Why losing in Afghanistan is not an option

For those who think that the most important consideration for President Obama in deciding on Afghanistan war policy is its domestic political implications or simple containment, Wazhma Frogh has a reminder of what is really at stake for Afghanistan and the world:

As an Afghan woman who for many years lived a life deprived of the most basic human rights, I find unbearable the thought of what will happen to the women of my country if it once again falls under the control of the insurgents and militants who now threaten it.

In 2001, when the war in Afghanistan began, the liberation of Afghan women was one of the most important justifications for military intervention. Has the world now changed its mind about Afghan women? Is it ready to let them once again be killed and tortured by militants? Does the world no longer believe in the principles it supported in 2001?

Handing over Afghanistan to those who intend to keep the country centuries behind most of the world -- to men who do not view women as human beings -- would not only call into doubt the global commitment to human rights, it would also raise questions about the commitment of Western democracies to such rights and to democratic values. Bearing in mind how fragile the Afghan government is at this moment, it will not take long for the country's women to come under attack again. The consequences will be even more bitter this time because no matter how limited our success, we have at least managed to act in the forefront of public life in Afghanistan. We have had a taste of what it's like to have rights.

Vice President Joe Biden is not only wrong on this, he's reaffirmed his status as a dolt and an inhuman ignorer of basic human rights and dignity.

(Hat tip: Hot Air.)

And to think he even pronounces "Pakistan" correctly

President Barack "Pah-kee-stan" Obama seems to be having trouble convincing the leaders and people of Pakistan that he knows what's best for them.

Three stories:

NY Times: Pakistanis Continue to Reject U.S. Partnership

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Even with the arrival of the Obama administration and the prospect of substantially increased aid, more Pakistanis — an overwhelming majority — continued to reject the United States as a partner to fight militancy in their country, a new poll finds.

NY Times: Militant Group Is Intact After Mumbai Siege

KARACHI, Pakistan — Ten months after the devastating attacks in Mumbai by Pakistan-based militants, the group behind the assault remains largely intact and determined to strike India again, according to current and former members of the group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and intelligence officials.

Despite pledges from Pakistan to dismantle militant groups operating on its soil, and the arrest of a handful of operatives, Lashkar has persisted, even flourished, since 10 recruits killed 163 people in a rampage through Mumbai, India’s financial capital, last November.

Daily Telegraph (UK): Pakistan warns United States against drone attacks

Pakistan has warned the United States that it will not allow drone attacks on suspected Taliban bases in its troubled Balochistan province, military sources have said.

The army chief's warning was disclosed amid growing tension over American claims that Islamabad was refusing to target the Taliban's 'Quetta Shura' – the leadership council of former Afghan ruler Mullah Omar.

Washington believes the 'shura' is plotting attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan from 'safe havens' in South-West Pakistan.

American State Department and intelligence officials are believed to have warned Pakistan President Asif Zardari that they will launch their own drone attacks on the shura if the Pakistan Army fails to target its bases.

Gosh, you'd think it was like Pakistan was an independent country or something.

Pakistan foils cross-dressing terrorists

Western societies are fussing over the wearing of burqas and "burqinis" - here, here and here. But it seems like the burqa is a bad idea in Islamic societies, too: Pakistan Police Thwart Attack on Karachi Oil Facility.

ISLAMABAD -- Islamic militants clad head-to-toe in women's burqas attempted to attack an oil storage facility in Karachi, raising fears that insurgents are fleeing northwestern Pakistan and infiltrating the nation's main business hub.

Three gunmen, disguised as women, tried to enter the high security facility used by oil companies, late Monday night, Waseem Ahmed, the city police chief, told Pakistani television on Tuesday. When stopped by security guards, militants opened fire, killing one of the guards. The assailants fled during a gun battle, leaving behind their burqas, purses and hand grenades.

"We suspect they wanted to carry out a big terrorist attack which our prompt police action thwarted," said Mr. Ahmed, the police chief, in an interview with the Geo TV Pakistan.

Pakistan imports foreign oil through the Karachi port, and stores it there before transporting it throughout the country. An attack on the port facility could have threatened fuel supply for the country's industry and transport, just as Pakistan's economy is struggling to recover from a global downturn and security woes at home.

