Pakistan officials have stated their are going to destroy the Osama Bin Laden compound. They feel it may lead to be worshiped as a shrine in honor of bin Laden. People are flocking to see the compound. As of yet they do not know how to destroy the place but will do so soon. They feel this is an embarrassment to the country.
Phi Beta Iota: Broadcast media have focused on the wealth of forensic evidence that could be available within the compound if it were indeed Bin Laden's final headquarters and if it were not slated for immediate destruction.
1. Waterboarding produced the first “lead”–waterboarding is good, this is the silver bullet on waterboarding.
2. Intelligence Community nailed it, over the years, and finally did this without Pakistani assistance to include surveilling the courier in what is the equivalent of a denied area.
3. Bin Laden's presence so close to the military academy in Pakistan is proof positive of the duplicity of the Pakistani government and military, the time has come to “get tough” with them.
4. Afghanistan is a much needed base from which to attack Pakistan, we need to do more of that.
Phi Beta Iota: We don't make this stuff up. As skeptical as we are of everything coming out of the White House on this, mindful of the high probability that Bin Laden died years ago, if he does turn out to have been “cornered” in this villa, we are certain he was brought there, put there, by the Pakistanis, as a sitting duck, for the theater operation, with very specific quid pro quos vis a vis US withdrawal from Afghanistan. CIA retirees (Robert Grenier) are now spinning on CNN that the Pakistanis were not aware of Bin Laden's being hidden 1.3 kilometers from the Pakistani military academy. The furniture has been cleared out, the press is not allowed into the compound, and it will probably be refurbished and returned to its original owner, probably a senior Pakistani general who loaned it for the one act play.
As of March 2011, Congress had approved a total of more than $1.2 trillion dollars for costs associated with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other post-9/11 “war on terror” operations, the Congressional Research Service said in its most recent update on the subject. See “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,” March 29, 2011.
Other new or newly updated CRS reports include the following (all pdf).
I'm told this story is in every newspaper and on television in Afghanistan. Most Afghans believe it to be true. Basically, in spite of the Administration's posturing, Pakistan would become the governing power in Afghanistan…..The Administration's statements show a clear lack of understanding about this region….
The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Pakistan's leaders “bluntly” told Afghanistan's president “to forget about allowing a long-term U.S. military presence in his country,” and urged him instead “to look to Pakistan–and its Chinese ally–for help in striking a peace deal with the Taliban and rebuilding the economy.” According to Afghan officials, at an April 16 meeting in Kabul in which the leaders of Pakistan's military and intelligence also participated, Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told Pres. Hamid Karzai that “the Americans had failed them both,” and that it was time for Kabul to choose “alternative allies.” The Pakistani delegation also outlined a number of demands to the Afghan leader. Afghanpaper.com, quoting an unnamed Afghan official, lists Pakistan's demands as:
In other words, someone has sold Obama on Pakistaning the Libyan War, i.e., pursuing a military strategy of relying on drone attacks to a destroy an adversary hiding in the environmental background. What is astonishing is that Obama took the cape, despite the fact that only 12 days earlier, a report in the Los Angeles Times by David Cloud illustrated once again the absurdity of Cartwright's and Gates' claims.
Relying on a UN Security Council Resolution, but without asking Congress or the American people, President Obama attacked Libya on 19 Mar 2011. He finally got around to explaining his actions on 28 March 2011 in a nationally televised speech given at the National Defense University. Attached below are two analyses of that speech:
Story 1 by Ed Felien appeared in The Rag Blog on April 5, a spunky left-leaning website based in the hinterlands of Austen Texas. It is harshly critical of the speech by comparing Obama's assertions to conditions in Libya and the tensions within Libya that have created a civil war.
Story 2 by Anne Marie Slaughter appeared in the the New York Review of Books blog on 20 March 2011. The New York Review of Books appeals to a far more high-falutin readership than The Rag Blog, and is a kind of a forum for the panjandrums in what's left of the American Left. Dr. Slaughter gushes over Obama's speech, saying it made an “important contribution to the Libya debate.” She bases her conclusion (“let us protect the Libya's civilians by any means necessary”) by analyzing (a word I use charitably) some impenetrable comparisons of interests versus interests to interests versus values, but curiously, she says nothing about actual conditions in Libya, or who is fighting whom, or why they are fighting.
The contrast between information and puffery in these two essays is stunning and says a lot about what's wrong with the American Left.
Phi Beta Iota: Dr. Slaughter means well, but has drunk the kool-aid. No one in Washington appears capable of reconnecting with reality and using clarity, diversity, and integrity to actually understand how far the US Government has diverged from core values of the Republic, and the public interest. The right/neo-conservatives have cost the US tens of trillions of dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse–Dick Cheney and the Iraq/Afghanistan faux wars on terror being the current classic–but so also has the left/Demopublicans so intent on keeping their own money flowing they have completely lost sight of basic principles of governance. These are all good people trapped in a bad system–all it takes to fix this is ONE LEADER committed to transparency, the truth, and trust. Barack Obama is clearly NOT that leader.
Wars cannot be won with precision bombings alone. NATO's air war against Serbia is often touted as a success, but even that took longer than predicted and the cease-fire terms were unchanged.
By Andrew Cockburn
No one following the record of air power as an instrument of national whim should be surprised that Moammar Kadafi's army remains apparently uncowed, even driving Libyan rebels back in headlong retreat despite an onslaught of NATO bombs and missiles. In fact, history is repeating itself in more ways than one.
The very first bombing raid ever occurred almost 100 years ago on Nov. 1, 1911, when an Italian airman hand-dropped four 4.5-pound bombs on forces defending Tripoli against Italian invaders. This momentous event went down well with the press: “Italian Military Aviator Outside Tripoli Proves War Value of Aeroplane,” headlined the New York Times. But it had little effect on the fighting, thus commencing a pattern of disappointment that has recurred with monotonous regularity in subsequent conflicts, irrespective of advances in technology. Precision bombing, touted as an instrument of victory in World War II and Vietnam, turned out to be anything but, leaving the wars to be decided by foot soldiers on the ground.
