted by Islamic terrorists with ties to Tehran. Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah, has threatened that the United States will be targeted whether it assists the Israelis strike Iran or not, in essence playing a game of political chicken that could very well blow up in his face (though, as a terrorist, it's a hazard of the job). The Canadians are in the same boat, and Prime Minister Harper's government is taking precautions to mitigate the hazards. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Obama is spending his time coming up with a story to either take credit for a successful Israeli strike or place the blame for a failed attack on the Republicans. When he's not golfing, that is. That man loves his golf.
In an unrelated (but shockingly upbeat) story out of Iran, Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been released from prison. For those of you who have not been following the story, Nadarkhani was arrested and sentenced to death for apostasy. His case sparked international outrage. It is unknown how influential the outcry was in the decision to release the pastor, but it certainly didn't hurt. While this is truly great news, there are still many Christians and others (including Muslims) who continue to languish in jails in Iran and other Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia for the ambiguous crime of "apostasy." But Nadarkhani's release is a step in the right direction. One down, hundreds more to go.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird shocked the diplomatic world when he announced that Canada was officially closing its embassy in Tehran. The reasons range from Iran's support for the mass-murder in Syria to its nuclear weapons program. Reaction to the news has been mixed. The Israelis, of course, loved the show of support (however indirect). Meanwhile, a number of former ambassadors for Canada have been highly critical of shutting down Canada's "window" into a highly unstable region. The Iranians, meanwhile, have shown that they are masters of irony by declaring the "extremist government" of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be engaged in a "radical foreign policy." Of course, the Iranians have also accused the Israelis as the masterminds of the move, encouraging Harper's government to put the interests of Jews ahead of those of Canadians (because everybody knows how vital the Canadian-Iranian relationship has been).
So, as many have asked, why evacuate embassy personnel now? Baird told reports that the primary reason for the move was to protect the diplomatic staff. That begs the question of what type of threat has the Canadian government spooked. It would not be the first time that an embassy in Tehran has experienced trouble. Last November a horde of protesters stormed the British Embassy, destroying government property and holding seven members of the diplomatic staff hostage until their uneventful release a short time later. And, of course, there was the siege of the American embassy in 1979 that saw over fifty Americans held captive for 444 days. But there have been no apparent threats of such actions against the Canadian embassy. Some regional experts, such as University of Toronto professor Ramin Jahanbegloo (winner of U of T's prestigious "coolest name" award) believe that the evacuation was a preemptive move to protect Canadian diplomats in the event of an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program. If (at this point, it's more like when) the Israeli's strike, any country that has shown significant support will be targeted by Islamic terrorists with ties to Tehran. Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah, has threatened that the United States will be targeted whether it assists the Israelis strike Iran or not, in essence playing a game of political chicken that could very well blow up in his face (though, as a terrorist, it's a hazard of the job). The Canadians are in the same boat, and Prime Minister Harper's government is taking precautions to mitigate the hazards. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Obama is spending his time coming up with a story to either take credit for a successful Israeli strike or place the blame for a failed attack on the Republicans. When he's not golfing, that is. That man loves his golf.
In an unrelated (but shockingly upbeat) story out of Iran, Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been released from prison. For those of you who have not been following the story, Nadarkhani was arrested and sentenced to death for apostasy. His case sparked international outrage. It is unknown how influential the outcry was in the decision to release the pastor, but it certainly didn't hurt. While this is truly great news, there are still many Christians and others (including Muslims) who continue to languish in jails in Iran and other Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia for the ambiguous crime of "apostasy." But Nadarkhani's release is a step in the right direction. One down, hundreds more to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)