Later Tuesday, police arrested four men suspected to have been involved in the attack. During a house raid in Karachi, Mr. Ahmed said in the television interview that police found additional burqas, women's handbags and weapons. Police suspected the assailants disguised themselves as women to try to slip past security check points.

The arrested men were suspected to have been linked to the militant group led by Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban leader who was killed last month in a U.S. missile attack in South Waziristan. A large number of militants from Waziristan and other areas fleeing army attacks have been taking sanctuary in Karachi, according to Zulfikar Mirza, the Sindh provincial home minister.

Here's an idea: these terrorists wanted to be women so badly, let them have their wish. A few quick strokes with a (perhaps not-so-sharp) knife, and they'll be fully burqa-worthy... if you know what I mean (and I think you do).

Joe Biden wants to keep his boss firmly in the quagmire

After the November election, Vice-President Elect Joe Biden told ABC's George Stephanopolous that Obama would do nothing until he heard from Joe:

"I think we should restore the balance here. The role of the Vice President of the United States as I see it is to give the President of the United States the best, sagest, most accurate, most insightful advice and recommendations he or she can make to a President to help them make some of the very, very important decisions that have to be made.

"When Barack Obama, Senator Barack Obama then talked to me about being his Vice President I said we have to – let’s talk and we spent three and a half hours talking and one of the things I asked was, I said I don’t want to be picked unless you’re picking me for my judgment. I don’t want to be the guy that goes out and has a specific assignment – an important assignment to reinvent government, which Al Gore did a great job of. Dealing with some specific discrete item. I said I want a commitment from you that in every important decision you’ll make, every critical decision, economic and political as well as foreign policy, I’ll get to be in the room."

Well, now we get a specific example of how that's working out for the two of them.

President Barack Obama's administration is sharply divided over whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, with Vice-President Joe Biden and other senior figures arguing that it would be folly to escalate the fighting.

On this vital question, Mr Biden is sharply at odds with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state.. He strongly opposes any large increase in US combat forces in Afghanistan, while Mrs Clinton has called for reinforcements, with the support of the Pentagon.

Mr Biden argues that escalating the fight against the Taliban using US troops would play into al-Qaeda's hands by stirring popular resentment and destabilising neighbouring Pakistan. It would also be politically damaging at home, where the American public is increasingly unwilling to tolerate high casualties....

Mr Biden, whose long experience of foreign policy is one of his key qualifications for the post, has long been critical of President Hamid Karzai's leadership in Afghanistan. His position has been boosted by the mounting evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.

So "the best, sagest, most accurate, most insightful advice and recommendation" foreign policy expert Joe Biden can offer his President is to let the NATO mission in Afghanistan die a slow death from neglect?

General Stanley McChrystal, the new American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, has submitted his classified assessment of the war to the White House. This is understood to lay out future options, ranging from sending 10,000 to 40,000 additional soldiers.

Gen McChrystal has privately made clear that he believes the greatest risk attaches to holding back on the reinforcements. What he considers the minimal option of sending between 10,000 and 15,000 more troops is also the riskiest choice, he argues.

Maybe Biden is thinking that he can work with the French to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan the way he and they drove Hizbollah out of Lebanon.

I feel sooooo much better about America's security knowing that Hole-in-the-Head Joe is giving our Commander-in-Chief his wise counsel.

They know how it plays in Madrid, London and DC - if not Peoria

The Taliban in Afghanistan are accused of using hand grenades to ensure that there were civilian casualties to show to the media in the wake of an American air strike: Taliban blamed for 'air strike' deaths.

The claim, based on the account of US special forces involved in the fighting, comes the day after the Red Cross and Afghan officials blamed American warplanes for killing more than 100 people in Bala Balak, a Taliban-held district in Farah province.

The top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, expressed doubt about whether the civilians were killed by American air strikes.

"We have some other information that leads us to distinctly different conclusions about the cause of the civilian casualties," McKiernan said.

US Marine special operations forces, embedded with Afghan soldiers when the fighting erupted, claim the Taliban lobbed hand grenades into civilian houses before pretending the dead were victims of an American air strike, a United Nations official said.

