Nice

Spiegel Online:

When the Taliban destroyed two Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in the spring of 2001, there was an international outcry. But similar incidents are now occurring in northwest Pakistan, where radical Islamists recently blew up a sculpture of Buddha in broad daylight.

The phenomenon is new and disconcerting. Even the Pakistani government describes it as "Talibanization:" Parts of the country are now in almost exactly the same situation as neighboring Afghanistan was when the Taliban were still in power there.

This is especially the case in the formerly peaceful Swat region, where a militant Islamist leader has even proclaimed an "emirate." And just as in Afghanistan, the Islamists' hatred is directed, in part, against the traces left by the ancient Buddhist civilization in the region.

They got away with it

Telegraph:

Nato has "lost in Afghanistan" and its failure to bring stability there could provoke a regional sectarian war "on a grand scale", according to Lord Ashdown.

The former United Nations High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina delivered his dire prediction after being proposed as a new "super envoy" role in Afghanistan.

Lord Ashdown said: "We have lost, I think, and success is now unlikely."

New York Times:

Foreign fighters are coming from Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, various Arab countries and perhaps also Turkey and western China, Afghan and American officials say.

Their growing numbers point to the worsening problem of lawlessness in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which they use as a base to train alongside militants from Al Qaeda who have carried out terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Europe, according to Western diplomats.

“We’ve seen an unprecedented level of reports of foreign-fighter involvement,” said Maj. Gen. Bernard S. Champoux, deputy commander for security of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. “They’ll threaten people if they don’t provide meals and support.”

In interviews in southern and eastern Afghanistan, local officials and village elders also reported having seen more foreigners fighting alongside the Taliban than in any year since the American-led invasion in 2001.

The Terrorism Index: Damning Expert Report On Bush

This is why, even in purely political terms, the Democrats need not capitulate to Bush and the Republicans on anything. Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress conducted a survey on national security issues. They call it The Terrorism Index.

Surveying more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy experts—Republicans and Democrats alike—the FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the only comprehensive, nonpartisan effort to mine the highest echelons of the nation’s foreign-policy establishment for its assessment of how the United States is fighting the war on terror. First released in July 2006, and again last February, the index attempts to draw definitive conclusions about the war’s priorities, policies, and progress. Its participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, senior White House aides, top commanders in the U.S. military, seasoned intelligence professionals, and distinguished academics. Eighty percent of the experts have served in the U.S. government—including more than half in the Executive Branch, 32 percent in the military, and 21 percent in the intelligence community.

How bad is it?

Nearly every foreign policy of the U.S. government—from domestic surveillance activities and the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. energy policies and efforts in the Middle East peace process—was sharply criticized by the experts. More than 6 in 10 experts, for instance, believe U.S. energy policies are negatively affecting the country’s national security. The experts were similarly critical of the CIA’s rendition of terrorist suspects to countries known to torture prisoners and the Pentagon’s policy of trying detainees before military tribunals.

No effort of the U.S. government was more harshly criticized, however, than the war in Iraq. In fact, that conflict appears to be the root cause of the experts’ pessimism about the state of national security. Nearly all—92 percent—of the index’s experts said the war in Iraq negatively affects U.S. national security, an increase of 5 percentage points from a year ago. Negative perceptions of the war in Iraq are shared across the political spectrum, with 84 percent of those who describe themselves as conservative taking a dim view of the war’s impact. More than half of the experts now oppose the White House’s decision to “surge” additional troops into Baghdad, a remarkable 22 percentage-point increase from just six months ago. Almost 7 in 10 now support a drawdown and redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq.

The report is broken down into sections, and I will give you just a taste of each.

The Failing Surge

More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all.

They rate the handling of the war as a 2.9 on a scale of 10.

A Perfect Nightmare

A perfect terrorist storm may be brewing in Pakistan. When asked to choose the nation that is most likely to become the next al Qaeda stronghold, more experts chose Pakistan than any other country, including Iraq. Osama bin Laden reportedly remains at large along Pakistan’s mountainous border with Afghanistan, where al Qaeda is also regrouping...

