The Coming Shitstorm in Afghanistan

"There is no magic formula in Afghanistan. There is no Dayton agreement in Afghanistan. It's going to be a long difficult struggle."   ~Richard Holbrooke, special envoy for Afghanistan/Pakistan

Yes, the road forward in Afghanistan looks to be long and bumpy, with several articles of bad news in the past ten days. First off,

POPPIES!

The Wall Street Journal speculates that the Obama Administration will battle poppy production in Afghanistan, likely bringing in Iran, which has one of the highest rates of opium addiction in the world. That's good news but a tough task: The Taliban fund themselves through drugs, but agents of the Karzai government also skim a little off the top. The governors of "the two prime poppy provinces" are close to Karzai: Kandahar's head is Hamid's brother Ahmed. Helmand's was caught with nine tons of opium and has not yet been punished.

Meanwhile, the fledgling democracy faces its first

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!

Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission has decided to postpone the presidential election till August 20 in order to register more candidates, set up voting equipment, and instill order. The problem? Afghanistan's Constitution mandates that Karzai's term end on May 22, and that elections should be held 30 to 60 days beforehand. Opponents in Parliament have threatened to stop recognizing Karzai's legitimacy after May 22.

But the most serious problem is:

LOGISTICS!

The Taliban destroy a bridge along a crucial NATO supply route and torch ten supply trucks. The Kyrgyz president says American troops can no longer use the Manas supply base inside his country. Juan Cole puts it all together and says Obama might put the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan on hold.

Personally, I'm skeptical. Obama may be postponing the Afghanistan surge, but the reasons are probably more strategic than logistic. NATO does not seem to be too flustered by the disruption, having a 60-day supply of essentials in Afghan bases. Cole goes through various supply route options and considers routes by air. Why can't we fly supplies in via Pakistan? Cole gives no answer. Better question: If the land routes are so treacherous, why weren't we flying them in before?

Also worrying is that the Kyrgyz president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, announced the Manas decision in Moscow, after Russia promised $2 billion in credit and aid to Kyrgyzstan. Coincidence? Or does Russia feel threatened by the United States' involvement in Central Asia (and Eastern Europe)? Just like with Iran, the U.S. must work with Russia for their help in Afghanistan.

Today's meeting between the United States' and Russia's seconds-in-command (necks of state?), VP Joe Biden and Deputy PM Sergei Ivanov, was a positive step. The U.S. seems to be backpedaling on expanding NATO, which is good: Would the U.S. really want to go to war to defend Georgia? But America's insistence on a missile defense shield in Central Europe is mindboggling. I understand the possible threat from Iranian ICBMs, but shouldn't we wait until the technology has been proven and the threat is more imminent before we ruffle the Kremlin's feathers?

Lies and Blinking

"This is the narcissism of partisan. You get furiously outraged at the other campaign's lies, and you love your own. Nonetheless, I do think it is fair to say that the McCain campaign has been more egregious than the Obama campaign." --David Brooks

John McCain is drawing criticism for claims he's making about Barack Obama, even from the normally welcoming ladies on The View:

In one of the two ads to which Joy Behar is referring, McCain accuses Obama of sexism for saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig." But Obama wasn't insulting Sarah Palin; he was referring to the McCain-Palin ticket's attempt to portray themselves as agents of change. And compare Obama's comment to Palin's "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick," and McCain's saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton's health care plan during the primaries.

The other ad accuses Obama of perversely wanting to teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners, when he really supports teaching what constitutes inappropriate behavior from adults.

And while speaking in Missouri last week, McCain said that Obama's health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs and reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor." Even though Obama's plan drew criticisms in the Democratic primaries for not forcing all Americans into a government-run system. Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, "I would say this is an inaccurate and false characterization of the Obama plan. I don’t use those words lightly.”

"We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target." --Sarah Palin

On the New York Times' most-emailed list lie at least three editorials criticizing Sarah Palin's naïveté. And why not? Her ignorance is shocking even if you're not an Eastern media elite. (Side note:

Perhaps Mitt Romney thinks he's a reporter for the Daily Show?)

Palin argued that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her better insight into Russian affairs. Can you "[i]magine the derisive laughter in conservative circles if the Democrats had tried such nonsense"?

