Updated: Pakistan - Can You Balance Sharia and Missiles?

Linking two items from our recent updates:

Pakistan agreed on Monday to restore strict Islamist law in the Swat valley to pacify a revolt by Taliban militants, and a suspected U.S. drone fired missiles in the region killing at least 26 people.

So does the political gesture of legal autonomy in northwestern Pakistan outweigh answer over the lack of autonomy when a missile hits your house?

The answer, at least for US envoy Richard Holbrooke, lies in the notion that "good locals" can easily be separated from and set against "bad extremists", be they the foreign or home-grown variety. He said in New Delhi today,

India, the U.S. and Pakistan all have a common threat now. I talked to people from Swat and they were frankly quite terrified. I attempted to discuss Swat a lot, Swat has really deeply affected the people of Pakistan not just in Peshawar but in Lahore and Islamabad.

Nice in principle, but does that mean that if sharia was the choice of "good locals" rather than "bad extremists", Washington will accept the decisions?

And equally important, how do US missiles distinguish between good and bad?

Mr Obama's World: Latest Alerts in US Foreign Policy (16 February)

Latest Post: Pakistan - Can You Balance Sharia and Missiles?
Latest Post: The Difficulties for Washington’s Diplomatic Engagement with Tehran
Latest Post: The Shock of Hypocrisy: US Operating From Within Pakistan

Current  Obamameter Reading: Fair, Possible Rumbles from South Later



9p.m. Missed this from earlier today: Italy has said it will not take any released detainees from Guantanamo Bay, further denting the Obama strategy of having "third countries" take the "hard cases" from the facility.

Evening update (6 p.m. GMT): White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has said President Obama will make a decision on US troop levels in Afghanistan "within days", not weeks.

1 p.m. Hillary Clinton has started his Asian tour in Tokyo with warm words for the "vitally important" US-Japan alliance: "Its foundation has been and always will be a commitment to our shared security and prosperity, but we also know that we have to work together to address the global financial crisis, which is affecting all of us."

12:25 p.m. A second fatal roadside bomb in Iraq today has killed four Shi'a pilgrims on a bus in eastern Baghdad. The first bomb killed four in Sadr City.

11:15 a.m. The Kyrgyzstan Government has followed up its declaration that it will close the US airbase in the country by sending the necessary documents to Parliament.

8:40 a.m. A witness says 20 more bodies from this morning's US airstrike in northwestern Pakistan have been found, bringing the death toll to at least 30. CNN is reporting at least 15 confirmed deaths.

8:15 a.m. A roadside bomb has killed four passengers on a bus in the Baghdad district of Sadr City.

In a barely-noticed incident on Sunday, a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq, the fifth American combat facility in the past week.

7:45 a.m. In another sign of the Obama Administration's move for co-operation with China, Chinese state media is reporting that high-level military talks will resume at the end of February. The two-day "informal" dialogue will be between a U.S. assistant secretary of defense and a deputy chief of the Chinese army.

6:50 a.m. Engaging Iran via Afghanistan. The New York Times usefully notes a Sunday statement on an Afghan TV station by US envoy Richard Holbrooke: “It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan. They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors.”

6:40 a.m. Updates on US airstrikes: At least 12 people killed in Pakistan's Kurram region; US and Afghan officials claim nine militants, including the prominent leader Mullah Dastagir, killed in a raid Sunday night.

Morning Update (6 a.m. GMT; 1 a.m. Washington): No major developments, but yesterday's announcement in Kabul of Afghanistan participation in local security discussions with the US and in the strategic review in Washington appears to be a masterful political move, at least for now.

For President Obama and his envoy Richard Holbrooke, the measures give them some freedom of manoeuvre against military pressure for an immediate surge in forces. For Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai (pictured), it relieves Washington's direct pressure upon him and gives him a domestic political boost, with US recognition of his assertion of Afghan sovereignty.

In Pakistan, the story of US missile strikes --- which we updated last night with the not-so-surprising revelation that the American drones were flying from US bases inside the country --- runs and runs. Two more missiles were fired at "militant targets" this morning. Up to 10 people are reported killed.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton enters the first day of substantive talks on her Asian tour, beginning in Japan.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has declared victory in a referendum which would enable to run for a third six-year term in 2013. With 94 percent of votes counted, the measure was favoured by more than 54 percent of voters. Chavez's victory will drive the "mainstream" US media such as The Washington Post crazy; the Obama Administration's reaction is likely to be more measured.

Guantanamo Update: Binyam Mohamed Coming Home, No Need to Talk about Torture

The New York Times offers the welcome news that, after six years in captivity, Binyam Mohamed "was examined Sunday by a British medical team at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in preparation for his return home".

Mohamed's release is the overwhelming priority. At the same time, there is the stench of action being taken to avoid embarrassment for US and British authorities. There has been a steady drip of emerging information, which we have tried to highlight, about Mohamed's torture, after his "rendition" from Pakistan, in Morocco and Afghanistan before he was taken to Guantanamo. The latest revelations of The Observer of London on Sunday of a UK-US collusion to keep evidence from being presented in the British High Court follows a letter from Mohamed's lawyer, Clive Stafford-Smith, to Barack Obama outlining the US Department of Defense is keeping information from the President.

