Tuesday, July 27, 2010

WikiLeaks and the Afghan War

July 27, 2010 | 0856 GMT
By George Friedman

On Sunday, The New York Times and two other newspapers published summaries and excerpts of tens of thousands of documents leaked to a website known as WikiLeaks. The documents comprise a vast array of material concerning the war in Afghanistan. They range from tactical reports from small unit operations to broader strategic analyses of politico-military relations between the United States and Pakistan. It appears to be an extraordinary collection.

Tactical intelligence on firefights is intermingled with reports on confrontations between senior U.S. and Pakistani officials in which lists of Pakistani operatives in Afghanistan are handed over to the Pakistanis. Reports on the use of surface-to-air missiles by militants in Afghanistan are intermingled with reports on the activities of former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who reportedly continues to liaise with the Afghan Taliban in an informal capacity.

The WikiLeaks

At first glance, it is difficult to imagine a single database in which such a diverse range of intelligence was stored, or the existence of a single individual cleared to see such diverse intelligence stored across multiple databases and able to collect, collate and transmit the intelligence without detection. Intriguingly, all of what has been released so far has been not-so-sensitive material rated secret or below. The Times reports that Gul’s name appears all over the documents, yet very few documents have been released in the current batch, and it is very hard to imagine intelligence on Gul and his organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, being classified as only secret. So, this was either low-grade material hyped by the media, or there is material reviewed by the selected newspapers but not yet made public. Still, what was released and what the Times discussed is consistent with what most thought was happening in Afghanistan.

The obvious comparison is to the Pentagon Papers, commissioned by the Defense Department to gather lessons from the Vietnam War and leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the Times during the Nixon administration. Many people worked on the Pentagon Papers, each of whom was focused on part of it and few of whom would have had access to all of it.

Ellsberg did not give the Times the supporting documentation; he gave it the finished product. By contrast, in the WikiLeaks case, someone managed to access a lot of information that would seem to have been contained in many different places. If this was an unauthorized leak, then it had to have involved a massive failure in security. Certainly, the culprit should be known by now and his arrest should have been announced. And certainly, the gathering of such diverse material in one place accessible to one or even a few people who could move it without detection is odd.

Like the Pentagon Papers, the WikiLeaks (as I will call them) elicited a great deal of feigned surprise, not real surprise. Apart from the charge that the Johnson administration contrived the Gulf of Tonkin incident, much of what the Pentagon Papers contained was generally known. Most striking about the Pentagon Papers was not how much surprising material they contained, but how little. Certainly, they contradicted the official line on the war, but there were few, including supporters of the war, who were buying the official line anyway.

In the case of the WikiLeaks, what is revealed also is not far from what most people believed, although they provide enormous detail. Nor is it that far from what government and military officials are saying about the war. No one is saying the war is going well, though some say that given time it might go better.

The view of the Taliban as a capable fighting force is, of course, widespread. If they weren’t a capable fighting force, then the United States would not be having so much trouble defeating them. The WikiLeaks seem to contain two strategically significant claims, however. The first is that the Taliban are a more sophisticated fighting force than has been generally believed. An example is the claim that Taliban fighters have used man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) against U.S. aircraft. This claim matters in a number of ways. First, it indicates that the Taliban are using technologies similar to those used against the Soviets. Second, it raises the question of where the Taliban are getting them — they certainly don’t manufacture MANPADS themselves.

If they have obtained advanced technologies, this would have significance on the battlefield. For example, if reasonably modern MANPADS were to be deployed in numbers, the use of American airpower would either need to be further constrained or higher attrition rates accepted. Thus far, only first- and second-generation MANPADS without Infrared Counter-Countermeasures (which are more dangerous) appear to have been encountered, and not with decisive or prohibitive effectiveness. But in any event, this doesn’t change the fundamental character of the war.

Supply Lines and Sanctuaries

What it does raise is the question of supply lines and sanctuaries. The most important charge contained in the leaks is about Pakistan. The WikiLeaks contain documents that charge that the Pakistanis are providing both supplies and sanctuary to Taliban fighters while objecting to American forces entering Pakistan to clean out the sanctuaries and are unwilling or unable to carry out that operation by themselves (as they have continued to do in North Waziristan).

Just as important, the documents charge that the ISI has continued to maintain liaison and support for the Taliban in spite of claims by the Pakistani government that pro-Taliban officers had been cleaned out of the ISI years ago. The document charges that Gul, the director-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, still operates in Pakistan, informally serving the ISI and helping give the ISI plausible deniability.

