Middle East Inside Line: Arab League & Israel-Palestine, British PM on Gaza "Prison Camp", Separation Fence Scandal

Thorny Road to Direct Israel-Palestine Talks: Arab League Foreign Ministers are meeting today in Cairo.

Talking to Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Jerusalem on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that continuing the construction freeze on West Bank settlements would be impossible politically and would bring down the coalition.

A Palestinian official told Reuters, "Abbas will tell [the Arab League] that, until this moment, there is nothing to convince us to go to direct talks.”

Israel-Palestine: Abbas’ Conditions, Netanyahu’s “Eastern Front” Response

Haaretz claims from Palestinian sources that Abbas will seek unequivocal clarifications from the US that the framework for direct talks will include a declaration that the Palestinian state will be based on the borders of 4 June 1967, with adjustments will be based on agreed exchanges of territory. The PA also wants an Israeli declaration that the construction freeze on settlements will continue and that building in East Jerusalem will stop.

Israeli cabinet minister Isaac Herzog (Labor Party) summarizes the dilemma of a "chicken-and-egg" situation. Talking to Israel Radio, he said:

Abu Mazen (Abbas) says: "I don't want to enter direct negotiations until I know what the final result will be."

Netanyahu says: "Enter direct negatiations and I will also tell you what the final result will be."

Each one looks at it opposite, and we are in a sort of political trap.

Britain's Cameron in Turkey, Comments on Gaza: British Prime Minister David Cameron made his first official visit to Turkey, warning European countries about anti-Muslim prejudice and the slow pace of accession talks with Turkey. He told Turkish businessmen:

When I think about what Turkey has done to defend Europe as a NATO ally and what Turkey is doing now in Afghanistan alongside European allies, it makes me angry that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the way it has been. I believe it's just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent.

Cameron's counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel’s raid on the Freedom Flotilla an act of “piracy” and compared Israeli officials to Somali pirates. Cameron said that the incident was “completely unacceptable” and called for a speedy and transparent Israeli inquiry into the incident. Cameron also sharpened his tone on Gaza:

The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

The Israeli embassy in the U.K. responded to Cameron quickly:

The people of Gaza are the prisoners of the terrorist organization Hamas. The situation in Gaza is the direct result of Hamas’ rule and priorities.

We know that the Prime Minister would also share our grave concerns about our own prisoner in the Gaza Strip, Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage there for over four years, without receiving a single Red Cross visit.

Separation Fence Scandal: EA has already reported that Walajeh, a village in the Bethlehem Governorate 8.5 kilometres (5.3 miles) to the southwest of Jerusalem, is in danger of being cut off from the rest of Palestinian lands, leaving 2,000 villagers encircled by Israeli settlements, roads, and security barriers.

In a court hearing on Sunday, it emerged that the order to expropriate village lands for the fence, which enabled the work to begin, had expired a year ago. However, instead of ordering a halt to the work, the court issued an injunction requiring the state to explain within 45 days why construction should not be stopped.

The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel and Palestinian villagers say that since the injunction was issued, the Defense Ministry and the contractors have been working much faster than before.

The Cost of an Eye: Emily Henochowicz, an Israeli-American studying at the Bezalel Academy of Art in Jerusalem, lost her left eye when Border Guards fired a tear gas canister during a demonstration following the raid on Freedom Flotilla.

According to Henochowicz, one policeman shot a canister directly at her face. Haaretz says that one of its reporter also witnessed the incident.

Following her treatment in Jerusalem, her father was handed a bill for NIS 14,000 (around $3,600). The Ministry of Defense refused to pay, claiming the tear gas was not fired directly at Henochowicz. The statement accused Henochowicz of putting herself at risk by voluntarily participating in a breach of the peace and accused:

From our reports, we know that the Border Police acted in accordance with the law at the violent demonstration at Qalandia, and that the shooting of tear gas canisters at demonstrators was justified. Of course, we regret that Emily Henochowicz was wounded in her eye. But under such circumstances, the Defense Ministry does not cover the expenses of medical treatment.

Afghanistan & US Politics: National Interests and Ending the War (Mull)

Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes at Rethink Afghanistan:

By now, the full implications of the data contained in the 91,000 Wikileaks files are starting to sink in. Americans have been questioning the war for some time now, and they're finally putting their foot down and demanding an end. Thousands of calls are pouring in to Congress from around the country, all demanding a NO vote on today's war funding vote, and thousands more are signing a petition declaring "the Wikileaks ‘War Logs’ are further evidence of a brutal war that’s not worth the cost. I vote, and I demand my elected officials end this war by Dec. 2011."

Afghanistan: At Least 45 Civilians Killed in Rocket Attack

Sure, war supporters gave it the old college try. The White House and other political leadership stressed that the leaks contained no new information, incidentally clearing up once and for all the confusion we had over whether they were ignorant or merely incompetent and negligent prosecutors of US foreign policy. Some even tried to deflect the argument on to Wikileaks operator Julian Assange, as if the leak coming from him --- or Paris Hilton or Spider-Man --- has anything to do with the information it contained.

