Redstate

Posted at 11:00pm on Jun. 10, 2008 The peace agreements between Pakistan and the Taliban (that you probably haven't heard of)

By Jeff Emanuel

An Erstwhile "Ally" in the War on Terror Sells its Soul for Thirty Pieces of Silver and an Agreement its Enemies will Never Live up to

On February 17, the Pakistani government and the Taliban jointly signed a peace treaty dealing with the North Waziristan region of the Afghan/Pakistani border area (see graphic at right, and click for more detailed map). The agreement was shrouded in secrecy, with its terms being kept under wraps by both parties.

This weekend, a Pakistani news organization, the Daily Times, managed to obtain a copy of the agreement, which they roughly outlined on their web site.

They report that the agreement, "inked between the government and the Utmanzai tribes on February 17 to fight Taliban-linked militancy through support from the local population," contains the following terms:

• • Sharing the agreement’s contents with the media violates the terms laid down in the document [Auth. note: There is no information available yet as to how this leaking of the peace agreement to the Daily Times will affect the overall agreement, given this requirement]
• • "Al Qaeda-linked militants" are allowed to live in North Waziristan "as long as they pledge to remain peaceful"
• • "All foreigners" are required to "leave the area"
• • No "parallel government of suspected Taliban militants" will be tolerated
• • There will be "no attacks on security personnel or government employees" and no "target killings" will be "initiated" [Auth. note: The Daily Times points out that "suspected Taliban militants continue to blow up CD shops in Miranshah and target killings have continued despite the February 17 peace deal"]
• • Any violator of the peace accord will be fined 50 million Pakistani Rupees [Auth. note: Approximately U.S. $742,000]

Read on.

Posted in Al Qaeda | appeasement | Foreign Affairs | foreign policy | GWOT | Pakistan | Taliban | War — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:04pm on May 14, 2008 Poppies in Iraq and Arabs in Afghanistan: Did Barack Obama “Pull a McCain” in his SpeechTuesday Night ?

No -- What he did was far worse.

By Jeff Emanuel

You could say that Barack Obama "pulled a John McCain" with his verbal gaffes regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Arabic-speaking translators, and the War on Terror in his May 13 speech to supporters in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

You could say that -- but you would be wrong.

“Conflating” Sunni and Shi’a?

Two months ago, pundits and politicians alike descended upon Senator McCain with accusations of confusion, a lack of touch, and even outright dishonesty when the Republican presidential nominee said that al Qaeda fighters in Iraq have been receiving funding, training, and equipment from Iran during the last year-plus of the Iraq War.

Mr. McCain "conflated" Sunni and Shi'a organizations, which clearly "represent opposing sides in the Iraqi civil war[sic]" crowed the liberal web site ThinkProgress (an outlet with its own track record of mixing up historical events).

In an ABCNews blog post entitled "Err-Jordan," reporter Jake Tapper wrote that McCain "seemed to step in it" with his assertion that Sunni al Qaeda and Shi'a Iran were working together, asking if the Senator was suffering from "jet lag." (Tapper, who has been one of the most solid reporters of this campaign season, later posted an opposing viewpoint, if not an outright correction.)

Susan Rice, then still a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama (she was later relieved of the position for undermining Mr. Obama's claims that he would initiate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq if elected, and for referring to Hillary Clinton as a "monster"), called McCain's assertion "very bizarre," saying that "there is no body of evidence to suggest Iran is aiding Al Qaeda in Iraq" and noting that Mr. McCain had "made the same statement three times in as many days. Surely he must know, as Senator Lieberman reminded him, that Iran is not engaged with Al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't know if he is confused, or is he cynically trying to conflate Al Qaeda and Iran as Cheney and Bush did Al Qaeda and Iraq in 2002 and 2003?"

Read on.

Posted in 2008 | Afghanistan | Barack Obama | GWOT | inexperience | Iraq | John McCain | War | zero-sum foreign policy — Comments (6)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:01pm on May 13, 2008 Deadly bombings in India have "hallmarks of an al Qaeda operation"

It truly is a *global* war on terror

By Jeff Emanuel

Eight bombs were detonated today in Jaipur, India, killing at least 60 people and injuring at least 200. A ninth bomb was found and disarmed by Indian authorities.

The blasts occurred within a dozen minutes of each other, according to the Times of India. Indian authorities have said that early evidence points to the terrorist attacks being the work of the Bangladesh-based al Qaeda affiliate Harkat ul Jihad al Islami, or "HuJI-B."

The Long War Journal is reporting that "some officials believe the Pakistani-based Jaish-e-Mohammed terror group assisted in the attacks," as well.

Read on.

Posted in Al Qaeda | Bangladesh | GWOT | India | Long War Journal | Pakistan | terrorism | War — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:10pm on May 10, 2008 [Insert tired Godfather reference here.] [Video fixed.]

[Insert yet another one here.]

By Moe Lane

While in the process of reading this National Interest attempt to link American foreign policy positions to The Godfather (and this rather well done beatdown of said attempt, via Ace), I was reminded of the clip below (via Hot Air), which I should have mentioned at the time:

[Or, try this YouTube, which actually works.]

Do you know why we don't trust the Democrats on foreign policy? It's because too many of them applaud when national security ignoramuses make ignorant statements like that. Or, as see-dubya put it, very succinctly:

Yeah, Truman negotiated with his enemies; his emissaries were Fat Man and Little Boy.

Please, Democrats, nominate this man: I'm learning to enjoy watching people stop by three times a week to earnestly, and somewhat desperately, explain the latest damfool thing that came out of his mouth.

