David Brooks, "The Robert E. Lee Problem": What About Modern-Day Slavery in India, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Robert E. Lee Problem," David Brooks tackles the recent debate in the US concerning "the Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the Confederacy." Brooks writes:

"Lowering the Confederate flag from public properties is thus an easy call. There are plenty of ways to celebrate Southern heritage and Southern life without choosing one so enmeshed in the fight to preserve slavery."

Specifically regarding Confederate General Robert E. Lee, Brooks concludes:

"My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.

This is not about rewriting history. It’s about shaping the culture going forward."

Okay, I agree with David concerning symbols of the Confederacy and Lee, but indeed, what "about shaping the culture going forward"? You see, slavery still exists today.

There are 14 million adults and children who live today in slavery in India, and more than 2 million Pakistanis who are enslaved. There are also 2.9 million people living in slavery in China.

There are also thousands of forced laborers in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the list continues.

Yes, the Confederate battle flag should not be flown on South Carolina's Capitol grounds, but what about the 30 million people who still live in bondage, manufacturing our clothes, sporting goods and electronic equipment? Don't they also deserve our attention?

New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s War in Gaza": The Blind Leading the Blind

In an editorial entitled "Israel’s War in Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/opinion/Israels-War-in-Gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), The New York Times relies on three would-be authorities: President Obama, the UN and Nathan Thrall. Regarding President Obama, the editorial tells us:

"There was no way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to tolerate the Hamas bombardments, which are indiscriminately lobbed at Israeli population centers. Nor should he. As President Obama said on Friday, 'No nation should accept rockets being fired into its borders, or terrorists tunneling into its territory.'

. . . .

Hamas leaders deserve condemnation for storing and launching rockets in heavily populated areas, cynically knowing they will draw Israeli fire to places where civilians live and play. Still, in a call with Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama was right to express concern about the 'risks of further escalation and the loss of more innocent life.'"

Of course, if President Obama says it, it must be right. No mention by the Times that the US, the UK and Afghan government forces have killed a total of some 6,500 innocent Afghan civilians in recent years (see: http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan-database).

Also no mention by the Times of US drone attacks in Pakistan. As reported in a 2014 Huffington Post article entitled "The Toll Of 5 Years Of Drone Strikes: 2,400 Dead" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html) by Matt Sledge:

"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, [the Bureau of Investigative Journalism] estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed."

Apparently unbeknownst to Obama and the editorial board of The New York Times, the Israeli Defense Forces are also seeking to minimize civilian casualties:



Of course, this does not mean that civilians are not going to be killed in a war in which Hamas uses schools to store its missiles (see: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school), but the IDF is making efforts to reduce civilian casualties, which include leaflets asking civilians to evacuate battle zones, phone calls to civilians warning of an imminent attack, and "knocking-on-the-roof" (a warning with a rocket that does not contain an explosive charge) prior to an air strike.

The Times editorial also quotes the United Nations:

"The United Nations says that of the more than 260 Palestinians killed, three-quarters were civilians, including more than 50 children."

However, the United Nations receives its casualty figures from the health ministry in Gaza, which is run by . . . Hamas. Hamas, needless to say, is actively interested in inflating the number of civilians killed for propaganda purposes.

Finally, the Times editorial refers its readers to a guest op-ed by someone named Nathan Thrall, which was published by the Times yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/nathan-thrall-how-west-chose-war-in.html). Thrall would have us believe that Israel, with the help of Egypt and the West, brought the current war with Hamas upon itself. However, Thrall's risible essay fails to mention:

• The Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

• Past suicide bombings in Israel perpetrated by Hamas operatives (425 terrorist attacks between September 2000 and March 2004, which killed 377 and wounded 2,076).

• The thousands of rockets fired into Israeli population centers from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad over the course of more than a decade.

Thrall does, of course, repeat Obama's declaration that the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable."

Truly an instance of the blind leading the blind.

Bergdahl and Increased Aid to Pakistan: Another Obama Foreign Affairs Embarrassment

In a Washington Post article entitled "Inside the Obama administration’s debate over freeing Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-obama-administrations-debate-over-freeing-sgt-bowe-bergdahl/2014/06/03/470a0f8e-eb4f-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_story.html?hpid=z1), Adam Goldman and Scott Wilson write:

"[Army Sgt. Bowe] Bergdahl slipped away from his post in Afghanistan’s Paktika province in June 2009 and fell into Taliban hands. He was then moved across the border into the tribal areas of Pakistan, where he was held by the Haqqani network, a ­U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization with connections to Pakistan’s intelligence service.