But their arguments are for naught, the war is now simply indefensible. These leaks confirm and validate the criticism so far levied against the war in Afghanistan. The headline in an article by Gareth Porter, "Leaked Reports Make Afghan War Policy More Vulnerable", seems like the understatement of the century:

Among the themes that are documented, sometimes dramatically but often through bland military reports, are the seemingly casual killing of civilians away from combat situations, night raids by special forces that are often based on bad intelligence, the absence of legal constraints on the abuses of Afghan police, and the deeply rooted character of corruption among Afghan officials.

The most politically salient issue highlighted by the new documents, however, is Pakistan's political and material support for the Taliban insurgency, despite its ostensible support for U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

You could pick just one of those things Porter mentions and it could spell catastrophe for the war. Instead we have all of them. It does more than make the war policy more vulnerable, it puts any war supporting politician in Washington in serious electoral peril.

Left to their own devices, the mainstream media will craft their own stupid and obnoxious narratives about "lefty insurgencies" or "anti-incumbent fever," and this will poison the eventual policy outcome. However, if we understand the facts now, and see this as not only a US political dilemma but as part of a global anti-war movement finally winding up at President Obama's doorstep, then the US can begin to accelerate its withdrawal more responsibly than the standard media narratives might allow (Get out now! No, stay forever!).

This is not simply a reaction to a failed policy, it is an articulation of an independent vision of selfish foreign and domestic policy interests. Americans, our NATO allies, and even our progressive allies in Pakistan are all working to end the war. Domestically, political candidates who are putting ,members of Congress in electoral peril are doing so as a response to outcry from their constituents.

Elaine Marshall, candidate for Senate in North Carolina, has been a strong opponent of the President's escalation in Afghanistan. She says that, throughout her campaign she has been approached by supporters who tell her, "‘I appreciate your stance, I appreciate you talking about it, I appreciate that you’re looking at more than just the headlines." She explained in an interview with the Seminal:

I live in North Carolina, a strong military state. When you talk to people who’ve been [to war], and you understand the sacrifices folks are making, and then you look at the reason why they are stepping up to make that sacrifice, or those maybe joined before the actual situation came up and they now, because they’re good soldiers, become involved in it. In our prior engagements for the most part, we had a goal. We knew who the enemy was, we knew why we were there, we had a line drawn that we knew would be success, achievement, victory. We don’t have any of that in the war in Afghanistan.

The same is true for candidate Tommy Sowers, running for Missouri's 8th congressional district. He recently published an opinion piece questioning the President's strategy of bolstering Afghan security forces, and asking whether or not such a massive, long-term financial commitment was feasible in the economic environment. He has received high praise for his essay, as well as for his position on the war itself, as he conducted town halls across the state. He explained what he was hearing from his constituents in an interview with me and Jason Rosenbaum last week:

First, across the country, districts like this carry the burden of the war in a visceral way. When I’m in a room, I ask folks if they are veterans or if they’re related to people currently serving – it’s almost the entire room. So, on a very personal level, these people are asking, "What are we accomplishing over there?" A lot of families ask their own family members that are over there this question.

Second, on a fiscal level, this district has suffered under Republican incumbent rule in terms of infrastructure. There’s great concern about the debt, and people ask, "Why are we spending so much money over there?"

Sowers served in combat during the Iraq war, and many in Marshall's family chose to serve their country in the military, so it's clear where their personal convictions are rooted. And the overflow of public outcry and support from their constituents gives them the momentum to go from average anti-war candidates to populist juggernauts.

Did you catch Sowers' comment about "suffering under incumbent rule"? The electoral peril is not a hypothetical, it's very real. Sowers is coming directly at his opponent on this issue. He told us:

My opponent sits on the NATO parliamentary assembly, so you’d think she’d have an interest in the issue, but I’m not certain she’s even visited Afghanistan. The only thing I’ve heard from her is we need to do everything over there – more troops, more money. That’s what you get with a former lobbyists trying to influence military policy.

His opponent doesn't even have much chance to reverse her position, her hands are already all over this war. Now she's staring down the barrel of Tommy Sowers, all because she couldn't even hedge her bets on an exit timetable. She had to do the lobbyist thing and give it all away, "more troops, more money". Marshall's opponent in North Carolina is no better, refusing to fund a $32 billion one-year extension for teachers on one hand while on the other having plenty of freebie money for Wall Street and the war-makers.

It's too late to change positions or blow this off as some kind of far-left anomaly in the primaries. These folks have had their resumes scrutinized, they've won their nominations, and now they've moved on to delivering a spirited beating to their opponents.

But what happens when they do get to Washington? That's where we truly see the selfish national interests laid out. They will not simply block the war and call it a day. Marshall has talked about expanding international cooperation in terms of developing Afghanistan, as well as reforming our port/border security with an eye on counter-terrorism. Sowers also has a definite objective in mind when it comes to securing US interests in Afghanistan.