No surprise to anyone paying attention. Bush has been a complete disaster in the region that actually produced the September 11 terrorists. Most of whom, including Osama bin Forgotten, remain at large.

Will the enemy follow us home?

Only 12 percent believe that terrorist attacks would occur in the United States as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Given the frequent use of this dishonest excuse for continuing the war, I will repeat this quote:

Only 12 percent believe that terrorist attacks would occur in the United States as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Did you get that?

Only 12 percent believe that terrorist attacks would occur in the United States as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The Next Front

Nearly half said that Jordan is the neighbor most likely to experience a spillover of violence from Iraq—more than twice as many who pinpointed any other country.

Interesting. They point out that most people assume Saudi Arabia or Turkey would be the most likely countries to suffer from a spillover effect. The experts say it would be this relatively moderate, and critically important, ally.

Deciphering the chatter.

The report then compares the rhetoric from the leading 2008 presidential candidates and the report's conclusions. None fare well. It says much about the disastrous impact of political posturing as opposed to calm expert analysis.

No love from Russia.

When asked to choose the U.S. ally that least serves U.S. interests, 34 percent chose Russia, far ahead of complicated friends such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

To anyone following the Putin regime, this, too, is no surprise In this amateur's opinion, his opposition to our policies is sometimes correct; but both his domestic and foreign policies are increasingly frightening.

Overall, the conclusion is one I keep repeating, and which we need to help the Congressional Democrats promote: the best defense for America's national security is to oppose the disastrous policies of Bush and the Republicans.

Please read the report.

Bush's Supreme Failure: The Taliban Have Prevailed

The war in Afghanistan has not officially ended, but the effective end happened a couple days ago. A short Washington Post article reported on the just-concluded talks between Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf, and various tribal leaders. There was talk about confronting extremism. There was also this:

The tribal meeting's closing statement said that a 50-man team of prominent leaders from both countries would hold regular meetings and work to "expedite the ongoing process of dialogue for peace and reconciliation with the opposition," a reference to the Taliban.

Musharraf, after returning to Pakistan, said the committee should "engage warring forces in Afghanistan to bring the terrorism and extremism to an end." Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the past had also encouraged dialogue with Taliban fighters to persuade them to support the government.

Reconciliation with the Taliban. You remember them. Al Qaeda's protectors. Bin Laden's protectors. Apparently, all will be forgiven.

This came as the New York Times reported, Sunday, that experts now admit Bush lost any chance of defeating the Taliban when he diverted resources to Iraq:

At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator drone spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.

In April, Karzai admitted to having held peace talks with the Taliban. At the end of June, Musharraf was warned that the Taliban and other extremists were growing so powerful that they might end up engulfing his country. And the Los Angeles Times reported that, despite Pakistan's efforts to fight them, the Taliban have only been growing stronger, and spreading their influence. But this meeting made it clear: the Taliban have been redeemed. Because the Bush Administration failed to finish the job of bringing them to justice, they are now being brought into the fold, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Because of Bush Administration failures, Bin Laden is still on the loose. Because of Bush Administration failures, Al Qaeda is growing stronger. And now, those failures are complete.

The media may spin the tough talk about Karzai and Musharraf confronting terrorists and extremists, but don't be fooled. The Taliban are the extremists. They enabled the terrorists. Because we failed to defeat them, Afghanistan and Pakistan are being forced to reconcile with them. It's over. There will be no justice for the September 11 attacks. Bush let the terrorists get away. Bush let them prevail.

And Even Worse

Los Angeles Times:

As Pakistani forces press ahead with their most concerted campaign in years against Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in the dry, jagged hills of Pakistan's tribal belt, the insurgents have moved to establish new footholds in remote corners of the Texas-sized region along the border with Afghanistan.