. . . .

'There were negotiating paths we could have explored other than the Taliban in Doha,' said David Sedney, who until last year served as the Pentagon’s top official overseeing policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 'Specifically, putting more pressure on the Pakistanis to get him or get us more intelligence. I am not aware of them actually helping us, despite repeated requests.'"

Yes, Bergdahl was being held in Pakistan (Osama bin Laden, of course, also holed up in Pakistan), and the Obama administration was unable to prevail upon Islamabad to assist in achieving his release.

Meanwhile, as reported by The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-hikes-Pakistan-aid-by-40-in-2014-budget/articleshow/19486952.cms) in April 2013:

"US President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed a 40% increase in American aid to Pakistan, amounting to $1.4 billion, as part of his $3.77 trillion budget that focusses on job creation and economic growth.

Obama among other things proposed to increase the US aid to Pakistan under overseas contingency operations to $1.4 billion for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2013, an increase of 40% than the $1 billion that he had proposed in the last year's budget for the fiscal 2013."

Perhaps one of my readers would care to ask Jen Psaki to explain away this wholly undeserved largesse.

David Brooks, "Why They Fought": A Pilgrimage to Gettysburg

On the shelves over my writing desk are several Civil War Minie balls, one from the Gettysburg battlefield. A Union cavalry sword, a gift from a very dear friend, is also hung from the wall. I hold in my hand a silver medal awarded to my grandmother, Amy Hahn, by none other than The New York Times, "for merit in essay on Abraham Lincoln 1909."

I have made the pilgrimage to Gettysburg, the Warsaw Ghetto and Babi Yar. I have yet to visit Normandy and the Alamo.

Notwithstanding my opposition to and participation in peaceful protests against a senseless war in Vietnam, which cost the lives of more than 58,000 American soldiers, or some 0.030% of the American population at the time of this tragedy, I have always believed that there is also a need to fight evil, which abounds among us.

And although the meaninglessness sacrifice of Vietnam disillusioned many Americans of my generation and called into question "patriotism" and the need to sacrifice life and limb for "democracy," forces are again afoot that would deprive Americans of their basic freedoms.

As reported by CNN, "Two separate bomb blasts in different parts of Pakistan on Sunday killed a total of at least 47 people and wounded more than 90 others" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/01/world/asia/pakistan-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t3). In Iraq, "More than 2,500 people were killed in Iraq in the past three months" (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Jul-01/222162-violence-surges-in-iraq-as-rows-persist.ashx#axzz2XnEG0kyw). In Syria, more than 100,000 persons have died in Syria since the uprising against Bashar al-Assad began.

One week ago, Franciscan Father Francois Murad was beheaded with a kitchen knife by the al-Nusra Front, after it attacked the monastery in Syria where he was staying (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/01/francois-murad-catholic-priest-beheaded-jihadist-fighters-syria-_n_3527372.html).

Regrettably, as evidenced by the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing, 9/11 and more recently the Boston Marathon bombing, this craziness, which must go unnamed for reasons of political correctness, has more than tangentially touched Americans.

Ultimately, as Iran builds its bomb, will America be prepared to confront the threat?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why They Fought" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/opinion/brooks-why-they-fought.html?_r=0), David Brooks reflects on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg and letters written by Civil War soldiers. Brooks concludes:

"These letter writers, and many of the men at Gettysburg, were not just different than most of us today because their language was more high flown and earnest. There was probably also a greater covenantal consciousness, a belief that they were born in a state of indebtedness to an ongoing project, and they would inevitably be called upon to pay these debts, to come square with the country, even at the cost of their lives.

Makes today’s special interest politics look kind of pathetic."

The sacrifice made by North and South during the American Civil War was indeed overwhelming. There were some 625,000 battle deaths, comprising some 2% of America's population at the time.

But not so fast, David. Also in July of 1863, following enforcement of a law making all men between 20 and 45 years of age eligible for military service, New York City experienced the most destructive rioting in its history.