I’m a secure our nation sort of guy, an ass-kicking Democrat. I think we should pursue and kill and capture terrorists where they are. That’s the problem in Afghanistan, we’re pursuing them where they were. For every special forces team tied up training an Afghan police force that one day won’t be paid is a special forces team that can’t operate in Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. [...]

My strategy is informed by history. We are fighting an ideology. I’ve seen first hand when I had price on my head in Iraq. But there’s ways to fight this war much more intelligently.

Look back to the history of the cold war, how did we combat that? We contained, we deterred, we used trade, aid, proxies. And we occasionally sent guys like me to kill and capture the real bad folks. Overall, we let the system collapse in on itself.

Sowers is putting forward his own strategy for fighting terrorism. I've made my reservations about that strategy clear, but these candidates are not mirror images of activist bloggers; they are independent political actors. Sowers and Marshall are not conforming to any ideological constraints. They are putting forward their own, selfish national security strategies and are backed by popular momentum.

Pakistan is where we see those same selfish interests replicated. Just as our candidates look out for the United States, Pakistanis are looking out only for their country. Take, for example, their reaction to the Wikileaks' "War Diary" confirmation of the involvement of Pakistani army and intelligence services with the insurgency. Mosharraf Zaidi writes:

Virtually no serious commentator or analyst anywhere, even those embedded deep in the armpit of the Pakistani establishment, claims that the Pakistani state was not instrumental in the creation, training and sustenance of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Given the nature of the relationship between the Pakistani state and the Afghan Taliban, one that goes right to the genetic core of the Taliban, it is hard to imagine that all ties can ever be severed. Again, for serious people, this is an issue that is done and dusted. Pakistan's state, and indeed, its society, had, has and will continue to have linkages with the Afghan Taliban. Moral judgments about these linkages are external to this fact.

These linkages do, however, deserve the scrutiny of the Pakistani parliament. If somehow, Pakistanis are involved in supporting any kind of violence against anyone, that kind of support had better be couched in a clear national security framework that articulates why it is okay for Pakistanis to underwrite such violence. Absent such a framework, the violence is illegal, and the space for speculation and innuendo about Pakistan is virtually infinite. It is that space that Pakistan's fiercest critics exploit when they generate massive headlines out of small nuggets of insignificant and stale information that implicates Pakistan in anti-US violence in Afghanistan (among other things).

Zaidi is representative of a broader progressive movement in Pakistan, the closest parallel and ally that Americans have there, and yet what is his response? It is not a call for an immediate end to Pakistan's "Strategic Depth", its support of militants, and there is no mourning the loss of American lives because of that policy. There is only acknowledgement that the relationship with militants --- specifically the Afghan Taliban ---  is deeply embedded in Pakistani society, as well as a call for the government to better articulate this relationship in a "national security framework".

Zaidi is not looking out for our best interests --- refraining from support to militants who kill American soldiers --- he's looking out for Pakistan's best interests, and that includes their historic ties to militancy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jammu & Kashmir, etc. Seems harsh, but it is a parallel to the US. When was the last time an American pundit, even a liberal one, shed a tear for the thousands of Pakistani soldiers and policemen killed doing our selfish American bidding? The answer would be never.

But there's also the actual Pakistani anti-war movement. Appealing directly to the principles of the "American Founding Fathers", the group calling itself the Coalition of Conscience put forward this list of demands:

1. The foreign presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is part of problem rather than the solution; > The coalition Governments must immediately order a cessation of all military and sting operations in the region and allow peace to be negotiated.


2. Al-Qaeda is a convenient tool to blanket all opposition to US policies in the region and impose unilateral policies; > All efforts to use this pretext to prolong the presence in the region and to pursue an international agenda other than peace must cease.


3. On going coalition operations have a fragmenting effect on both Pakistan and Afghanistan; > All coalition operations with divisive effects must be stopped.


4. The entire spectrum of violence and instability in Pakistan is a backwash from Afghanistan created by the presence of foreign forces. Support to insurgent and terrorist groups in FATA and Balochistan originate from Afghanistan. If this is not stopped, the instability will spread to other regions as well; > We demand the Government of Pakistan to make its own independent policies to ensure peace and development in the region; the mother of all civilizations.


5. Afghan movement is led by leaders who are indigenous to Afghanistan and legitimate representatives of resistance to foreign occupation; > These leaders must be treated as party to peace and brought into a comprehensive dialogue process as reflected in Pak-Afghan Jirga of 2007.


6. Failing a clear timetable from the coalition for the cessation of war; > The Government of Pakistan will be urged to exercise this nation’s legitimate right to secure its interests against all hostile bases inside Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.


7. In order to ensure long term stability and prosperity in the region; > The Government of Pakistan must carry forward the inconclusive negotiations of 1996 and assist all Afghans (Resistance and Northern Alliance) to mediate peace. We welcome support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and China with no covert agendas.