Though startling, the charge that Islamabad is protecting and sustaining forces fighting and killing Americans is not a new one. When the United States halted operations in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, U.S. policy was to turn over operations in Afghanistan to Pakistan. U.S. strategy was to use Islamist militants to fight the Soviets and to use Pakistani liaisons through the ISI to supply and coordinate with them. When the Soviets and Americans left Afghanistan, the ISI struggled to install a government composed of its allies until the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996. The ISI’s relationship with the Taliban — which in many ways are the heirs to the anti-Soviet mujahideen — is widely known. In my book, “America’s Secret War,” I discussed both this issue and the role of Gul. These documents claim that this relationship remains intact. Apart from Pakistani denials, U.S. officials and military officers frequently made this charge off the record, and on the record occasionally. The leaks on this score are interesting, but they will shock only those who didn’t pay attention or who want to be shocked.

Let’s step back and consider the conflict dispassionately. The United States forced the Taliban from power. It never defeated the Taliban nor did it make a serious effort to do so, as that would require massive resources the United States doesn’t have. Afghanistan is a secondary issue for the United States, especially since al Qaeda has established bases in a number of other countries, particularly Pakistan, making the occupation of Afghanistan irrelevant to fighting al Qaeda.

For Pakistan, however, Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic interest. The region’s main ethnic group, the Pashtun, stretch across the Afghan-Pakistani border. Moreover, were a hostile force present in Afghanistan, as one was during the Soviet occupation, Pakistan would face threats in the west as well as the challenge posed by India in the east. For Pakistan, an Afghanistan under Pakistani influence or at least a benign Afghanistan is a matter of overriding strategic importance.

It is therefore irrational to expect the Pakistanis to halt collaboration with the force that they expect to be a major part of the government of Afghanistan when the United States leaves. The Pakistanis never expected the United States to maintain a presence in Afghanistan permanently. They understood that Afghanistan was a means toward an end, and not an end in itself. They understood this under George W. Bush. They understand it even more clearly under Barack Obama, who made withdrawal a policy goal.

Given that they don’t expect the Taliban to be defeated, and given that they are not interested in chaos in Afghanistan, it follows that they will maintain close relations with and support for the Taliban. Given that the United States is powerful and is Pakistan’s only lever against India, the Pakistanis will not make this their public policy, however. The United States has thus created a situation in which the only rational policy for Pakistan is two-tiered, consisting of overt opposition to the Taliban and covert support for the Taliban.

This is duplicitous only if you close your eyes to the Pakistani reality, which the Americans never did. There was ample evidence, as the WikiLeaks show, of covert ISI ties to the Taliban. The Americans knew they couldn’t break those ties. They settled for what support Pakistan could give them while constantly pressing them harder and harder until genuine fears in Washington emerged that Pakistan could destabilize altogether. Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan — which it wasn’t going to get anyway — the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants.

The WikiLeaks seem to show that like sausage-making, one should never look too closely at how wars are fought, particularly coalition warfare. Even the strongest alliances, such as that between the United States and the United Kingdom in World War II, are fraught with deceit and dissension. London was fighting to save its empire, an end Washington was hostile to; much intrigue ensued. The U.S.-Pakistani alliance is not nearly as trusting. The United States is fighting to deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan while Pakistan is fighting to secure its western frontier and its internal stability. These are very different ends that have very different levels of urgency.

The WikiLeaks portray a war in which the United States has a vastly insufficient force on the ground that is fighting a capable and dedicated enemy who isn’t going anywhere. The Taliban know that they win just by not being defeated, and they know that they won’t be defeated. The Americans are leaving, meaning the Taliban need only wait and prepare.

The Pakistanis also know that the Americans are leaving and that the Taliban or a coalition including the Taliban will be in charge of Afghanistan when the Americans leave. They will make certain that they maintain good relations with the Taliban. They will deny that they are doing this because they want no impediments to a good relationship with the United States before or after it leaves Afghanistan. They need a patron to secure their interests against India. Since the United States wants neither an India outside a balance of power nor China taking the role of Pakistan’s patron, it follows that the risk the United States will bear grudges is small. And given that, the Pakistanis can live with Washington knowing that one Pakistani hand is helping the Americans while another helps the Taliban. Power, interest and reality define the relations between nations, and different factions inside nations frequently have different agendas and work against each other.

The WikiLeaks, from what we have seen so far, detail power, interest and reality as we have known it. They do not reveal a new reality. Much will be made about the shocking truth that has been shown, which, as mentioned above, shocks only those who wish to be shocked. The Afghan war is about an insufficient American and allied force fighting a capable enemy on its home ground and a Pakistan positioning itself for the inevitable outcome. The WikiLeaks contain all the details.