As observed in the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun.

Are young people in America today capable of shedding their narcissism and confronting the unmistakable threat that looms on the horizon?

The answer will soon be coming.

New York Times Editorial, "Egypt’s Assault on Civil Society": Who Writes this Hogwash?

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Complaining of a December raid by Egyptian security forces on the offices of three American-financed democracy-building groups and Egypt's refusal to allow six Americans associated with these organizations to leave the country, The New York Times, in an editorial entitled "Egypt’s Assault on Civil Society" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/opinion/egypts-assault-on-civil-society.html?ref=opinion), expresses its bewilderment:

"Post-Mubarak Egypt is facing profound challenges with its unfinished revolution and looming economic crisis. The last thing it needs is to pick a fight with the United States. Yet the military rulers have done just that, demonstrating contempt for civil society and an old ally.

. . . .

Egypt’s military receives $1.3 billion in annual aid from Washington. It is beyond us why the generals would keep pressing this destructive dispute, even after hearing remonstrations from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta."

It is beyond the ken of the editorial board of The Times how Egypt's armed forces, subsidized by the US in excess of $1 billion, could behave so roguishly? Allow me to clue them in: Egypt has taken lessons from Pakistan, which receives more than $2 billion of security assistance each year from the US, and which, in June, arrested five informants who led the CIA to Osama bin Laden (see: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/15/pakistani-forces-arrest-cia-informants-who-led-us-to-usama-bin-laden/).

Apparently Andrew Rosenthal's doltish gang still doesn't understand that the game in this corner of the world is not played according to Marquess of Queensberry rules. Sooner or later they'll catch on.

Thomas Friedman's "Bad Bargains": Moderates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Bad Bargains" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman would have us believe that the ruling systems of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are to blame for creating Osama bin Laden and that they continue to endanger the future of the many moderates in those countries. Friedman ends this column by stating:

"Hence, my conclusion: We are surely safer with Bin Laden dead, but no one will be safe — certainly not the many moderate Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who deserve a decent future — without different ruling bargains in Islamabad and Riyadh."

The ruling systems in these countries are to blame? There are "many moderate Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan"? Again, Friedman is busy deluding himself.

Polls are rare in Saudi Arabia; however, according to the results of a 2004 poll published by CNN in 2004 (http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-08/world/poll.binladen_1_saudi-arabia-saudi-citizens-bin?_s=PM:WORLD):

"Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric".

How's that for "moderation" from the Saudi populace?

In Pakistan, polls are more easily conducted, and a July 2010 poll of Pakistanis by the Pew Research Center (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1683/pakistan-opinion-less-concern-extremists-america-image-poor-india-threat-support-harsh-laws) found:

• 85% favor segregation of men and women in the marketplace.
• 82% favor stoning adulterers.
• 82% favor whippings/cutting off hands for theft/robbery.
• 76% favor the death penalty for people who leave Islam.

Now that's a whole lot of "moderation" from the majority of Pakistanis. But wait, there's more. This same Pew poll of public opinion in Pakistan also found:

"America's overall image remains negative in Pakistan. Along with Turks and Egyptians, Pakistanis give the U.S. its lowest ratings among the 22 nations included in the spring 2010 Pew Global Attitudes survey -- in all three countries, only 17% have a favorable view of the U.S. Roughly six-in-ten (59%) Pakistanis describe the U.S. as an enemy, while just 11% say it is a partner. And President Barack Obama is unpopular -- only 8% of Pakistanis express confidence that he will do the right thing in world affairs, his lowest rating among the 22 nations."

It is not only the ruling systems in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that are to blame for the rise of bin Laden and his ability over the course of a decade to elude retribution. These ruling systems reflect the absence of moderation among an overwhelming majority of these country's inhabitants, which falls afoul of Friedman's fanciful theories.

Should the U.S. continue to provide Pakistan with billions of dollars of aid each year? You decide.