8. It is not Pakistan’s responsibility to ensure logistics for coalition forces in Afghanistan knowing well that much of it is used to destabilize and terrorize Pakistanis; > This support must stop unless approved by UN and conducted under transparent international safeguards and inspections.


9. Gross violations and exercise of human rights on selective bases are widely documented; > All Pakistani prisoners kept by coalition countries, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in illegal detention centers must be brought back immediately and subjected to Pakistani courts.


10. Rendition centers, trials under duress and extra judicial killings including drones and blanket air strikes violate basic human rights; > War reparations and criminal trials of coalition leaders who have knowingly falsified evidence in support of war before their own people; their Parliaments; and before the UN Security Council must be brought before Law. All Pakistani leaders guilty of same must be tried under Pakistan laws.

The "coalition Governments" they refer to are the US and NATO allies. They are demanding "independent policies" from the Pakistani government, a reference to American interference. Most of the rest is pretty mundane, nothing you haven't seen from almost any other peace movement, Pakistani or otherwise. But make a special note of Number Six:

Failing a clear timetable from the coalition for the cessation of war; > The Government of Pakistan will be urged to exercise this nation’s legitimate right to secure its interests against all hostile bases inside Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.

That means war with the United States. All of our troops operating supply lines in Pakistan, all of our troops stationed in Afghanistan, all of our intelligence centers and facilities for launching drone and special forces raids --- these are what they are referring to by "all hostile bases." When I warned about the collapse of Pakistan, and our troops getting caught in the middle of it, this what I meant. From their perspective, our war is the root of their terrorism and insurgencies, and they will react to secure themselves.

This is the state of the present anti-war movement, in the United States and in Pakistan. In the US, Americans are putting forward their own policies, an end to the war, revamped port security, as well over-the-horizon counter-terrorism. In Pakistan, they are demanding an end to the war, our war, which is so destabilizing for their country.

None of this is remotely ideological or partisan, nor is it merely reactionary to the existing policy of war. It is an independent calculation of interests.

Ending the war is firmly in our national interests, and any politician who doesn't start supporting the United States will be put in serious danger of losing their seat. How long until our war supporting representatives come to be seen as puppets for Hamid Karzai and General Kayani, much the same as some Pakistani politicians are viewed as puppets of the United States?

With the leaks confirming so much of the criticism about the war, every action the supporters take is automatically drenched in blood. Every time they are voting for more war funding, they are voting for American soldiers to be killed by InterServices Inteligence and Pakistan Army operatives. Every time they vote against an exit timetable, they are voting against the economic interests of the United States.

This is what's happening as we watch the war disintegrate in front of us. The facts show that the war is destroying our economy, it is making us less safe, and continuing it will lead to even further disaster. There is no angry far left, no hippies, no anti-incumbent fever, no bleeding-heart liberals, and no wobbly pacifists. There are only Americans stepping up and taking their country back, back from the catastrophe of war, and setting it on a better path toward securing our interests at home and in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Anyone who still supports the war, after all of our facts have been confirmed by the Wikileaks release, now stands firmly against American national interests, both domestic and foreign. The consequences will be hellish come November.

Latest Iran Video: Ahmadinejad on Afghanistan, Sanctions, & the US (26 July)

Brief notes on this interview of President Ahmadinejad by CBS News:

1. As Marc Lynch has noted at Foreign Policy, there is a real danger of a superficial portrayal of the Wikleaks "War Diary" showing a link between Tehran and the Taliban or even between Tehran and Al Qa'eda.

There is a massive difference between documents recording that "US officials say there are links...." and documents establishing evidence of links. As far as I know --- and this is a general remark on some of those claiming what the documents "show" --- those putting forth the Iran-Taliban-Al Qa'eda connections have not actually read any of the documents, only summaries put out for the press.

2. Beyond Afghanistan, CBS played nicely into Ahmadinejad's hands with softball questions on the nuclear programme, sanctions, and relations with Washington.

3. Most importantly, where was there any reference to Iran's internal situation? Is a major US network really that blinkered?

Pakistan: Connections from Democracy to Civil War (and How to Change Them)

EA correspondent Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

Earlier this week, I wrote about an impending civil war in Pakistan, projecting a possible "complete collapse of Pakistan as a recognizable entity", not because of its geography --- it has survived breakaway provinces before, with national identities still intact --- but because of its structure as a modern, democratic society.  Some readers were understandably skeptical.

Afghanistan Projection: Pakistan’s “Strategic Depth” & Endless War (Mull)

Beyond the violence and anti-Americanism we see in the Western press, Pakistan offers much that we foreigners can recognise. It has a powerful military and institutions of civil society much like the West, but it also has fervent patriotic pride, struggles with women's and minority rights, and a constant battle between secular progressives and conservative fundamentalists that will be instantly familiar to any American. Far from the alien, failed state portrayed on television, Pakistan is a vibrant, cosmopolitan society dealing with the same grand cultural questions as those in many other countries.