The Islamic militants are seeking to spread their influence in areas previously untouched by fighting and are in some cases facilitating new alliances between outside groups and local insurgents, observers and officials say.

The insurgents are also increasingly employing heavy weapons and have made several brazen frontal attacks on army outposts that differed significantly from hit-and-run guerrilla-style skirmishes of the recent past.

"They've become better organized, more disciplined and more capable of mounting big attacks," said Rahimullah Yusufzai, an analyst based here in Peshawar, capital of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province, which abuts the tribal belt.

The Observer: "Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq"

Sunday's Observer has a story titled:

Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq

Those crazy Brits obviously don't understand that we're supposed to be spinning the war as a success, in anticipation of the September call for another Friedman Unit.

Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis .

Overworked, denied normal breaks between rotations, and sent back again and again and again. As Stacy Bannerman wrote, five months ago, in Foreign Policy in Focus:

Pentagon statistics reveal that the suicide rate for U.S. troops who have served in Iraq is double what it was in peacetime.

Soldiers who have served -- or are serving -- in Iraq are killing themselves at higher percentages than in any other war where such figures have been tracked. According to a report recently released by the Defense Manpower Data Center, suicide accounted for over 25 percent of all noncombat Army deaths in Iraq in 2006. One of the reasons for "the higher suicide rate in Iraq [is] the higher percentage of reserve troops," said military analyst James F. Dunnigan.

And as the Guardian article elucidates:

A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that the once again vacationing Commander Guy sees things differently:

President Bush, presiding over a nation dispirited by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on Saturday cast both conflicts in terms of "encouraging news." In stating his case, the president emphasized enemy deaths.

Sure. Body counts. Just like Vietnam. Because if we kill everyone in the country, we're bound to win. Eventually. Maybe.

It must be nice to see things in such a rosy light. The rosy light of Maine in August. While halfway around the world people are being murdered and maimed, every day, on your behalf.

Democrats: Stop Being Defensive on Security and Defense, Part 1

The capitulation on the FISA bill is only the latest manifestation of Democrats being ruled by political fear rather than pragmatics and sound policy. This clearly wasn't about fear of terrorism; it was about fear of a political backlash. Beyond the obvious absurdity of being afraid to confront one of the most unpopular "presidents" ever, there is something much more insidiously dangerous at play. This is about a stereotype that has kept Democrats on their political heels for decades: Democrats are weak on defense, soft on national security, the "mommy" party, focused on nurturing and comforting, but not much use when a strong "daddy" is needed. If we're working to shatter such asinine sexual stereotypes, it's time we also shattered this partisan one.

The facts speak for themselves. I've been hammering on this issue for some time, and this is part of the reason why. If Democrats can, as they should, claim the mantle as the party of national security and defense, the Republicans will be without any issue on which to fall back. Beyond that, Democrats will not have to be so reflexively defensive, blustering about their own toughness, while enabling those who want to shred the Constitution and destroy what makes this nation great, supposedly in order to save it.

This will probably be a three-part series, because there is just too much evidence to compile. The three parts will be as follows:

1) The Bush Administration's narrow ideological focus, negligence, and just plain incompetence, enabled the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This is not about Conspiracy Theories, it's about easily demonstrable facts, that are already on record, even in the corporate media. For the purposes of this series, the only thing that matters about Bush and September 11 is that he could have prevented it. For the purposes of this series, it is not about conscious complicity, it is about ineptitude.

2) Bush is undermining our national security from without, by making the United States more hated, around the world, which is emboldening and facilitating terrorists.

3) Bush is undermining our national security from within, by destroying our military.

So, let's begin by looking at the evidence, and reviewing some facts about the Bush Administration's inattention to screaming warnings, before the September 11 attacks. Bush's political strength was built on the media's hyperventilating support, after September 11; but even though they have since reported his failures before September 11, those latter reports have not been sufficiently publicized to overcome that ridiculously inaccurate image they originally helped create.