Maureen Dowd's "Cool Hand Barack": Something Is Rotten in the State of Pakistan

In her New York Times op-ed entitled "Cool Hand Barack" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/04dowd.html), Maureen Dowd rakes Pakistan over the coals for its failure to cooperate with the U.S. in hunting down bin Laden:

"And that is exactly where President Obama now finds himself. He will now have to sort through the bazaar of Pakistan’s deceptive stories and deal with lawmakers angry about giving $20 billion since 9/11 to a country where Osama was comfortably ensconced. For years, top Pakistanis have said that Osama was dead or in Afghanistan.

Even Condi Rice proclaimed she was shocked to find 'Geronimo' settled in Abbottabad for six years, living in plain sight in a million-dollar house in an affluent suburb near a military base and the Pakistani version of West Point. As one of Osama’s neighbors put it: 'It’s the closest you can be to Britain.'

At a House homeland security subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, Representative Patrick Meehan asked the question about Pakistan that is ricocheting through Washington: 'Does it reflect to some extent some kind of divided loyalty or complicity in some part, or incompetence or both?'”

Indeed, it is time for Washington to come to grips with reality: Pakistan has been working both sides of the street.

Although reluctant to forego billions of dollars in U.S. aid, Pakistan's ruling elite has also had to contend with a significant minority of its citizens that sypathizes with al-Qaeda and has perpetrated repeated acts of violence against the regime in order to "keep it in line". Since March 2009, there have been 19 attacks by the Pakistani Taliban and allied terror groups against the Inter-Services Intelligence ("ISI") and military and police facilities in large Pakistani cities (see: http://www.wichaar.com/news/285/ARTICLE/24482/2011-03-09.html).

For its part, the ISI has been alleged to have been involved in the horrifying November 2008 terror attack in Mumbai, India (see, for example: http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/jan/06mumterror-isi-knew-all-about-mumbai-attacks-intelligence-bureau.htm).

As such, Pakistan's denunciation of the raid that killed bin Laden as "unauthorized unilateral action" should come as no surprise (see: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110503/ap_on_bi_ge/as_pakistan_bin_laden).

Should the U.S. continue to shower billions of dollars in civilian and military aid upon Pakistan? No way.

In a similar vein, I hope the editorial board of The New York Times will no longer call upon "Congress to pass long-stalled legislation to establish special trade preference zones in Pakistan" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/opinion/08tue1.html).

It is also time for columnist Nicholas Kristof to reconsider his naïve support for a reduction of U.S. tariffs on Pakistani garment exports in order to fight extremism (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/opinion/13kristof.html?hp).

New York Times Editorial "The Long Awaited News": Identification Friend or Foe

Recently, I have rarely found myself in agreement with anything written by the editorial board of The New York Times. As such, I was gratified by their editorial "The Long Awaited News" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/opinion/03tue1.html), which states:

"On Sunday night, Mr. Obama gave Pakistan faint praise for some unspecified cooperation, but the facts are damning: The most hunted man in the world was living in a $1 million compound, an hour’s drive from Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, and close to both a military training academy and a large military base.

On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was doing the diplomatic thing, we suppose, by talking about how the United States is committed to its partnership with Pakistan. We hope that she and the president are a lot tougher in private with Pakistani officials and doing some very hard thinking about how they will manage this relationship.

After this, how can anyone keep a straight face — or keep from screaming — when Pakistani officials claim they have no idea where the Taliban’s Mullah Muhammad Omar or dozens of other extremist leaders are hiding?"

"Keep a straight face" or "keep from screaming"? No need to smirk or get angry. How about just withholding several billions of dollars in aid until the U.S. feels certain that it has Pakistan's cooperation in the war against terror? That should get their attention.

What about Obama? His decision to assault the compound on the ground was indeed courageous and could have ended disastrously if the U.S. team had encountered resistance from the Pakistani military, but has the president learned from this experience to distinguish between friend and foe?

Obama came to the White House with a coterie of leftist aides determined to prove that by showing kindness and understanding to the world's tyrannies, they could be brought into the fold. We can only hope that his experiences with Iran, Syria and Pakistan have brought some realism to the White House.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will be visiting Washington later this month, and it will be interesting to see whether Obama receives this democratically elected official from a trusted ally in a less frosty manner.

Osama Bin Laden Dead: No Cooperation from Pakistan

Congratulations to President Obama and all those who participated in this operation, which made fish food out of bin Laden. My joy, however, is accompanied by anxiety: There will almost certainly be attempts to exact revenge upon American civilians.