So how do you get from this to complete collapse? How could a painstakingly constructed democracy disintegrate, and how could a powerful, western-backed military fail so miserably to protect the nation in the face of what seems only to be illiterate, fascist hill people and their sickeningly backward superstitions?

The problem is not only one of perception, that we take both the Pakistan we love (liberal, educated patriots) and the Pakistan we hate (wicked, violent Taliban) for granted --- always there, never changing. More than that, Pakistan's uncertain future is the direct result of deliberate policy choices by the US, Pakistan, and many others. The collapse will not be sudden and spectacular; it will be the slow culmination of years, decades, of decisions and actions, both large and small, from the enormously important to the pathetically insignificant.

Every ISAF soldier, every night raid, every civilian casualty, every fresh Taliban recruit, every drone strike, every Blackwater mercenary, every stolen election we overlook, every elected representative we sideline and marginalize, every "strategic summit" with General Kiyani and General Musharraf before him, every unaccountable dollar we funnel to the corrupt in Kabul, Islamabad, and Rawalpindi, every single, tiny action is a pinprick to the stability of the region, an almost unnoticeable chipping away at the integrity of Pakistan, as well as its neighbor Afghanistan.

Pakistan is equally liable, with its long history of supporting terrorists and militants, its capitulation to the worst extremist and de-stabilizing elements in society, its willingness to betray democracy in favor of dictatorship, its negation of long-term national goals for short-term gains from unhelpful foreign alliances, its victimization of its own citizens (first in East Pakistan, now in Balochistan), and of course the inexplicably obsessive appetite for, the fetish of Pakistan's elite for war with India.

These individual policies in turn feed our mistaken perceptions. We see them as isolated, not in their complete context. Sure the civilian casualties recruit militants, we say, but we're fighting a war. Sure the war in Afghanistan is bad, but we're pushing the extremists across the border. Sure the extremists in Pakistan are bad, but we support the western-educated Army. Sure the Army is unelected, but the civilian government is corrupt. And on and on it goes until there's simply nothing left. Afghanistan destroyed, Pakistan inflamed, and our own country politically and economically ripping apart at the seams. It all adds up, whether we're awake to it or not.

None of this is new information, mind you. These are well-documented facts that have been discussed at length in this space. But how is it that the democracy in Pakistan, the liberal, educated modern society so similar to that of the US, can break down? What does an American soldier in Kandahar, Afghanistan have to do with the democratic government in Islamabad, Pakistan, or any of these seemingly disparate and disconnected issues?

We can see that connection on the Internet. First, a report in the Christian Science Monitor [emphasis mine]:

“its now time to implenet islam [sic] and hang black water, rehamn malik and zardari till death,” posts one user, referring to the private American security firm, Pakistan’s interior minister, and Pakistan's president.

That [Facebook Wall Post] appeared on the page of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a global Islamist party that denounces democracy and campaigns for the establishment of a global caliphate (akin to an empire) based on Islamic Law. The user goes by “Commander Khattab,” the name of deceased Chechen guerrilla leader.[...]

[Hizb-ut-Tahrir spokesman Naveed Butt] claims that the SMS blasts are beginning to influence its target audience of “influential people” such as parliamentarians, lawyers, students, and journalists. “We’re steadily growing in number, as educated people realize democracy will never deliver. Practically they are seeing there is no way out for Pakistan. Secularism will never work. People are committing suicide, people are dying.”...

Khutum-e-Naboohat faces no such difficulties in keeping its operations running. According to Mr. Rashid, wealthy donors help pay the bills while the tech-savvy youngsters among its ranks maintain their website.

“We either work from home or from the computers here in the mosque,” says Umar Shah, a web designer. “It’s important to spare time for this mission because it’s a matter of our faith.”...

“The government has never tried to stop it,” [Saleem-ul-Haque Khan] says.

The government hasn't done anything to stop the extremists plotting its destruction, but it has taken other actions. From Reporters Without Borders [emphasis mine]:

“The situation of online free expression is deteriorating in Pakistan,” the press freedom organisation said. “The vice has been tightening since access to Facebook was blocked in mid-May. The country seems to want massive Internet surveillance and is moving towards a targeted filtering system that is neither transparent nor respectful of rights and freedoms.”

Among the sites to be kept under watch are Yahoo!, MSN, Hotmail, YouTube, Google, Islam Exposed, In the Name of Allah, Amazon and Bing. Thirteen sites have already been blocked including www.skepticsannotatedbible.com, www.middle-east-info.org, www.faithfreedom.org, www.thereligionofpeace.com, www.abrahamic-faith.com, www.muhammadlied.com, www.prophetofdoom.net, www.worldthreats.com,www.voiceofbelievers.com and www.walidshoebat.com.