Right from the start, the Bush Administration was warned of the dangers of terrorism and al Qaeda, and right from the start, they ignored it. As Joe Conason wrote, for
Salon, in August 2003:

Departing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the National Security Council's counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, who was held over by Bush, gave Condoleezza Rice a series of urgent briefings on terrorism during the presidential transition in January 2001. "You're going to spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and al-Qaida specifically than any issue," Berger told his successor. Clarke delivered similar emphatic briefings to Vice President Cheney and to Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy. But the supposedly competent national security managers in the new administration, including Rice, Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were too preoccupied with other matters (such as national missile defense) to pay heed to the most serious threat since the end of the Cold War.

As CNN reported, in 2004:

President Bush's former counterterrorism chief (Richard Clarke) testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.

In fact, the Administration ended or ignored President Clinton's counterterrorism efforts. From the Associated Press, in June 2003:

Though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months and was still refining a plan to use one armed with missiles to kill the al-Qaida leader when Sept. 11 unfolded, current and former U.S. officials say.

Of course, President Clinton had appointed a commission to study terrorism. Led by former Democratic Senator Gary Hart and former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, the commission made its final report shortly after Bush took office. As Jake Tapper reported, in Salon, the day after September 11:

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

As the Washington Post reported, in January 2002:

Bush said that day that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and "I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place.

Why?

Bush and his top aides had higher priorities – above all, ballistic missile defense.

In April 2001, Judy Woodruff reported,on CNN that the Bush Administration thought it was wrong to even focus on Osama bin Laden:

The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism."

Because, in the post-Cold War world, nothing could have possibly been more important. And, of course, "missile defense" would have worked wonders in stopping a gang of terrorists armed with boxcutters.

As Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate, in April 2004, that disastrous summer of 2001 had been replete with warnings:

Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States." For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities.

Even Joe Klein reported on the Administration's incompetence. As he wrote for Time Magazine:

And now, with Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial, and subsequent Washington Post reports, we've been reminded that CIA Director George Tenet warned Rice on July 10, 2001, that "the system was blinking red," meaning that there could be "multiple, simultaneous" al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests in the coming weeks or months.

And then, of course, there was the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, which Bush received while on a month-long vacation. CNN has the transcript. The title, alone, should have been enough:

Bin Laden determined to strike in US.

As Ron Suskind wrote, in his book The One Percent Doctrine, Bush's response to that day's CIA briefer was the following:

All right. You've covered your ass, now.

And the ignorance and incompetence continued, literally right up to the day of the attack.

As Newsweek reported:

At the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld wanted to revamp the military and push his pet project, NMD. Rumsfeld vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism.

And, according to that January, 2002 Washington Post article:

That threat came Sept. 9.

Not to be outdone, Attorney General John Ashcroft demonstrated his own incompetence, just a day later- a day before the attacks. According to the New York Times:

In his final budget request for the fiscal year 2003 submitted on Sept. 10 to the budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the attorney general called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of which directly involved counterterrorism. Upgrading the F.B.I.'s computer system, one of the areas in which he sought an increase, is relevant to combating terrorism, though Mr. Ashcroft did not defend it on that ground.

But in his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.

Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.

That 2002 Washington Post article also lists the following facts:

*President Clinton kept submarines and gunships with cruise missile capabilities covertly deployed "on six-hour alert near Afghanistan's borders." Bush did not.

*Despite having twice warned the Taliban that they would be held accountable for any al Qaeda attacks, when Cheney was briefed, on February 9, 2001, that al Qaeda had carried out the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, Bush did nothing.

*In the spring of 2001, CIA officers made a first-hand assessment of Afghan rebel commander Ahmed Shah Massoud's forces, and although they concluded those forces were in worse shape than they had been the previous summer, they only gave Massoud money and small amounts of supplies; they were not authorized to help Massoud's combat capability against the Taliban.