Details of the operation remain scanty, yet it was clearly undertaken without the cooperation of Pakistan, and inasmuch as the U.S. government has given some $20 billion in civilian and military aid to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, this is indeed troubling.

Let's read between the lines of a CNN article entitled "How U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden" (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.raid/index.html?iref=NS1):

"When first built, the compound was secluded and reachable by only a dirt road, the officials said. In recent years, more residences built up around it, but it remained by far the largest and most heavily secured property in the area, they said.

The mission ordered Friday by Obama encountered outer walls up to 18 feet tall topped with barbed wire, with two security gates and a series of internal walls that sectioned off different portions of the compound, the senior administration officials said. The main structure was a three-story building with few windows facing the outside of the compound, and a third-floor terrace had a seven-foot privacy wall, they said."

This mansion was built five years ago in Abbottabad, only 60 miles north of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, where Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence ("ISI") is headquartered. Situated beside the villas of ranking Pakistani military officers, but eight times the size of the neighboring structures, the curiosity of the ISI surely would have been aroused. Even if they didn't trouble themselves to confirm who was hiding out there, they must have guessed, and the likely presence of bin Laden didn't trouble the ISI or bin Laden's neighbors from Pakistan's military in the least.

CNN continues:

"At some point, one of the assaulting helicopters crashed due to a mechanical failure, according to the officials. It was detonated as the U.S. team flew away to destroy it, they said."

The destruction of the helicopter confirms that Pakistan did not participate in the operation. More to the point, even if it was deemed wise to keep Pakistan out of the picture in order to improves the chances of operational success, why should there have been any need to destroy the helicopter if Pakistan is an ally?

CNN adds:

"Another senior [U.S.] administration official told reporters that Obama's administration did not share intelligence gathered beforehand with any other country -- including Pakistan -- for security reasons. The official said that only a small group of people inside the U.S government knew about this operation in advance.

However, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said members of Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, were on site in Abbottabad during the operation. There was no way to immediately resolve the apparent discrepancy."

A many-faced hydra intimately involved in Pakistani politics, the ISI is no friend of the U.S., as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions since 9/11. Most recently, covert U.S. security personnel have been forced to leave Pakistan (see: http://tribune.com.pk/story/124965/intelligence-assets-after-davis-arrest-us-operatives-leaving-pakistan/).

Should the U.S. continue to shower upon Pakistan military and civilian aid totaling billions of dollars, which reaps few rewards? Will chaos erupt in nuclear-armed Pakistan for the same reasons Mubarak was overthrown in Egypt, i.e. poverty and corruption? Stay tuned. It's not going to be pretty.

CNN's "Trying to Define Islam As a Religion of Tolerance" Highlights Intolerance

Note the inconsistency inherent in an online CNN article entitled "Trying to define Islam as a religion of peace" (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/13/trying-to-define-islam-as-a-religion-of-peace/?hpt=C2). The article, which provides a brief description of an Ahmadi Muslim community in Atlanta, concludes:

"'We are the foremost community who is championing the cause of Muslims for peace,' Pudhiapura said. 'And that is to make the American citizens understand the true message of Islam is peace. To put a face on the people who are loyal citizens who are true American Muslims.'"

However, as acknowledged by the article, the Ahmadis are considered heretics by other Muslims and have been subject to persecution and threats by other Muslims both in the United States and overseas:

"Ahmadi Muslims are in a unique position to speak against Islamist extremism. Their sect has been persecuted for years, particularly in Pakistan, where the movement was founded in the late 19th century. In May, militants with ties to the Taliban targeted their mosques in Lahore, Pakistan, killing more than 80 Ahmadi Muslims.

In addition, Pakistan's government does not recognize the sect as legitimate. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has cited Pakistan as imposing 'the most severe legal restrictions and officially sanctioned discrimination' on the Ahmadi Muslims.

Pudhiapura said those restrictions include forcing Ahmadis to either lie about their religion or declare that they worship a 'false prophet' when applying for a Pakistani passport.

The sect also faces persecution in Indonesia, where they can be criminally charged for their religious beliefs.