The government can monitor and block access to sites like YouTube and Google, sites which allow the free flow of information not only for blasphemy but also for dissent, accountability, and all manner of democratic movements. Meanwhile the extremist, anti-government forces are allowed to flourish without fear. Right there is everything you need to know to see the grand connection.

Why is the government blocking access to dissent? Because the extremists call it blasphemous. Why must the government give in to this? Because it is weakened from both the American marginalization of democracy and the foreign backing of extremists, allowing the Taliban to "punch above its weight" and forcing the government to punch far below its. Where is the real power in Pakistan? With the Army and intelligence services, supported by the US, who then in turn support the extremists and militants. What allows those extremists to advance into Pakistani society? They blur the issues of the US war in Afghanistan and our policies in Pakistan ("black water") into domestic politics ("hang...zardari").

The liberal, educated Pakistani democrat has an ally in the extremist who wants to fight the US puppet government, who in turn has an ally in the Taliban fighting the Americans, who in turn has an ally in Afghanistan whose family was killed by NATO bombs, who in turn has an ally in the Pakistani intelligence services, them an ally in the Army, and those in the Army undermine the government which, of course, then sets off the liberal, educated Pakistani democrat.

Get the picture? This is where it all crashes together, the crossroads of the war in Afghanistan, "Strategic Depth", undermining democracy in Pakistan - everything. This is how it works out, how we'll see the "complete collapse of Pakistan as a recognizable entity." There is no awesome explosion, no moment of shattering, no one culprit on which to pin all the blame.

This is what the complete collapse will look like. No one left we can recognise as an ally, only violent resistance, war, and destruction. No more vibrant, democratic society, no more progressive struggles, no more women's, minority, or even human rights. Only war remains, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and likely spreading out into India and across the entire sub-continent.

However, just because these problems are so enormous does not mean that they cannot be solved. In fact, the exact same principles that went into creating these problems --- the disconnections of individual actions --- are precisely what will work for us.

Pakistani citizens are standing up, rejecting the extremists' calls for violence, fighting the corruption of their elected officials, and working in all branches of the government to reform their fragile system. Each individual adds up into a movement, and that movement adds up to stifling their country's descent into civil war.

But we as Americans also have a responsibility to act individually. Every time you call congress (dial (202) 224-3121 and ask for your representative), every meeting you attend, every bit of pressure on your government --- it all adds up. A few concerned filmmakers and journalists becomes Rethink Afghanistan. A couple of dedicated bloggers becomes Firedoglake. A handful of progressive activists becomes ActBlue. Small, disconnected acts turn into a huge movement. Your short meeting at your congressman's office turns into their vote for reforming our policies toward the region, into ending the war in Afghanistan, peace in Pakistan, and free and stable governments for both Pakistanis and Afghans.

No one action created the horrendous instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no one person, not even President Obama, can end the war and solve these problems by themselves. The problems will be solved the same way they were created, through concerned, individual citizens taking action for themselves.

Afghanistan Projection: Pakistan's "Strategic Depth" & Endless War (Mull)

EA correspondent Josh Mullis the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

If everything works out perfectly in our counterinsurgency strategy, or if congress forces a binding timetable in line with popular support, the United States will begin slowly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan in July 2011. It's only the start, it will be tremendously slow, and the military leadership will likely fight it every step of the way (if Iraq is any indication, that is).

Afghanistan: Republican Chairman Steele Stumbles, “Progressive” Reaction Fumbles (Mull)

July 2011. That's one year from now --- 12 months. If June's casualty numbers remain constant, more than a thousand Americans wi'll die before then, at minimum another $80 billion will be spent, and then we just start leaving. After that there's no clear evidence of exactly how long it will take before the US has completely removed its military presence from Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc., although there's no evidence we're planning on leaving those places either.

This is a good thing. It's good that Congress is starting to listen to its constituents, and is taking action to hold President Obama to his timetable for withdrawal. Afghanistan is America's longest war, and with such ethereal objectives as "stability" and "preventing safe havens for extremism", the war can seem endlessly un-winnable, stretching on for decades as long as we're content to let it happen. That we have a goal in sight, July 2011, is absolutely a victory.

Unfortunately, it's not good enough. Pakistan's national security policy of supporting terrorist groups and militias as proxies against India, known as "strategic depth", is accelerating out of control, and they are either deliberately or inadvertently engineering a globalized religious war, a clash of civilisations. Both terrorist and insurgent elements are evolving, with the Taliban co-opting Al-Qa'eda's idea of religious war to legitimize its fight against the Pakistani state, and Al-Qa'eda in turn co-opting the Taliban's objective of confronting India to legitimize the sub-continent as the premier theater of global jihad. Hawkish India, for one, will not take these developments lightly.

If pressure on Congress is not increased, if the US remains on the slow, ambiguous timetable it is on now, it will be caught right in the middle of this clash. The bloodbath of Iraq in 2006 was only a preview of what will happen if there is a civil war in Pakistan, or a (nuclear?) war between Pakistan and India. Or both. If the US does not expedite its withdrawal, as well as dramatically reform its policies toward the region as a whole, we will very quickly be sucked into that conflagration.

