#2
ION WAFF.com Thread > RIAN. ru > RUSSIA CONTEMPLATES BASING TU-160 BOMBERS IN CUBA IN RESPONSE TO US MISSLE SHIELD.
Also from WAFF > PARTS I, II - US VETERAN CLAIMS US [covertly]DROPPED NUCLEAR BOMBS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. Up to FIVE 5-kilotonners or "Klick Fives"???
#3
why is there a question mark in the title? It is simply a statement of fact. And yet, our military planners will continue to insist that the Turkish military will step in should Erdogan go too far. pfft. This has been entirely predictable for at least 6 years now, but no one in our military seemed to be able to get past the myth that "the military will step in".
I wonder if this will finally give them the clue they need to grasp the situation as it has actually been for a very long time.
--Najmuddin A Shaikh
Recent attacks on American troops in Eastern Afghanistan, notably the deadliest in Wanat which killed nine soldiers, are evidence of Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, just as events in Hangu show their growing assertion of power in Pakistan.
The Pakistan army is closing in on the militants' redoubts in Hangu and commanders are not being deterred by the threats that the Taliban will start killing the hostages they hold unless the operation is halted. The fighting is likely to spread to the Orakzai Agency where militants retreat after operating in Hangu and adjoining areas. Will this operation be allowed to continue? Will the Pakistan army be authorised and willing to hit the militants hard enough to permit the tribal elders of the region to come to the negotiating table, agree to expel all foreign militants and end the use of the area for cross-border operations in return for economic development and the dispensation of quick justice?
Meanwhile, the Taliban have set up permanent courts in Mohmand Agency and these bodies are dispensing justice to supplicants. This suggests further erosion of state authority in the Tribal Areas. Reports in the US press claim that the number of foreign insurgents in the Tribal Areas is increasing and that in a reversal of past trends militants seeking martyrdom have now chosen to move to this area rather than go to Iraq.
This is an ominous development. It needs to be determined how they are entering Afghanistan or the tribal areas. Could it be through the smuggling routes using dhows from Dubai or even our own airports? Can we ensure that our immigration officials who may be allowing other smuggling intercept at least the foreign insurgents coming from the Middle East?
Despite the Taliban ultimatums, the Frontier government is still anxious to preserve the peace deal it made earlier in Swat. Can this hold if the Swat negotiators are taking orders from Baitullah Mehsud who has made it clear that he would not agree to stop cross-border attacks because "Islam does not recognise frontiers and borders"? The most benign interpretation of this statement means that Mehsud is seeking a merger of the Tribal Areas and the Frontier province with Afghanistan.
NWFP chief minister, Ameer Haider Hoti, claims that past governments had built up armed factions as a tool of foreign policy and now no one knows how to handle this monster. True. But now the monster has to be leashed and the Frontier government has to take the lead in devising policies that would erode the support-base of this monster and interdict the funding that is keeping it alive.
Some of their funding comes from the Taliban in Afghanistan who, says the UN, are earning USD100 million annually from the imposition of ushr on opium farmers. This figure is clearly exaggerated. Much of the ushr goes to local warlords and to Karzai's officials. The last reliable estimate that I heard from American scholars was that about $32 million are collected by the Taliban and this is not enough to cover more than a small part of the expenses of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan itself. The Havala system continues to function but there is no doubt that much of the money still comes in briefcases and could be interdicted at our border points. Can we do it?
In Afghanistan, the Americans have abandoned the new post they were setting up at Wanat but they have launched a number of operations that have perhaps killed major Taliban leaders at the cost of civilian casualties. Of particular significance is the killing of Nasrullah Khan of the Shindand region. He was labelled a prominent Taliban by the Americans but he was also the man seated next to Karzai when he last visited the region.
The two developments call into question two basic tenets of the revised American policy in Afghanistan. The first was contained in the 2006 counter-insurgency manual and exhorts the occupation forces to "protect the population": these forces must not only "find, fix, finish" the enemy but to "clear, hold, build".
Local commanders in Eastern Afghanistan were given funds to undertake projects and win over the local population. This required them to have on hand the troops that would protect local "collaborators" against Taliban reprisals. Now the locals who facilitated the setting up of the American base at Wanat will be on their own against a substantial Taliban presence in the area. Not exactly the formula for securing local collaboration in other areas. The second tenet was promoting reconciliation with the reconcilable Taliban. The killing of a tribal leader of Nasrullah Khan's status will certainly jeopardise this process.
There seems little prospect of the Karzai government improving its governance or of the Allied campaign to win the hearts and minds succeeding in the near future even as reports in the US media increasingly focus on Afghanistan and the fact that more allied lives have been lost ther than in Iraq during the last two months.
Barring some voices, the general consensus in the US is that America has no choice in Afghanistan but to stay the course. The new president, whoever he might be, will have to send additional troops to Afghanistan. In an off-the-record briefing, President Bush warned that the new president will have to worry not about Iraq or Afghanistan but about Pakistan.
Pentagon has sought USD62 million funding in the 2008 budget for an ammunition storage facility at Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base, arguing that "a forward operating site, Bagram must be able to provide for a long term, steady state presence which is able to surge to meet theatre contingency requirements". I have no doubt that the Americans will not leave Afghanistan until the threat they believe exists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's tribal area has been eliminated or at least reduced to insignificance.
The positive development is the bill presented in the Senate by Senator Biden and Senator Lugar to pledge USD15 billion in economic aid to Pakistan over the next ten years and to ensure that any military aid granted in addition should focus exclusively on augmenting the Pakistani capacity to fight the insurgents.