One can hardly blame the Taliban for murdering civilians in this way (if it proves that the allegations are true). After all, they know how willing the press and European public opinion (as well as American public opinion on the two coasts) are to believe that American forces wantonly target civilians. From the Taliban's perspective, it would be a waste not to exploit that propaganda tool.

Taliban booby-traps children's toys

In a time-honored form of war crime, the Taliban in Pakistan are booby-trapping toys in an effort to terrorize families by putting bombs in children's toys. The latest example is a soccer ball bomb outside a girls' school.

The football explosion happened in a village in the mountains of Lower Dir. The children, five of them girls, found the ball as they were returning from school. Seven victims belonged to the same family.

Pakistan's Interior Ministry chief, Rehman Malik, blamed the Taliban saying: "The Taliban have exposed their real face by killing innocent children."

He said investigators would check whether the children were targeted because their families had refused to let the Taliban take them for training, including as suicide attackers.

He also appealed to parents across North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to stop children accepting food or toys from strangers.

And they say that American airstrikes drive civilians into the arms of the Taliban? Anyone who seeks the shelter of their embrace deserves whatever they get.

Who blinked: Karzai or the Taliban?

Reuters reported yesterday that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is panicking:

Afghanistan's Karzai urges Taliban talks after scare
Sun Sep 9, 2007 6:14AM EDT
By Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai renewed a call for talks with Taliban insurgents on Sunday, shortly after a security scare forced him to cut short a commemoration speech when gunshots were fired outside the venue.

However, today we get a different picture, from AFP via the News of Australia.

Taliban says it is 'ready for talks'
By Nasrat Shoaib in Kandahar
September 10, 2007 09:20pm
Article from: Agence France-Presse

THE Taliban said today it was ready for talks with the Afghan Government after President Hamid Karzai offered negotiations in a bid to end the rebels' nearly six-year bloody insurgency.

Mr Karzai made the offer yesterday, with the insurgency spiralling to its highest level this year, saying peace could not be achieved without dialogue.

"For the sake of national interests ... we are fully ready for talks with the Government," senior Taliban spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi said.

"Whenever the Government formally asks for negotiations, we are ready," he said. The movement had a "limited" number of conditions for a meeting, he added without elaborating.

Ahmadi said the Taliban could hold talks with the Afghan Government as they had with South Korean officials over 21 hostages whom the hardliners freed last month after several meetings.

"As we did hold negotiations with the South Korean Government, we can hold talks at an even higher level with the Government," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

So who blinked? Well, here's a bit more from the Reuters story:

Karzai has repeatedly offered talks with the Taliban, but the guerrillas have refused.

Hmmmm... sounds like Karzai hasn't changed his position at all.

Then there's this from the AFP story:

Ahmadi said it was not clear if Mr Karzai's offer was genuine. "Our understanding is the Government, which terms the Taliban as terrorists, would not ask for negotiations," he said.

Mr Karzai has regularly offered talks with the Taliban, which was in government between 1996 and 2001, and there have been rumours that contact has already been made.

He denied yesterday that "formal negotiations" were under way with the militants but said he was ready to start such dialogue if he could find the "address for the Taliban."

Ahmadi said: "If they want our address - we're among the people. If they're honest for talks, we're ready for it."

Asked for a reaction to the Taliban yesterday, Mr Karzai's spokesman Homayun Hamidzada said the "government's doors are open to anyone who agrees to obey the constitution and other laws of the country to join peace."

It sounds a lot more like the Taliban are tired of getting nowhere with their insurgency. Yes, they set off a lot of suicide bombs but these kill a lot of innocent civilians (183 so far this year) and are generally ineffective against Coalition troops (only 10 killed in suicide bombings this year). In combat operations, the Taliban are losing many times more fighters than they are costing the Coalition. Despite the recent tapes from al-Qaida extolling the purity of jihad, the Taliban may be yearning for the relative quiet of politics.

Of course, if all you had to go on were Reuters' reports, you'd never know it.

Criminals or combatants?

From James Taranto's Best of the Web on OpinionJournal.com, a scathing analysis of a stupid op-ed by Wesley Clark and Kal Raustiala of the Burkle Center.

Here is their argument:

Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as "unlawful combatants" rather than treat them as criminals. . . .

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. . . .

Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians.

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state's responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status. . . .