Ahmadi Muslims believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who lived between 1835 and 1908, was sent by God as the Messiah that other Muslims are still waiting for. Most mainstream Muslims - Sunni and Shia – say Ahmadis are not Muslim because they do not regard the Prophet Mohammed as the last prophet sent by God.

. . . .

The Ahmadis' worship center outside Atlanta has also received threats, he said."

Does this remind you of Iran's brutal discrimination against its Baha'is, who also venerate a prophet who lived long after Mohammed?

Pakistan: Obama, Again, Slow to React

Catastrophic flooding has struck Pakistan, and given that the monsoon season is not over, we have yet to witness the full magnitude of this disaster. Meanwhile, however, Ken Ballen, president of Terror Free Tomorrow, in an online column for CNN entitled "In Pakistan floods, U.S. must step into breach" (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/ballen.flood.pakistan.aid/index.html?hpt=C2#fbid=C1TOvJySMhf&wom=false), describes this tragedy and the lack of U.S. involvement:

"One in nine Pakistanis -- some 20 million people -- are already homeless, lacking food or medicine. Health officials warn that a cholera epidemic is likely, with 3½ million children now at risk.

Despite the cataclysmic scale of this disaster, the Obama administration is not responding with the same direct, comprehensive and large-scale effort that the Bush administration undertook in response to the 2005 Pakistani earthquake and the 2004 Asian tsunami."

Mr. Ballen warns that if the U.S. fails to provide timely aid to nuclear-armed Pakistan, which is now home to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, these radical Islamic organizations could well use the opportunity to make inroads among Pakistanis:

"American aid to the flood victims is a clear humanitarian imperative. Some have argued that it is also in the national security interest of the United States to win friends and stabilize the country. This is of particular concern since, according to my contacts in Pakistan and reports in South Asia media, radical Islamist groups allied to al Qaeda are on the front lines in providing direct aid to the flood victims.

Jamaat-ud-Dawa, linked to the terrorists who carried out the 2008 attack in Mumbai, India, has already reportedly established 13 relief camps, with some 2,000 members providing help."

Ballen's report is partially corroborated by Mark Lander in an article entitled "U.S. Strategy in Pakistan Is Upended by Floods" in today's online New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/world/asia/19diplo.html?hp):

"The floods in Pakistan have upended the Obama administration’s carefully honed strategy there, confronting the United States with a vast humanitarian crisis and militant groups determined to exploit the misery, in a country that was already one of its thorniest problems.

While the administration has kept its public emphasis on the relief effort, senior officials are busy assessing the longer-term strategic impact. One official said the disaster would affect virtually every aspect of the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, and could have ripple effects on the war in Afghanistan and the broader American battle against Al Qaeda.

. . . .

'If the flood proves to tilt the balance of power in Pakistan, it’s more likely to tilt toward the militants than toward the government,' said Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence official who helped the administration formulate its initial policy for Pakistan and Afghanistan."

However, unlike the Ballen column in CNN, the Lander's New York Times article conveys the impression that U.S. relief efforts are appreciated by Pakistanis:

"In recent days, the United States has sent 15 helicopters, rescuing nearly 6,000 people. On Wednesday, military cargo planes delivered 60,000 pounds of food and other relief supplies, bringing total deliveries to 717,000 pounds. The speed and scale of the effort, officials in both countries said, have helped bolster the checkered American image in Pakistan."

So which of these contradictory accounts is correct? My suggestion: Divide 717,000 pounds of relief supplies among 20 million people and reach your own conclusion.

I would further note that the U.S. has thus far donated $76 million in assistance to Pakistan, which is still less than the cost of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque. In response to yesterday's blog entry, a commenter labeled me a "hatemongerer" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-not-give-100-million-for-ground.html); nevertheless, I ask again, shouldn't the $100 million from an "anonymous" donor for the Ground Zero Mosque be used instead to assist Pakistani flood victims?

Nicholas Kristof: Reduce Textile Tariffs to Eliminate Pakistani Terrorism

Having recently informing us that "chemicals threaten our bodies" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/05/kristof-cancer-chemicals-clueless.html), New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof today would have us believe that swamping the U.S. with Pakistani garment exports would free the U.S. of radical Islamic terror. Kristof opines in an op-ed entitled "Pakistan and Times Sq.":

"If we want Times Square to be safer from terrorists, we need to start by helping make Pakistan safer as well.