Meanwhile the Obama Administration, far from owning up to the torture carried out against Mohamed and other detainees, is trying to block any public hearing in a US court as well as in Britain. It is the efforts of human rights organisations that are bringing out the confirmation, in hundreds of pages of heavily-censored US documents, of the scale of the abuses carried out in the name of the US Government.

So today we have the near-disgrace of the US media averting its eyes from state-sponsored crimes. CBS News has lengthy coverage of the Mohamed case, but papers like The Washington Post are silent.

And The New York Times? It mentions Mohamed's impending release in a four-sentence article but limits its attention to any abuses with "[Mohamed] says he was tortured while in American custody".

Questioning the Annual Threat Assessment: The Difficulties for Washington's Diplomatic Engagement with Tehran

Last week the US intelligence community released The Annual Threat Assessment 2009, presented by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The report not only underlined Iran’s past attempts in acquiring nuclear weapons but also pointed to Iran’s ongoing uranium enrichment efforts. Blair stated that "Israel and Iran are liable to enter into a confrontation or crisis" some time this year because of the Iranian nuclear programme. Blair also expressed his specific concern regarding a possible Iran-Israel war with Iran-backed Hezbollah reinforcing its weapons in southern Lebanon.



It is difficult for Blair to assume that Iran may not restart its nuclear weapons program when the report Blair signed states:

We do not have sufficient intelligence reporting to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain indefinitely the halt of its previously enumerated nuclear weapons-related activities while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart those activities.

Moreover, how can Blair not foresee that Iran, which has been enriching uranium since 2006 and is capable of delivering nuclear weapons through medium-range balistic missiles, can use its potential possession of nuclear weapons as the key bargaining point during diplomatic engagement with the US?

When we look closer to the document, it is not that difficult to see how fragile any assertion that Iran is not pursuing nuclear capability is, given the raison d'etat of Tehran's regional and global position. The report states: “Iran’s longstanding foreign policy goals are to preserve the Islamic regime, safeguard Iran’s sovereignty, defend its nuclear ambitions, and expand its influence in the region and the Islamic world.” This is to be expected given that Iran, as a revisionist state, is supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and other organizations in the region.

Dan Gillerman, Israel’s former envoy to the United Nations, stated his concerns over Iran’s capacity to restart its nuclear program on Fox News. Indeed, he equated the 2007 US Nuclear with the piece of paper Chamberlain waved on the eve of the Second World War in 1938. He implied that the US should watch Iran, sanction Iran, and make sure that the capability of the extreme fundamentalist regime of Iran is far away from destructing the region.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNwT3CbtiI[/youtube]

The report states: "In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons..." Therefore, it suggests giving priority to diplomatic engagement to encourage such a decision.

However, this US-led diplomatic effort is also a thorny process which is expected to take much more time than some can tolerate. The most terrifying scenario is Iran's readiness to restart its nuclear weapons program during negotiations. According to the report:

We assess Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons....We judge Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame, [although State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research] judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.

Because of the obstacles faced by the Obama Administration to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a possible Israeli airstrike --- similar to the attack on Osirak in Iraq in 1981 --- could come to fruition in prior to 2013.

For now, Washington is focused on 2009, not 2013. The course of discussions with Iran should determine whether The Annual Threat Assessment 2010 highlights a crisis averted or a crisis which is impending.

Mr Obama's World: Latest Alerts in US Foreign Policy (15 February)

Latest Post: The Shock of Hypocrisy: US Operating From Within Pakistan



5 p.m. Finally, movement from the Holbrooke-Karzai discussions in Afghanistan. At a joint news conference, they announced a declaration aimed at reducing civilian deaths from US and NATO military operations.

According to Al Jazeera, "Afghan security personnel will play a greater role in the planning and undertaking of night time attacks, searches and operations in populated areas, particularly in tribal regions." An Afghan delegation will join the strategic review, chaired by Holbrooke (pictured), in Washington.
Afternoon Update (4:30 p.m.): Militants in Pakistan's Swat Valley have called a 10-day cease-fire. Peace talks are underway that could establish sharia law throughout the area.

Pakistani officials say the US is "alarmed" by the possibility that sharia law will be accepted and is privately advocating large-scale deployment of Pakistani troops in the region.

Morning Update (6:25 a.m. GMT; 1:25 a.m. GMT): The lead item is a non-update. There is still no news out of the conversations yesterday between US envoy Richard Holbrooke and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which come after a period of tension between Washington and the Afghan Government and amidst talk of an increased US military presence.

The only possible signal came from Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told The Washington Post:

We can send more troops. We can kill or capture all the Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders we can find - and we should. But until we prove capable, with the help of our allies and Afghan partners, of safeguarding the population, we will never know a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan. Lose the people's trust, and we lose the war.

It is unclear whether Mullen's words were meant as a reassurance to Karzai or a wider appeal to other Afghan leaders, NATO allies, and opinion in Washington as the US military presses for a new strategic approach.