*Bush did not speak to the public about the threat of terrorism, except to promote "missile defense": "At least three times he mentioned "terrorist threats that face us" to explain the need to discard the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty."

*Interagency disputes "left the administration without a position on legislative initiatives to combat money laundering. And until the summer, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill suspended U.S. participation in allied efforts to penetrate offshore banking havens, whose secrecy protects the cash flows of drug traffickers, tax evaders and terrorists."

Add it all up, and there is only one conclusion: we didn't need a police state, we didn't need a "Patriot Act", and we didn't need unfettered domestic spying to prevent the September 11 attacks. We only needed an administration that was paying attention. Instead, we had one that was so dogmatic and ideological that it was obsessed with worthless boondoggle gifts to the military industrial complex- like "missile defense", while all around them sirens were screaming about an impending attack.

Any other administration would have been forced from office, for this alone. It's too late for that to happen for this, but it's not too late for Democrats to begin reframing the now standard presumptions about Bush, Republicans, and national security. The worst terrorist attack in U.S. history happened during a Republican administration. It happened because that Republican administration ignored abundant evidence that it was going to happen. The Republicans are not the party of national security and defense, and it's time for the Democrats to start making that clear. Not by assisting their every abuse of power, but by simply repeating the facts, over and over and over. And by offering a better way.

Even by his own definitions, George W. Bush enables terrorism.

So, the shiny new National Intelligence Estimate says Al-Qaida in Iraq is poised to attack us here, on U.S. soil. As Digby notes, in Salon, this is the latest Bush Administration hype to justify the continued occupation of Iraq. Of course, it also ignores the real problem, that al Qaida is growing stronger in western Pakistan, while the Taliban are stepping up attacks in Afghanistan, and are even threatening to ungulf nuclear-armed Pakistan. And, it also brings us back to square one: the Bush Administration's failure to capture Osama bin Laden, when they could have, at Tora Bora, in December 2001.

But let's forget all that. Let's take the new NIE at its word: let's pretend al-Qaeda in Iraq is actually now capable of attacking us on U.S. soil. Who's fault is that?

As terrorism expert Amy Zalman points out, Al Qaeda in Iraq was only founded in 2004. That would be after we invaded Iraq. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, that was the year Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to bin Laden. And, of course, Bush hyped the killing of Zarqawi as a severe blow to al Qaida in Iraq, which his own NIE would now seem to suggest was just a tad overstated. Beyond that, though, as NBC reported in 2004, the Bush Administration missed several chances to kill Zarqawi, beginning in June 2002. Which would be before we invaded Iraq. Which would be before Zarqawi founded al-Qaeda in Iraq.

So, let's put this together. Let's take that brand spanking new NIE report at face value. Let's just assume that it's correct, and not hyped, and that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now capable of attacking us on U.S. soil. Whose fault would that be? George W. Bush. Fighting them there to enable them to come fight us here. On his own terms, by his own definitions, and according to his own propaganda, George W. Bush is undermining our national security.

UPDATE: The Washington Post adds its perspective on the NIE:

The White House faced fresh political peril yesterday in the form of a new intelligence assessment that raised sharp questions about the success of its counterterrorism strategy and judgment in making Iraq the focus of that effort.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

And the New York Times:

President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.

The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years.

In identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda’s resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who last year brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in an attempt to drain support for Islamic extremism in the region.

That Other War

Los Angeles Times:

With more than 70 people killed in weekend bombings and a controversial cease-fire annulled in Pakistan's volatile frontier zone, the specter loomed Sunday of an all-out war between Islamic militants and the U.S.-backed government of President Pervez Musharraf.

In the latest suicide attack, a bomber blew himself up Sunday at a police recruitment center near Pakistan's tribal region, killing at least 26 people and injuring nearly 60 others.

The violence comes on the heels of last week's government storming of a radical mosque in the capital, Islamabad, a clash that left more than 100 people dead.