She was completely ignorant of the Bush Doctrine. Talking heads later argued that most Americans couldn't explain the Bush Doctrine, but how many of them are running for vice president? Others have argued that several policies could be labeled that way, but Palin seems completely unaware that the label exists at all.

She claimed that our soldiers in Iraq are fighting "the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." In short, Sarah Palin's ignorance is frightening, reflects poorly on McCain, and is oddly reminiscent of Bush circa 2000.

It is also nicely satirized by Tina Fey:

Headlines: 11 August 2008

• Open to Debate: Why Obama should accept McCain's invitation to a series of town hall forums.
• Russia Presses Into Second Front in Georgia: Russia's militarism indicates it's interested in more than Abkhaz and Ossetian self-determination.
• Olympic Medal Count:

  Rank	Country	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
  1	China	9	3	2	14
  2	USA	3	4	5	12
  3	South Korea	4	4	0	8
  4	Italy	3	3	2	8

WAR!

As reported mentioned in passing before, tensions between Russia and Georgia have been escalating. And now Russian forces have entered Georgia and have begun battling Georgian soldiers.

Background

In 1801, Georgia and Ossetia were annexed by the Russian Empire. After the Russian Revolution, Ossetia was divided; South Ossetia became part of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, while North Ossetia became part of the Russian SSR.

As the USSR was disintegrating in the late 80's, Abkhazia and South Ossetia were granted autonomy by the Georgian Supreme Soviet. Several moves by the Georgian government afterward (declaring Georgian the national language, declaring independence from the USSR, reimplementing the pre-Soviet Constitution) were interpreted by the pro-Russian Abkhaz and Ossetians as threats to their autonomy. The Abkhaz and Ossetians declared independence, and violence flared until cease-fires in 1992 in Ossetia and '93 in Abkhazia.

From 1993 to 2003, the Georgians, Abkhaz, and Ossetians lived in a shallow peace. Under Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, the Abkhaz and Ossetians were mostly left to govern their territory with little interference from Tbilisi. Peacekeeping forces consisting of Georgians, Russians, and Abkhaz/Ossetians were stationed in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. However, no progress was made to secure a more lasting solution.

For more on Abkhazia and South Ossetia (BBC & Wikipedia)

Escalation to War

Current Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was elected in 2004 after running on a platform of reasserting Georgia's authority over the breakaway regions. Tensions between Georgia and the separatists increased.

On November 12, 2006, the South Ossetian and Georgian governments held simultaneous referenda regarding S. Ossetian independence. Ossetians voted overwhelmingly to become independent, while the region's Georgian population voted to remain with the Georgian government.

The Russian government has meanwhile increased its support for the separatist cause. The Abkhaz and Ossetians have historically favored Russian authority, while Russian hegemony seems to make Georgians bristle. The Russians supplied arms to the Abkhaz and Ossetians during the early-90's conflicts. Many Abkhaz and S. Ossetians have Russian passports and are considered Russian citizens, and trade there is largely conducted in the Russian ruble.

Casus Belli

On August 8, 2008, the Georgian army clashed with S. Ossetian separatists in and around the S. Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. During the fighting, ten Russian peacekeepers were killed. Russia immediately moved troops and tanks into S. Ossetia. Russian planes conducted airstrikes on targets as far south as Tbilisi. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev explained, "I must protect the life and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are. We will not allow their deaths to go unpunished. Those responsible will receive a deserved punishment." By August 9, Russian forces had taken control of Tskhinvali.

Georgia has requested that half of its contingent in Iraq be sent home.

Abkhaz separatists have sent troops into S. Ossetia and have taken the opportunity to try and drive out the last remaining Georgian troops in Abkhazia.

Tens of thousands of civilians who lived in South Ossetia have fled the region, either into Russian North Ossetia or deeper into Georgia. There were reports on Friday that the Georgian army was helping civilians evacuate.

And today, the Georgian army has declared its withdrawal from S. Ossetia and a cease-fire. However, Russian officials have said that a cease-fire is dependent on a complete withdrawal of Georgian troops from S. Ossetia and that has not yet happened. Russian planes continue to strike Georgian targets.