"Strategic Depth", Pakistan's support of militants, is a carefully crafted national security strategy. However, it is easiest to understand in the context of state-sponsored terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, many Arab governments supported terrorist groups as a form of internal security. The oppressive Arab dictators would facilitate terrorist recruiting and training so long as they went off to wage jihad in Lebanon, or Palestine, or Israel, or anywhere else but at home. In doing so, they ensured that any violent radicals were engaged elsewhere, while clinging to scraps of Islamic legitimacy for their brutal police states. It is "strategic depth" for domestic purposes.

Pakistan's calculation is just the same, only adapted to military and foreign policy. Pakistan is able to wage a war against India through terrorism and militancy (Taliban puppets in Kabul, Lashkar-e-Taipa puppets at home), while maintaining some legitimacy with its own constituency (elite Punjabi Pakistanis). Furthermore, Pakistan's military-owned industries are able to win massive amounts of contracts and investments from the US and China among others, and in return offer up meaningless victories (capturing an Al-Qa'eda commander for the Americans, shutting down a Uighur training camp for the Chinese). All the while the Army safely maintains its truly-important insurgent assets for use against India. It is state-sponsored terrorism as foreign policy, and it's been very successful for them so far.

But the terrorists and militants themselves also benefit from this relationship, and they may now be adapting beyond the control of the Pakistani military and intelligence services. Just as the Arab governments discovered, state-sponsored terrorism always comes back to bite you. Syria learned from Lebanon, Egypt learned from the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Saudis learned from Al-Qa'eda that it is only a matter of time before the militants turn on you. In the same way, the Taliban is now turning from the US in Afghanistan and onto the Pakistani state.

We see this in the recent attack on a Sufi Muslim shrine in Lahore, Pakistan. Sufi are the majority in Pakistan, centered in its Punjab region with the country's elite. The Taliban, with their Deoband Islam, are in the minority, focused in the Pashtun tribal areas. The shrine bombing shows that Al-Qa'eda's idea of war for Islamic purity has taken hold within the Taliban, and they are able to pivot from a local liberation movement fighting the Americans to a religious jihad against the Pakistani state as represented by the heretical Sufi Islam.

China Hand writes:

Beyond the demands of Deobandi faith, igniting a religious struggle against popular Sufism is almost a tactical necessity. Fighting against the Pakistani army and Frontier Corps is not the same as battling the NATO and U.S. unbelievers in Afghanistan.

The Pakistan Taliban are locked in a battle with the military forces of an Islamic state and need the trappings of a sustained Islamic religious struggle inside Pakistan in order to sustain its legitimacy, motivate its followers, and divide its opposition.

In fact, attacking Sufi religious practices is probably integral to the entire Taliban strategy of polarizing Pakistani society by attacking a weak link—the popular but difficult to defend (on strict Islamic terms) worship of local saints whose interred bodies reputedly have magic powers.

The central province of Punjab hosts several important Sufi shrines, raising the terrifying specter of attacks on heterodox religious practices in Pakistan’s heartland by an ostentatiously righteous, militant, and ascendant religious group whose stated mission is to rescue Islam not only from the West but from idolatry within its own ranks.

And, as a reading of Sikan indicates, challenging popular Sufism also means challenging the authority of the custodians who obtained legitimacy, wealth, and power from their control of the shrines and promises to link the Taliban to a populist, anti-elitist message that may find resonance in the impoverished areas of Pakistan far beyond its Pashtun base.

There's not much hope that even the Sufi majority can withstand an open civil war against the Deobandi minority:

If the conflict comes, the [Sufi] are likely to be outgunned.

The Pashtun Deobandi are militant, supported by zakat (Islamic charity contributions) from Saudi Arabia, and have numerous friends and supporters within Pakistan’s security apparatus.

The pacifist, underfunded, and underorganized Barelvi—with the exception of the reliably violent MQM in Karachi—appear to be reliant upon Pakistan’s rickety and equivocal civilian government to take the battle to the Taliban.

Those numerous friends and supporters within the security apparatus is the "strategic depth," the state sponsorship. That sponsorship may have given them enough strength to finally ignite an all-out civil war. At that point we are no longer talking about isolated Pashtun insurgencies and rural-urban disparities, we are looking at the complete collapse of Pakistan as a recognizable entity. Like Iraq, Pakistan is a wealthy, militarized, and industrialized society and the consequences of its shattered social fabric will be hell on earth. Only Pakistan also happens to have an extensive nuclear weapons arsenal. Iraq, famously, did not.

In addition to the Taliban, the Pakistani Al-Qa'eda franchises have also adapted with the support of "strategic depth". They are now carrying out attacks against targets in India, claiming other Pakistan-supported militant attacks as their own, or both.