Washington Post:

A controversial peace deal between the Pakistani government and local tribal leaders in an area where al-Qaeda is known to be regrouping appeared to collapse Sunday, as tensions escalated and a fresh wave of bombings killed at least 44 people.

The 10-month-old deal in the restive region of North Waziristan was designed to curb cross-border attacks against U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. But it has been widely criticized by security analysts and, lately, U.S. officials, who said it provided terrorist groups including the Taliban and al-Qaeda with a safe haven in which to train recruits and plot attacks.

On Sunday, local Taliban fighters proclaimed the deal dead and announced the start of an all-out guerrilla war against the Pakistani army. Pakistani officials stopped short of conceding the agreement's demise, but the military has been moving tens of thousands of troops toward troubled spots along the border in recent days, after the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, last week announced a new crackdown on extremism.

That Other War

New York Times:

Suicide bombers struck a police recruitment center and a military convoy on Sunday in Pakistan’s volatile northwest, killing at least 49 people in a rapidly escalating conflict between militants and the government.

Since July 3, suicide attacks have claimed 103 lives in the nation’s tribal areas and North-West Frontier Province, including an explosion on Saturday that killed 24 soldiers.

The latest bombings come at a time of extreme tension in a region used as a redoubt by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Extremists have called for a holy war against Pakistan’s government to avenge the storming of the Red Mosque last week in Islamabad, a military assault that killed at least 75 people holed up inside. At the same time, a 10-month-old truce between the government and local tribal leaders seems to have fatally come undone.

The Democratic Party is the party of National Security

A few times, over the last several months, I've posted diaries based around news reports that al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping and growing in strength, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I write these diaries to underscore the fact that even on the single issue that temporarily made Bush's presidency, he has been a complete failure. Inevitably, though, someone in the comments, probably without having read beyond the title, will say that it isn't real, and that it's all Bush propaganda, meant to scare us into submission. At the risk of triggering a stroke, I will refrain from fully expressing how I feel about these mistaken responses. Instead, I will calmly elaborate on why the re-emergence of al Qaeda and the Taliban need to be taken seriously, and why their growing strength is not at all a political positive for Bush. In fact, the continued existence and growing strength of the organizations responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks constitute the Bush Administration's signature foreign policy failure.

To be blunt: to ignore the reality of international terrorism is simply foolish. And anyone who believes the increasing number of worldwide terrorist attacks is a myth need only pay more attention to the news.

Yes, the Bush Administration invented terrorist threats that didn't exist, as Keith Olbermann so brilliantly explicated:

Part 1



Part 2



Yes, there are domestic terrorists, such as those who attack and bomb abortion clinics.

Yes, the corporate media see terrorism everywhere, happily playing terror propagandists.

Yes, Bush continually equates his Iraq disaster with September 11.

None of that invalidates the reality that we are not the only nation in the world that has religious extremists obsessed with destroying those who don't think and worship the way they do. We do live in a dangerous world. To acknowledge that is not to embolden Bush or the Republicans. It is, in fact, yet another very strong argument against their continued rule.

The facts are very simple:

Bush Administration bungling allowed Osama bin Laden to escape, in the December 2001 battle for Tora Bora.

The Iraq War has been a boon for terrorist recruitment.

The Taliban have recently stepped up attacks in Afghanistan. reported, last month:

The Taliban are also now a legitimate threat to nuclear-armed Pakistan.

And then, there's this, from yesterday's Washington Post:

Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.

The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, is titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," intelligence officials said. It concludes that the group has significantly rebuilt itself despite concerted U.S. attempts to smash the network.

These facts do not support the Bush Administration. Neither does general talk about terrorism. Bush tried, once again, to politicize fear of terrorism, before last year's election, and it didn't work. People aren't buying it, anymore. In fact, the polls show Bush has a negative approval rating on national security. If we continue to emphasize the above facts, those negative ratings should only increase. This is part of why it is so important to publicize the growing threats from terrorists: not only do we need to be aware of them, but they prove, once and for all, that nearly six years after the September 11 attacks, Bush has only made the risk of terrorism greater!