The more appropriate designation for terrorists is not "unlawful combatant" but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

This is so vapid, it does not even rise to the level of sophistry. The authors argue that the U.S. should "designate" terrorists as "criminals" rather than "unlawful combatants" for purely rhetorical reasons: because calling someone a "criminal" implies less "respect" and does not "dignify" him.

Clark and Raustiala assert, “Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state's responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens.” This is false: from Al Qaeda’s point of view, they are the official government of the Caliphate-to-be, a state that currently exists in exile from its claimed national territory of the area between al-Andalus, occupied by the Spanish, to those Sultanates currently occupied by the Philippines. It is akin to the Free French and Free Dutch of World War II, claiming to represent the legitimate national governments of their occupied lands. They have declared war as a state on the nations of the West and on the occupation governments of Muslim lands (e.g., the House of Saud), but they refuse to abide by the internationally-agreed conventions and laws of warfare.

Taranto continues:

The criminal justice system is fundamentally punitive, not preventive. The purpose of declaring someone a combatant is to keep him off the battlefield, thereby weakening the enemy's ability to attack in the future. The justice system can do nothing about a ‘crime’ that has not yet been [committed].

His latter two sentences are spot on, but I take issue with the sentiment of the first. In my view, the criminal justice system uses punitive measures as preventive deterrents. The operation of the criminal justice system is based on the fact that most members of a civilized society are willing to stay within the limits of the law and need only the occasional reminder that transgressors face punishment to be deterred from wrongdoing.

In warfare, the combatants are by definition unconcerned with the societal norms of the people they are attacking. However, lawful warfare draws a line at targeting civilians and torturing or summarily executing captives. Combatants on one side may be deterred from violating the laws of war, attacking certain classes of targets, or using certain types of weapons for fear of retaliation in kind.

Fanatical terrorists do not recognize any such limits in their conduct of warfare. As a consequence, punitive measures drawn from the criminal justice system’s model of deterrence are useless in that context. Even retaliation in kind is ineffective against terrorist combatants who do not fear consequences in the temporal world because they are supremely confident of rewards in the next world. Thus the only means to prevent their evil acts are to detain them or to kill them.

Clark and Raustiala can't even get their argument straight, however. In a segment not quoted by Taranto:

The federal court held that while the government can arrest and convict civilians, under current law the military cannot seize and detain Mr. Marri. Nor would it necessarily be constitutional to do so, even if Congress expressly authorized the military detention of civilians. At the core of the court’s reasoning is the belief that civilians and combatants are distinct. Had Ali al-Marri fought for an enemy nation, military detention would clearly be proper. But because he is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, and is a citizen of a friendly nation, he should not be treated as a warrior.

Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts. At the extreme, yes, military force may be required. But the terrorists themselves are not “combatants.” They are merely criminals, albeit criminals of an especially heinous type, and that label suggests the appropriate venue for dealing with the threats they pose.

Which is it, gentlemen? Are al-Qaeda terrorists civilian criminals, against whom it is improper to deploy military forces? Or are they soldiers of a non-territorial nation in exile, and therefore just targets of military action? The Clark-Raustiala position would seem to make NATO's operations in Afghanistan illegal, given that neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban are legally-constituted armies. We should send the FBI and Interpol to round them up, not NATO troops in APCs and aircraft.

And we will close with this gem of wanton stupidity from Clark & Raustiala:

Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon.

"Allowed"? Well, yes, in that those attacks would be deemed to be within the legitimate scope of military targeting. However, this overlooks two important details. First, even though al-Qaeda did issue a formal declaration of war against Western governments (even though it wasn't taken seriously by those Western governments), this doesn't make their attacks on the USS Cole or the Pentagon "allowable" from the perspective of the United States: the U.S. Armed Forces would have been well within their rights to kill all of the attackers before the attacks succeeded. And the reason that the sailors on the USS Cole and the U.S. forces in and around the Pentagon did not in fact repel those attacks brings up the second point: al-Qaeda does not conduct its warfare according to international conventions and the laws of war. Its soldiers do not wear distinguishing uniforms, they do not recognize the rights of civilians not to be targeted, they do not accord captives the rights of prisoners of war. Perhaps the best way to describe them is that they are more than ordinary criminals, they are war criminals.