But alongside this are reports that examine the legal dimension of the doctrine of hot pursuit that the Americans with their legendary impatience are going to try to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan with or without Pakistani cooperation. Some observers warn that President Bush is desperately looking for some success in the last days of his Presidency and may well authorise some ill-advised action.
The New York Times in an editorial warns that "sending United States troops into Pakistan's border regions... would provoke even fiercer anti-American furies across Pakistan", but demands that "Pakistan's civilian leaders and the new military commander, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, will need to commit to fighting the extremists...".
The editorial recognises that "local tribal leaders also need to be weaned away from the Taliban. That would only happen if Islamabad and Washington back their exhortations with substantial economic assistance". This along with the measures on depriving the Taliban of their base of financial support is what we should as a united country focus on.
The writer is a former foreign secretary
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
The difference between the US and the Russians, the Brits, and the host that came and lost before us: The bad boys can't hide from our technology. As we transition from Iraq to Afghanistan with 5 years of hard earned COIN lessons...the Taliwhackers are going to get some hard lessons.
#5
Bill Roggio has an interesting article in Long War Journal on the attack on Wanat. The comments are especially informative.
Wanat is right on the border between Nuristan and Kunar. It is some distance from the Pakistan border.
It is also an area that is undergoing an ethnic transition to Pashtun from the original inhabitants. As such it is on the fault line of ethnic tension between the 2 tribes, and is alienated from the provincial government in Nuristan.
It looks like the Americans stepped into the middle of an ethnic conflict and the Taliban were able to present themselves as the "protectors" of the Pashtun.
In order to defeat the Taliban, we're going to have to become aware of the local issues in each area, as those are a lot more important to the villagers than any global war.
The best weapon we have is the Taliban's stupidity in enforcing faux Sharia laws. We just have to be careful we don't try to stuff village size conflicts into a one-size-fits-all template.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/21/2008 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
A discovery leads to questions about whether the odds of people sharing genetic profiles are sometimes higher than portrayed. Calling the finding meaningless, the FBI has sought to block such inquiry.
State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people.
The FBI estimated the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion. But the mug shots of the two felons suggested that they were not related: One was black, the other white.
In the years after her 2001 discovery, Troyer found dozens of similar matches -- each seeming to defy impossible odds. As word spread, these findings by a little-known lab worker raised questions about the accuracy of the FBI's DNA statistics and ignited a legal fight over whether the nation's genetic databases ought to be opened to wider scrutiny.
The FBI laboratory, which administers the national DNA database system, tried to stop distribution of Troyer's results and began an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to block similar searches elsewhere, even those ordered by courts, a Times investigation found.
At stake is the credibility of the compelling odds often cited in DNA cases, which can suggest an all but certain link between a suspect and a crime scene. When DNA from such clues as blood or skin cells matches a suspect's genetic profile, it can seal his fate with a jury, even in the absence of other evidence. As questions arise about the reliability of ballistic, bite-mark and even fingerprint analysis, genetic evidence has emerged as the forensic gold standard, often portrayed in courtrooms as unassailable.
But DNA "matches" are not always what they appear to be. Although a person's genetic makeup is unique, his genetic profile -- just a tiny sliver of the full genome -- may not be. Siblings often share genetic markers at several locations, and even unrelated people can share some by coincidence.
No one knows precisely how rare DNA profiles are. The odds presented in court are the FBI's best estimates. The Arizona search was, in effect, the first test of those estimates in a large state database, and the results were surprising, even to some experts.
Defense attorneys seized on the Arizona discoveries as evidence that genetic profiles match more often than the official statistics imply -- and are far from unique, as the FBI has sometimes suggested...
#4
Or, people with criminal tendencies share common DNA profile markers. That'll open a can of 'we can't go there' from the usual crowd. Reviving the old notion of 'bad blood' isn't PC.
#5
I have no detailed knowledge of the tech but a 9 of 13 match does not seem to equate to a match to me. 13 of 13 would be a match. It seems to me that some lawyers are looking for an out for their clients.
I would appreciate if someone with real knowledge of the process would comment.
#6
The good news is that science is testable. If Ms. Troyer is correct her work can be replicated by other labs. Perhaps there is something to this, perhaps not. But even if the FBI is unhappy, the truth about genetic profiling will come out.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/21/2008 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The FBI should stay out of this and let Science take its course. One of the basic truths of DNA and genetics is there is still a LOT we don't understand. The beauty of Science is that it is continuously revising itself. Better to explore the possibility that she is correct than to find lingering questions casting doubt on DNA evidence in the future.
#8
I would suspect that this is a similar problem to the partial fingerprint ruling from not too long ago. That is, the smaller number of points used, relative to the total data field, the higher chance of inaccuracy.
This makes all the sense in the world if you compare it to CAD software. Back when it was primitive, it used few data points to connect the lines, so round objects had a boxy or beveled appearance. But as the software got better, with more data points, rounded objects became smoother. Eventually, so many data points are used that round looks round.
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.
London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there. Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside. Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the18 political benchmarks - a big change for the better from a year ago.
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad - an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.
The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
#2
Compare wid CHINESE MIL FORUM Thread > HINDU GIRLS IN INDIA ARE LEARNING CHINESE KUNG FU [including Sword-Weapons arts] to protect agz HINDU ZEALOTS???
Also from CMF > GLOBALRESEARCH.CA > RICHARD C. COOK - STATUS REPORT ON THE COLLAPSING/COLLAPSE OF THE US ECONOMY; + ANTI-EMPIRE:THE POST BUSH "PERFECT STORM" OF US DEBT.
USA may have to go not only SOCIALIST-GOVTIST, BUT ALSO ISOLATIONIST!?
2008-2012[2016?] Post-Dubya Period is still attacking the USA = OWG USSA/USR.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