For a day-by-day recount of the Ossetian conflict.

The McCain Roller Coaster

You must be at least 54" tall to ride the Straight Talk Express.

The McCain campaign has been going through some ups and downs lately, while Barack Obama is flying high on his world trip.

Last Friday, McCain submitted an op-ed about Iraq to the New York Times after Obama's was published four days before. On Monday, the Drudge Report, erm, reported that the Times asked McCain to rewrite it, as it largely criticized Obama's plan and presented no strategic vision of his own. Once this story broke, conservatives were immediately up in arms about media bias.

Two things: (1) There isn't really any bias here: The Times will gladly publish what McCain has to say, as soon as he has something substantive to say. True, Obama's op-ed criticized Bush and McCain, but it largely laid out (and made the case for) his own plan. McCain's simply tore Obama down. (2) Why didn't the Times simply avoid conservatives' grumbling about media bias, publish the editorial in the first place, and watch as others criticized McCain's criticism and lack of a coherent strategy?

The Times may have caused conservatives to rally around McCain, but now, with Obama largely succeeding abroad, Maliki supporting Obama's 16-month withdrawal timetable, and Bush negotiating with the Iranians, McCain seems to have lost his foreign-policy cred...and his temper. His comment that "Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," is a sign of unpresidential frustration.

But McCain's foreign policy ideas have largely been ridiculous from the start: Permanent bases in Iraq? Militancy with Iran? Removing Russia from the G-8 (which is impossible, considering that the other member nations would have to agree) and establishing a "League of Democracies" that would only ostracize the Russians and freeze Russo-American relations to nearly Cold War levels?

In short: "He has appeared brittle and inflexible, slow to adapt to changes on the ground, slow to grasp the full implications not only of the improving situation in Iraq but also of the worsening situation in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan."

And that's why for all of his experience, John McCain's foreign-policy views are worse than Barack Obama's.

Headlines: 29 April 2008

• Democrats Divided Over Gas Tax Break
  

  Clinton wants to suspend the gas tax for the summer driving season. Obama argues that lifting the tax would remove the disincentive to pollute, take away money from maintaining highways, and save consumers little—about $30 over three months. Gonna side with Obama on this one.
  

• Cheney Lawyer Claims "Congress Lacks Constitutional Power" to Investigate VP's Role in Torture Approval
  

  Luckily, Cheney lacks the constitutional power to stay in office past January.
  

• Iranian President's Visit Tests India
  

  Singh welcomes Ahmadinejad to get oil and to prove his independence from the U.S. Not sure how I feel about this.
  

• Georgia "plans war in Abkhazia"
  

  Georgia and Russia point fingers at each other over a tiny breakaway republic no one has ever heard of.
  

• Obama's Wright Response
  

  Obama should clearly repudiate Rev. Wright after his crazy media tour:
  

Czar Vladimir?

Highlights from an article in today's New York Times, detailing "Putin's iron grip on Russia":

"In my opinion, at a certain stage, like now, it is not only useful, it is even necessary — we are tired of democratic twists and turns,” said the leader of Mr. Putin’s party in Nizhny Novgorod, Sergei G. Nekrasov....

A refrain often heard here and across Russia is that the distressing years right after Communism’s collapse left people craving stability and a sturdy economy far more than Western-style democracy. These days, they care little if elections are basically uncontested as long as a strong leader is in charge....

Today, authority flows from the Kremlin to a regional governor appointed by Mr. Putin, who abolished the election of governors in Russia in 2004. The governor, Valery P. Shantsev, was brought in from Moscow and is charged with running the region and ensuring that Mr. Putin’s party, United Russia, wins elections. The lines between the government and party have become so blurred that on election day in December, regional election commission members wore large United Russia badges....

A few weeks before the elections, [Andrei] Osipenko gave up, renouncing his party at a news conference that was heavily covered on state-controlled television and had the feel of the Stalinist-era public confessions that followed show trials. Other party officials did the same. The party’s remaining candidates in the region were too fearful to campaign. “You begin to think: you have a family, you have a business, and you may value this significantly more than a political career,” said Artur Nazarenko, an official with the Union of Right Forces. The party, once a regional power, received only 1 percent of the vote in the parliamentary elections.