Gandhi's grandson: my Granddad would have stood up to Bin Laden

Mahatma Gandhi's grandson says that the Great Soul would have stood up to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the Islamofascist movement.

Rajmohan Gandhi told the BBC his grandfather would also have tried to organise "something dramatic" - perhaps a mass fast - to show how unhappy most Muslims were that their religion was being linked to terrorism.

Asked what he would have made of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the Islamist Taliban militia in Afghanistan, Rajmohan said: "He would have stood up to them."

"The Muslim and non-Muslim issue was a very important issue in his life in India, and he was killed because many Hindus thought he was friendlier to the Muslims than was necessary," the former Indian parliamentarian said.

"So today, he would never agree with the idea that there's something connected between Islam and violence or Islam and terrorism. He would totally oppose that idea."

Rajmohan added that his grandfather "might have recommended to the Muslims of the world who were unhappy being hijacked by the terrorists to say how about demonstrating your dissociation with violence through a fast if need be".

One wonders whether moderate Muslims could have been shamed by the Mahatma into such a grand demonstration, or whether he would even have lived long enough to carry out the effort. It's fairly certain that the Islamofascists would have had no qualms about murdering him.

UN Security Council: Killing civilians is bad

Wow. Who knew?

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council called Tuesday on forces in Afghanistan to take all possible precautions to avoid civilians deaths and urged foreign troops to enhance their understanding of local culture by cooperating with Afghan authorities.

The council also condemned Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents for killing innocent Afghans in suicide bombings and using civilians as "human shields." The statement came a week after a suicide attack killed 17 people, including 12 children, in a crowded market in southern Afghanistan.

"The Security Council expresses its concern about all civilian casualties and reiterates its call for all feasible steps to be taken to ensure the protection of civilian life," the 15-member council said in a statement adopted by consensus after closed consultations.

How about if NATO forces annihilate the Taliban and al-Qaeda? There may be some civilian casualties as a consequence of those operations, but the end result will be the cessation of murders by the extremists and no more need for NATO operations.

A silver lining in a horribly dark cloud?

Potentially this is the best news in the terror war to come along for some time.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) -- Militants in northwest Pakistan disavowed a peace pact with the government and launched two days of suicide attacks and bombings that killed at least 70 people, dramatically escalating the violence in the al-Qaida infiltrated region.

The attacks Sunday and Saturday followed strident calls by extremists to avenge the government's bloody storming of Islamabad's Red Mosque and a declaration of jihad, or holy war, by at least one pro-Taliban cleric.

The terrorist murders of 70 people as good news? Well, consider this.

A document announcing the end of the peace pact in North Waziristan was passed around in the bazaar in Miran Shah. The signatories referred to themselves as the Taliban, a term commonly used by militants in northwest Pakistan, though their links with the Taliban fighting in neighboring Afghanistan are murky.

Under the Sept. 5, 2006, truce, the Pakistan army pulled back to barracks tens of thousands of troops that had been involved in bloody operations against suspected Taliban and al-Qaida hideouts, and militants agreed to halt attacks in Pakistan and over the border against foreign troops in Afghanistan. Tribal elders were supposed to police the deal.

Musharraf had clung to the agreement and similar pacts in neighboring areas, arguing that, by empowering tribal leaders to police their own fiefdoms in return for development aid, they offered the only chance of bringing long-term stability.

However, critics have argued that Musharraf's decision to cut a deal effectively handed the Taliban and al-Qaida a safe haven from which to plot attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and in the West.

If this represents a real shift in Pakistani government policy -- if President Musharraf really has decided to stop trying to appease both the Islamofascists and the West and chosen the side of good, and if he can convince his military that their dependence on Islamic fundamentalist groups no longer serves its interest -- then this attack will help reinforce their resolve by proving that the radicals are interested only in jihad.

On the other hand, if these attacks cause Musharraf to lose his nerve, or if the Islamicists in his military convince their fellow officers once again to compromise with evil, it will be a black day for Pakistan and the world.

The New York Times: We love genocide (shhh! Don't tell anyone)

On July 7, The New York Times ran an editorial that, in part, called for China to do more to stop the genocide in Darfur:

Washington needs to have what diplomats call a frank discussion with Beijing about its irresponsible export of poisonous toothpaste, dog food and toys and its piracy of American-produced software, movies and other goods. And Washington needs to encourage China to become a more constructive international player on issues from global warming to ending genocide in Darfur.