We are left with the mystery of who compiled all of these documents and who had access to them with enough time and facilities to transmit them to the outside world in a blatant and sustained breach of protocol. The image we have is of an unidentified individual or small group working to get a “shocking truth” out to the public, only the truth is not shocking — it is what was known all along in excruciating detail. Who would want to detail a truth that is already known, with access to all this documentation and the ability to transmit it unimpeded? Whoever it proves to have been has just made the most powerful case yet for withdrawal from Afghanistan sooner rather than later.

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Brief analysis of Mel Gibson

There's no doubt that Mel Gibson was once one of the most admired and successful actors and producers in the world. The story goes that when he was looking for funding to create the blockbuster The Passion of the Christ, few were interested in helping him finance it, so he did it himself and earned a massive profit as the film became a global hit to the tune of $612 million dollars worldwide.

I've enjoyed some of his films, such as the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series and Apocalypto.

Then, two years later, in 2006, he was pulled over for drunk driving and unleashed a tirade against the Jews, which landed him in a lot of hot water. No one wrote him off then, though, since his potential to make money for Hollywood was still seen as being massive.

Now, he's been recorded as having been violent with his girlfriend, which could lead to criminal charges.

Morley Walker, a columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press, wrote an interseting piece on Gibson and how his religious background, as well as his relationship with this father, may have manifested itself in the actor's unexpected behavior.

Mad Mel Gibson's career-ending tirades.

July 17. 2010.
Movie star Mel Gibson's most recent flame-out just may finish him for good.

It's one thing to go on a drunken anti-Semitic tirade, as Gibson did with a Los Angeles policeman in 2006, or to use an offensive epithet for Latinos as he was reported to have done earlier this month.

Even his Hollywood studio bosses (largely Jewish) forgave him that 2006 offence, because they valued his box-office clout.

But in the wake of the release of those abhorrent voice-mail tapes of him verbally abusing his former girlfiend (and mother of his love-child) last January, Gibson has likely alienated his entire female fan-base.

He has also been dropped by his talent agency, a sure sign of his toxicity, and the studios are panicking over what to do with his projects still in the pipeline.

The first one, already in post-production, has him teaming up with Jodie Foster, who also directs, in a comedy called The Beaver. Good grief. Who does he think he is? A Canadian history buff?

What a sad cliché Gibson, still only 54, has become. He has his head turned by a sexy actress, abandons his wife of 25 years, then becomes enraged by jealousy when the actress flaunts the traits that attracted him in the first place.

For us secular humanists, it is impossible to avoid connecting Gibson's anger issues with his conservative religious background.

He seems both torn apart by, and at war with, the ideals of his traditional Catholicism and the temptations thrown at the feet of an alpha-male movie star.

Religious doctrine instructs him that the sex act is reserved for procreation, and he's done OK in that regard, having fathered at least eight children.

But when he slips up, he lashes out at the vessel of his desire.

Then there would be the issue of his emotional loyalty to his parents.

His father, Hutton, still kicking at 92, seems to be the source of his world view, if not his deeper psychological problems.

In the wake of the terrible publicity Hutton got around the time of Mel's Passion of the Christ movie in 2003, Gibson senior has continued to espouse Nazi-like views that made the late David Ahenakew's spoutings seem like those of a human rights commissionaire.

Hutton has reached the stage where he can say what he wants. At 92, what can anyone do to him?

But this has to be hard on Mel, especially since he appears to agree with his dad. Meanwhile, he has chosen to earn his living in a field dominated by the very Jews his father calls the scourge of the earth.

Subliminally, of course, Mel's internal conflict on the subject infused The Passion of the Christ, a massive hit in the American heartland.

The film gave me the creeps, as it did most godless liberals, with its medieval interpretation of the Gospels and its graphically sado-masochistic violence.

Just prior to its release in 2003, Gibson was profiled in The New Yorker. What stood out for me in that piece was a comment he made about his wife, Robyn, the mother of his first seven children. (Mel, by the way, has 11 siblings.)

Even though Robyn was a devout Christian, Mel said, and a "better person" than he, she wouldn't get into Heaven because she remained a mere Episcopalian.

"It's just not fair if she doesn't make it," he said. "But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."

Their marriage, which would have been 30 years old this year, lasted another couple years. Big surprise.

Of course, the cause of its breakdown may not have been, in hindsight, their cosmological differences but rather Gibson's Tiger Woodsian hound-dogging.

No wonder he is an alcoholic. No wonder he hates himself. No wonder he lashes out at everyone around him. No wonder his mouth is his most lethal weapon.

Oh, Mad Max. Oh, Braveheart. Oh, Apocalypto. The world was once your kingdom, but now you are a pathetic and bitter old man.


website page counter