From Raman's Strategic Analysis:

There are two types of messages purporting to be from Al Qaeda relating to India. The first are video or audio messages of Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri relating to the global jihad and the global intifada in which there are references to India, including Kashmir. These have been authenticated by Western intelligence agencies on the basis of voice recognition. They are in the form of general criticism of India or general threats and not specific.

The second are messages claiming responsibility on behalf of [Al Qaeda fil Hind, "Al-Qaeda in India"] for specific acts of terrorism in India such as the Mumbai suburban train explosions of July 2006, the Mumbai terrorist strikes of 26/11 and the Pune German bakery explosion and warning of future acts of terrorism against global sports events in India. These are messages circulated through the Internet or through phone calls by persons whose voices could not be identified. There is no way of establishing the authenticity of these messages. We must take them seriously for further investigation and strengthening physical security. At the same time, we should take care not to walk into any trap of the ISI to divert suspicion away from the LET and other Pakistani jihadi organizations and from the ISI for serious acts of terrorism in Indian territory by creating an impression that those were carried out by Al Qaeda.

So there's no concrete evidence that Al-Qa'eda in India exists as of yet, but the perception that it does exist is growing. Even if it is Pakistani intelligence services trying to create a mythical Al-Qa'eda, that doesn't change the fact that each new terrorist attack in India will be seen as a victory for Al-Qa'eda's jihad. And with each new "victory" come new "foreign fighters" willing to take up arms. The myth becomes reality, whether you want it to or not. And not only in India, but in Kashmir as well.

Eric Randolph writes:

On 15 June, Al Qaeda announced that it has a new branch, Al Qaeda in Kashmir (AQK), according to a report in Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor [subscription needed]. The group is apparently led by Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri, who claimed responsibility for the February bombing of the German Bakery in Pune, India. [...]

The announcement of AQK is significant, however, since it shows Al Qaeda trying to bolster what it clearly thinks is an emerging front in the global jihad: India. The LeT have already shown an interest in extending anti-Indian militancy beyond localised issues such as Kashmir. The LeT opposes India not just because of specific policies and actions, but for its very existence - as a perceived enemy of Islam. Hence, attacks such as those in Mumbai, as well as earlier bombings in which it is likely to have played a role, strike at symbols of India’s success – its economic growth and its acceptance into the global (i.e. Western) community. The appearance of the Al Qaeda brand name in the region is part of this process: framing the conflict between India and Pakistan as a global, ahistorical phenomenon, divorced from immediate political concerns and thus insulating the jihad from any progress in negotiations between the two governments.  Who belongs to which group is less important than the symbolism that this latest development suggests.

Al-Qa'eda can fully open the entire sub-continent as a theater for jihad, and coupled with the collapse of nuclear-armed Pakistan and the presumable Indian military response, we have the Clash of Civilizations. Pakistan vs India becomes Islam vs the Hindu Superpower. And stuck right there in the middle of it is 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan, soon to be controlled by a Taliban-Karzai power-sharing government, a puppet of Pakistan's "strategic depth". To say it will be ugly is an epic understatement.

We may be in the process of pulling ourselves back from the brink of endless war in Afghanistan, but that doesn't stop anyone else from sucking us back in. Whatever our pretensions about 9/11 and denying terrorists a safe haven in Afghanistan, there's no turning back once we've been sucked into a massive blowout on the sub-continent.

Congress must be forced to not only institute a binding timetable for the President, but to accelerate that timetable in every conceivable way possible. Funding must be cut, programs discontinued, missions aborted. Nothing the US could (doubtfully) accomplish before July 2011 will change the events in Pakistan and India. We can eradicate the corruption in Kandahar, but that won't deter the Deobandi-Sufi civil war in Pakistan. We can install perfect governments-in-a-box in every single province in Afghanistan, it won't stop Al-Qa'eda from waging its jihad in Kashmir and India. We can't afford the blood and treasure that the war is costing now, much less if it explodes across the region.

The US must accelerate its withdrawal timetable, but it also must dramatically reform its policy toward Pakistan. Waiting another year before beginning to leave Afghanistan is also another year spent dumping billions of dollars and sophisticated military technology into the hands of Pakistan's military and intelligence services, those most responsible for the stoking the civil war and terrorism with their "strategic depth." The US must engage with and empower the democratically elected civilian government. It is they who must be strengthened in the battle against extremism, not the Army and ISI. But even this is simply taking yet another side in yet another civil war, and if the past is any indication, the US is by no means guaranteed success even if we try.

It is good to celebrate what has been accomplished in ending the war. It is good that 65% of Americans now support the timetable, and that congress is starting to act on that. But more pressure must be brought to bear on your local representatives. The timetable must be sped up, the US must begin drawing down before July 2011 and certainly at a much faster pace than is currently planned. The maneuvering for a post-US Afghanistan has accelerated out of control, and if we don't move fast enough, if  Congress isn't forced to step up efforts, there may be no such thing as a post-US Afghanistan. Quite frankly, if we don't start leaving now, we may never leave at all.