Posted in Barack Obama | GWOT | The Godfather | War — Comments (13)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:28pm on May 9, 2008 Oh, look. Maliki beat the Sadrists like a red-headed stepchild.

But... but... but... that doesn't fit the Media narrative!

By Moe Lane

And I can almost hear the teeth grinding of Ms. Fadel as she had to write this particular article (via Instapundit):

In big concession, militia agrees to let Iraqi troops into Sadr City
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD — Followers of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr agreed late Friday to allow Iraqi security forces to enter all of Baghdad's Sadr City and to arrest anyone found with heavy weapons in a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

In return, Sadr's Mahdi Army supporters won the Iraqi government's agreement not to arrest Mahdi Army members without warrants, unless they were in possession of "medium and heavy weaponry."

The agreement would end six weeks of fighting in the vast Shiite Muslim area that's home to more than 2 million residents and would mark the first time that the area would be under government control since Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003. On Friday, 15 people were killed and 112 were injured in fighting, officials at the neighborhoods two major hospitals said.

There's something pleasant about watching a site like McClatchy being forced to deal with objective reality. But enough about them! I have a question each for both of the Democratic candidates for President:

For Barry: Given that, if we had listened to you when you called for our cutting and running from Iraq, this scenario would not only not have happened, but the entire country would have probably collapsed into an inchoate mess - when are you going to actually revise and extend your position on the war so that it reflects conditions in this universe?

No, you may not ask a friend. Frankly, I don't know why you even have advisers, given that they seem to have a half-life of seaborgium. At this rate, I expect that you will soon have them all fitted with explosive collars that will go off whenever the policy positions they espouse go under 50% 60%* in the polls.

For Hill: Given that you are rapidly acquiring a rogues' gallery of left-wing pundits, bloggers, activists, anarchists, Marxists, and just plain insane nutballs that any self-respecting neo-conservative would envy... have you thought about just taking the damn plunge already and rejoining the side of the angels wrt the GWOT? All of those people above are prepared to climb over broken glass rather than vote for you anyway.

Come on. You know that you want to.

*Dammit, Addison. Having an actual sense of humor is fighting dirty.

Posted in Barack Obama | GWOT | Hillary Clinton | Iraq | Sadr | War — Comments (28)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:37am on May 7, 2008 I think that I need to have the Netroots clarify something for me.

Not to interrupt their paeans of joy over the Obama win, of course.

By Moe Lane

I'll wait.

(pause)

All right?

OK, explain something to me. Obama's the inevitable nominee, yes, yes, the GOP is doomed, yadda, yadda, the Democrats are going to take the White House, consolidate Congress, cut and run from Iraq, start war crimes trials against the Bush administration, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Oh, yes, by now we over here on the Right can sing along; you folks haven't been shy about blaring these - and one other - discordant tunes in our weary, weary ears. 2007 might have been a lowered-expectations disaster for your crowd, but with the new wave of Red-to-Blue (or whatever you're calling it) we should be on the brink of the Glorious People's Progressive Future. Why, we're even hearing about how Nancy Pelosi is going to stand up to the administration with the new war supplemental bill (H/t: Hot Air). All in all: this is supposed to be your time.

So why are you letting the Democratic leadership set you up?

Democrats Unveil War Supplemental Plans

House Democratic leaders outlined a war supplemental spending plan to their rank and file Tuesday that will give members a chance to vote separately on Iraq policy riders and various spending add-ons.

The bill, to be brought directly to the floor later this week, would set a Dec. 31, 2009, goal for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It also would ban permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, limit interrogation techniques to those included in the current Army field manual, bar a status of forces agreement that would obligate the U.S. to defend Iraq without congressional approval, and require Iraq to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar for dollar. And it would call for U.S. forces to pay the same fuel prices in Iraq as the Iraqis.

The bill will be divided into three sections — for war money, policy riders and domestic spending. That will permit House Democrats to vote for or against each section while still getting the measure through that chamber.

Read on.

Posted in Congress | GWOT | Liberals | Nancy Pelosi | Netroots — Comments (12)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:16am on Mar. 26, 2008 Democrat Counter-Offer: 100 Years Of Capitulation

as opposed to 100 years of war...apparently

By haystack

[Via Politico, we have the forming of the Dem strategy for beating McCain in November:

John McCain is scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy speech Wednesday in Los Angeles, one with a heavy Iraq focus, but chances are Democrats won’t be listening. They’ve already distilled his views into an easy to remember formulation: 100 years of war.

It is a reference to an offhand remark made by McCain in January about the possible duration of the U.S. presence in Iraq, a comment that Democrats now portray as the equivalent of the McCain Doctrine.

McCain Doctrine...hunh. Has a sorta nice ring to it, dontchathink? I certainly like it better than the Obama Doctrine...the Obamatrine...of "Tuck Tail and Run."

Citing Obama's remarks on the 5th Anniversary of our presence in Iraq, Politico suggests the "real" hammer the Democrats will likely be swinging appears to something more like 100 years of capitulation:

Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, he’s offering us a 100 year occupation.

Exit strategy is a great buzz word, and Occupation gets all the new generation of hippies chanting something incoherent about Attica, but as McCain reminded us in the REAL quote, we're 60 years running with a presence in Japan and Germany...50 in Korea...how is Iraq (long-term) different? Oh, that's right-there are still bad guys in Iraq with guns and explosives. We need to get the heck outta Dodge until there are no more bad guys. Why on earth would we have Soldiers doing the work of Soldiers where there is currently a need for...Soldiers?

When will we hear Barry and Hill demand an exit strategy in these places? September? October?

More below the fold..

Posted in 2008 | GWOT | Iraq | John McCain | Peace at all cost | Tuck tail and run — Comments (53)/ Email this page » / Read More »