We are not fear-mongers. We are speaking calmly about real threats. The risk of terrorism should not be misconstrued as excuses for militancy, Constitutional abuses or the undermining of individual liberty. That was Bush's way. It didn't work. It was, in fact, counter-productive. That's what we need to talk about. That simple fact creates one of the greatest political opportunities Democrats have had in decades. This is a political paradigm shift. The Republicans have long been the party people turned to, when they were afraid. We can tell them to stop being afraid. Because we have a better way.

Strength does not mean staggering around like a drunken frat boy with a sledgehammer. It means being smart. On national security issues, it means being surgeons with scalpels. Having the world's greatest weapons arsenal means nothing if we are inept at diplomacy and intelligence. The facts speak for themselves. The Bush Administration is an utter failure and a continuing danger. The Democratic Party is now the party of national security.

It Gets Worse: From Afghanistan to Iraq to Pakistan

In another world, in another time, this would be considered not only heartbreaking but bizarre. From the Observer:

Air strikes in the British-controlled Helmand province of Afghanistan may have killed civilians, coalition troops said yesterday as local people claimed that between 50 and 80 people, many of them women and children, had died.

In the latest of a series of attacks causing significant civilian casualties in recent weeks, more than 200 were killed by coalition troops in Afghanistan in June, far more than are believed to have been killed by Taliban militants.

The bombardment, which witnesses said lasted up to three hours, in the Gereshk district late on Friday followed an attempted ambush by the Taliban on a joint US-Afghan military convoy. According to Mohammad Hussein, the provincial police chief, the militants fled into a nearby village for cover. Planes then targeted the village of Hyderabad. Mohammad Khan, a resident of the village, said seven members of his family, including his brother and five of his brother's children, were killed.

Got that? Americans were attacked, and the response was such indiscriminate bombing that 50 to 80 innocent civilians were massacred. Murdered. For simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For the month of June, more than 200 innocents were murdered for the same reason. Anything familiar about this situation? Americans attacked, innocents massacred. That's the way things work in George Bush's America. Indiscriminate death, with no strategic value whatsoever. Except to make us more hated.

Remember Iraq? You know, that country we decided to destroy because it was there. Because our strategic stupidity allowed the September 11 perpetrators to get away, and God knows someone had to pay, and it didn't actually matter if that someone actually had anything to do with the September 11 attacks, just so there were big booms, and people who didn't look like us or speak like us or worship like us died. In very large numbers. Because that would make the Faux News people hot and randy, and Chris Matthews could bloviate with shrill enthusiasm, and the Beltway power elite could preen and fawn over Commander Codpiece, and lots of very well-connected soul-sucking psychopaths could make lots and lots and lots of money. Except that it could cause problems. Not the death and destruction problems, which weren't problems at all, but the Pandora's Box problems. Like what the hell happens when you blow a big hole through the center of the Middle East? Well, one of those problems might be that the hole will expand and explode. Become regional. Maybe global. Not that the Bush Administration would worry about that, or even consider the possibilities. But others did. People with brains. People who didn't work for the Bush Administration. Some talked about Iraq being torn apart by a factional civil war. Some suggested that a factional civil war could pour over the borders and cause problems in neighboring countries, and that those neighboring countries might decide to respond. Most countries don't like when their neighbors' civil wars spill over their borders. Oops.

As the Guardian reported, on Saturday:

Turkey has prepared a blueprint for the invasion of northern Iraq and will take action if US or Iraqi forces fail to dislodge the guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) from their mountain strongholds across the border, Turkey's foreign minister Abdullah Gul has warned.