. . . .

Pro-American Pakistanis fighting against extremism have been pleading for years for the United States to cut tariffs on Pakistani garment exports, to nurture the textile industry and stabilize the country."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/opinion/13kristof.html?hp

Kristof, however, ignores the fact that the majority of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. He also forgets that Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia.

According to Kristof's logic, instead of bowing to King Abdullah, Obama should be asking Saudi Arabia to create schools where boys and girls are integrated and where the focus of their education is secular. Interesting in theory, but will it happen? Not in our lifetimes. Might this prevent terrorism? More likely it would cause a wave of terror attacks by Saudis angered by U.S. meddling.

Further to Kristof's line of reasoning, economic aid from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia would "stabilize" this country and prevent terrorism emanating therefrom. This is patently absurd.

But now let's return to Pakistan: Many of the inexpensive goods manufactured in Pakistan and exported to the U.S. are the product of child slave labor. By expanding the market for such goods, wouldn't the demand for child slave labor in Pakistan also increase? And what positive effect, if any, would this have on the export of terrorism from Pakistan as these abused children grow older?

I am almost tempted to suggest that Kristof go back to writing about "chemicals that threaten our bodies".

The Obama Adminstration: Blaming Israel for the U.S. Fiasco in Afghanistan

How many times have we been told by both the extreme left and the extreme right that the United States waged both Gulf Wars against Iraq on Israel's behalf? Those who disseminate this perverse view would have us forget Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Iraqi threats against Saudi Arabia, which, had they gone unchallenged, would have brought American industry to a standstill.

In 2010 this canard has been "enhanced": Israel's refusal to make peace with the Palestinians is jeopardizing American troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Let's leave that thought for a moment and examine another eye-opening, up close account from Afghanistan, written by Dexter Filkins and published on March 30 by The New York Times, entitled "Despite Doubt, Karzai Brother Retains Power":

"Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan, may maintain links with drug dealers and insurgents, as some American officials and Afghans believe. And he might have played a central role in last summer’s fraudulent presidential election, as Western diplomats charged.

But Mr. Karzai is also the brother of the Afghan president, Hamid. And after debating Ahmed Wali’s future for months — and with a huge military operation in the area looming — Afghan and American officials have decided that the president’s brother will be allowed to stay in place.

. . . .

Any decision about Ahmed Wali Karzai is complicated by his relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, which maintains a large presence in Kandahar. Current and former American officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, say the agency has paid Ahmed Wali Karzai regularly for many years for performing a variety of services.

. . . .

But Western and Afghan officials say the president’s brother is engaged in many activities that buoy the insurgency and undermine the Afghan state. These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, strongly suggests that he enriches himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium.

. . . .

The official said that Ahmed Wali Karzai also laundered ill-gotten money for a host of figures in southern Afghanistan. “For a lot of people, including drug runners,” the Western official said.

Perhaps the most vivid example of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s reach came last August, when his brother sought re-election. According to Western diplomats in Kabul, he cut deals with insurgent groups to refrain from attacking polling stations, and then helped orchestrate a large-scale campaign of forging ballots on his brother’s behalf."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/asia/31karzai.html?hp

In a nutshell, Karzai's brother, who is allegedly involved in the narcotics trade, money laundering, election fraud and deals with the Taliban, is also allegedly in bed with the CIA. Excuse me, but why is the United States involved with this man? What is America possibly attempting to achieve on the ground in Afghanistan? Moreover, what does any of this primitive tribal confrontation have to do with distant Israel?

Fighting in Iraq subsequent to the Second Gulf War? We have seen a host of warring sects (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) and "third parties" (al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria) attempt to exert their influence and direct the outcome of this chaos, but again, what does Israel have to do with it?

The past and current wars involving the various Arab countries and Iran have exacted an exponentially larger number of casualties than all of the combined Arab-Israeli conflicts. The enmity between Sunnis and Shiites (deemed heretics by the Sunnis) is a far greater threat to regional stability than the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Why then are we now being told that Israel is the primary source of Middle East instability? Answer: Because this is indeed what the Obama administration believes.