"The military plans have been worked out in the finest detail. The government knows these plans and agrees with them," Mr Gul told Turkey's Radikal newspaper. "If neither the Iraqi government nor the US occupying forces can do this [crush the PKK], we will take our own decision and implement it," Mr Gul said. The foreign minister's uncharacteristically hawkish remarks were seen as a response to pressure from Turkey's generals, who have deployed some 20,000-30,000 troops along the borders with Iraq, and who are itching to move against the rebels they say are slipping across the border to stage attacks inside Turkey.

Among other things, Turkish military planners have been working on a scheme to establish a buffer zone on Iraqi soil to try to stop the rebels' movements.

Well, wouldn't that be helpful? Turkish generals itching to go into Iraq to establish a "buffer zone" just might cause further problems, don't you think? So, let's just say that the expansion of the Iraq War into a regional conflict is inching a little closer.

But back to those perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. The Bush Administration may have forgotten about them, but you probably haven't. They were back in Afghanistan, where we didn't catch them, and where we're now busily making up for that by bombing innocent civilians. They had been allied with and enabled by the religious fanatic Taliban, whom we also did not catch, and who fled into the mountainous border region that connects Afghanistan and Pakistan. And you remember Pakistan. The ones with the nuclear bombs? The ones who haven't even punished the guy who sold their nuclear bombmaking technology on the open market? Well, guess what?

From the New York Times:

The Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was warned this month that Islamic militants and Taliban fighters were rapidly spreading beyond the country’s lawless tribal areas and that without “swift and decisive action,” the growing militancy could engulf the rest of the country.

The warning came in a document from the Interior Ministry, which said Pakistan’s security forces in North-West Frontier Province abutting the tribal areas were outgunned and outnumbered and had forfeited authority to the Taliban and their allies.

“The ongoing spell of active Taliban resistance has brought about serious repercussions for Pakistan,” says the 15-page document, which was shown to The New York Times. “There is a general policy of appeasement towards the Taliban, which has further emboldened them.”

Of course, just a week ago, the BBC reported:

The Taleban in Afghanistan are changing their tactics to mount more attacks on the capital, Kabul, a spokesman for the militant group has told the BBC.

The spokesman, Zabiyullah Mujahed, said Taleban were recovering after Nato had infiltrated the group and killed some of its leaders.

But more people were volunteering to carry out suicide bombings, he said.

And there had already been reports, in April, that our puppet government in Afghanistan was meeting with the Taliban.

So, let's summarize what the Bush Administration has accomplished:

The Taliban are growing stronger, not only in Afghanistan, where we never succeeded in catching them, but in Pakistan, too. Nuclear armed Pakistan. Meanwhile, the Iraq War is on the verge of going regional. And all we're successfully accomplishing is to massacre civilians.

The "worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States."? Can anyone name anything even close?

Taliban Spreading In Pakistan

New York Times:

The Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was warned this month that Islamic militants and Taliban fighters were rapidly spreading beyond the country’s lawless tribal areas and that without “swift and decisive action,” the growing militancy could engulf the rest of the country.

The warning came in a document from the Interior Ministry, which said Pakistan’s security forces in North-West Frontier Province abutting the tribal areas were outgunned and outnumbered and had forfeited authority to the Taliban and their allies.

“The ongoing spell of active Taliban resistance has brought about serious repercussions for Pakistan,” says the 15-page document, which was shown to The New York Times. “There is a general policy of appeasement towards the Taliban, which has further emboldened them.”

Karzai Met With Taliban

AP:

President Hamid Karzai acknowledged for the first time Friday he has met with Taliban militants in attempts to bring peace to Afghanistan, which is struggling to quell a rising insurgency.

Karzai's assertion - immediately rejected as false by a Taliban spokesman - came as a suicide car bomber killed four people and wounded four others in Kabul, and militants overran a district in the volatile southeast.

In the past, Karzai has offered, without success, to hold talks with the fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar and renegade warlord Gulbudin Hekmatyar. Some officials in his government, including provincial governors, are thought to have held informal talks with militants in the south and east, but with little apparent success to calm the insurgency.