Although the U.S. vice president's staff denies he made the comment, it has been reported that Biden alleged that Israel is jeopardizing U.S. troops:

“People who heard what Biden said [to Israeli officials behind closed doors] were stunned,” the centrist Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported. “‘This is starting to get dangerous for us,’ Biden castigated his interlocutors. ‘What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.’”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34300_Page2.html

Several days after the Biden imbroglio, the magazine Foreign Policy ran a story on its website saying that General Petraeus had sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year “with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

Next, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper asked David Axelrod twice whether “Israel’s intransigence on the housing issue put the lives of US troops at risk.” Axelrod said he wouldn’t put it in those terms, but given the opportunity, he refused to deny it.

General Petraeus, however, put the canard to rest. Speaking at St. Anselm College, he stated that the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations makes the situation for moderate Arab states "more challenging", but denied ever saying that the U.S.-Israel relationship places American soldiers at risk (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-israel-survive-obamas-reelection.html).

In short, although Obama and Hillary claim the U.S.-Israel relationship is "rock solid", it's not the case. Axelrod's evasive answer to Jake Tapper would lead anyone to believe that Israel is undermining the American effort in Afghanistan and jeopardizing the lives of U.S. soldiers.

But then what do you expect? Someone will ultimately need to be blamed for Obama's Afghan fiasco. Why not Israel?

New York Times: Obama Should Bribe Pakistan to Act Against Osama

In a December 8 editorial entitled "Pakistan and the War", The New York Times editorial board writes:

"[T]here is no chance of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda unless Pakistan’s leaders stop temporizing (and in some cases collaborating) and get fully into the fight.

. . . .

Drones won’t be enough. Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders must finally be persuaded that this is not just America’s war, it is central to their survival. In recent months, the Pakistan Army has gone after Taliban fighters in the Swat Valley and Waziristan. Yet the Army leadership is refusing to strike at the heart of the Taliban command in Baluchistan Province.

In part, they are hesitating because of legitimate fears of retaliation. But there are also many Pakistani officials — and not just in the intelligence services — that continue to see the Taliban as an ally and long-term proxy to limit India’s influence in Afghanistan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/opinion/08tue1.html

The Times acknowledges Obama's "private promise" to Pakistan of “unlimited potential” pursuant to which "Washington would consider any proposal Islamabad puts on the table." The Times also asks Obama to "press Congress to pass long-stalled legislation to establish special trade preference zones in Pakistan."

In short, The Times is asking Obama to bribe Pakistan's military and civilian leaders into acting against Osama. Sorry, it isn't going to work. The Pakistanis will, however, accept American money while continuing to play one side against the other.

First, an ugly unspoken truth: If Pakistan wanted bin Laden's head, he would have died long ago. I'm not saying that Pakistan's labyrinthine intelligence knows the whereabouts of bin Laden every hour and every day, but they know where to reach him, and for now, he better serves their interests alive and kicking. No bin Laden, no American money or U.S. counterbalance in Pakistan's ongoing conflict with India.

Moreover, bin Laden is not unpopular in Pakistan. His poll numbers go up and down (depending on the polling organization and the timing of the poll, i.e. whether the statistics were gathered after a particularly gruesome suicide bombing), but some U.S. presidents would be delighted to maintain his core backing.

Also, bin Laden makes a point of reminding the authorities in Pakistan not to prosecute their "war" against the Taliban beyond prescribed bounds. Observe yesterday's bombing:

"MULTAN: Two suicide attackers launched a gun-and-bomb assault on the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) building here on Tuesday and killed at least eight people and injured over 45. The attackers also died.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has claimed responsibility for the attacks. The assailants, armed with rocket-propelled guns and hand grenades and riding a single-cabin vehicle, first fired on policemen at a checkpoint near the ISI regional headquarters.

. . . .

Talking to Dawn on phone from an unspecified place, TTP spokesman Azam Tariq said their men had carried out the attacks in Multan. ‘Our people will not spare security personnel and government officials if the army continues operation in Malakand, Waziristan, Orakzai and Kurram agencies,’ he said, warning that the Taliban would carry out more such attacks across the country."

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/07-bomb-explosion-in-multan-cantonment-ha-10

Bottom line: Action taken by Pakistan against the Taliban will be just enough to keep U.S. dollars flowing without tipping what for them is a strategic balance.