Of course, the main thrust of the editorial was to plead that China not be improperly pressured to revalue its currency. However, one might be tempted to take heart, just a tiny bit, from The New York Times opposing genocide.

One might, that is, until one reads the July 8 editorial calling for an immediate and abrupt pullout of American forces from Iraq.

When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.

Keeping American troops in Iraq is in fact the only hope the world has of preventing the "even bloodier and more chaotic" outcomes that include ethnic cleansing and genocide. Apparently the Times opposes genocide so long as nothing concrete is done to stop genocide, and opposes concrete actions to prevent genocide so long as preventing genocide also prevents chaos in the Middle East from causing the collapse of the capitalist economies of the West.

Why leave Iraq?

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

Huh?

Any argument that America should pull its forces out of Iraq and leave that nation to its fate applies ten-fold to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is on the periphery of the Middle East. It is not near to the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. If its people slide back into Salafist repression, it makes no short-term difference to Western interests -- so long as it is isolated, its opium fields burnt, its Taliban preachers prevented from communicating to the outside world.

But, of course, the fate of Afghanistan is of vital long-term strategic importance to the West. Showing that there is a democratic, forward-looking alternative to Islamofascism is important to the West's efforts to combat al-Qaeda's philosophy globally. Developing economic alternatives to opium is vital to collapsing the world's narcotics industry. And keeping US and NATO forces in Afghanistan is vital to keeping the pressure not only on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but on their allies within Pakistan's tribal regions, Islamic fundamentalist community, military and government. Despite the desperate assertion of the Times' editorialist, US and NATO forces had no chance to hunt down al-Qaeda's top leadership so long as Pakistan refused to fight Taliban influence within its own borders -- a development that has only now come to pass with the Musharraf regime's willingness to take on the Lal Masjid militants.

The US and NATO going to Afghanistan pushed al-Qaeda out of its bases in that country and forced them to find new fronts for their war with the West. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have decamped out of Afghanistan and into the Northwest Territories and Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where American and NATO forces cannot follow and from which they can issue directives to existing and would=be al-Qaeda cells worldwide. Had the US-led coalition not entered Iraq to overthrow Saddam's regime, and only focused on the Afghan campaign, the same terror attacks in London, Spain, Glasgow and elsewhere would have happened, and many more -- for Western intelligence agencies would never have come into possession of the operational and tactical intelligence the US has intercepted in Iraq. Saddam would remain in power, continuing plots to defeat Western sanctions on his regime, and having the means (through the vast fraud in the UN Oil-for-Food program, for example) to bankroll al-Qaeda terrorism throughout the globe.

Of course, The New York Times isn't in that cut-and-run crowd -- oh, no, far from it.

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

In other words, the USA should choose between having inadequate forces and rules of engagement while keeping its troops in Iraq, or having inadequate forces and rules of engagement while basing its troops in Gulf Arab states that would then become the prime focus of Iranian terror and military intimidation. In the Times' view, the USA should remain involved in Iraq, but only on a level that guarantees that al-Qaeda will never be pushed out of Iraq and that Iran and Syria will always have the means and motivation to terrorize and murder Iraqis on a grand scale.

Plainly and simply, the editorial board of The New York Times love genocide, they adore it -- so long as it lets them look good by making disapproving noises and makes the USA and the capitalist West look weak, impotent and heartless. Strong, resolute action to stop genocide, punish its perpetrators and prevent its resumption will always drive it to distraction, for it threatens the charade on which rely their progressive reputation -- and their subscription revenues.

Every little bit helps

Some good news from Pakistan.

The eight-member gang led by former fighters of the banned Jaish-e-Mohammad militant group was based in Quetta, the capital of southwestern Baluchistan province, a senior police official said.

They used to collect materials and volunteers from the central province of Punjab, the official said, requesting anonymity.

The suspects were arrested in Punjab over the past few days.

The police are crowing.

"During the interrogation they confessed to having carried out a series of suicide bombings and bomb blasts against foreign forces in Afghanistan over the past several years,'' he said.

He identified the gang leaders as Mufti Saghir Ahmed, a veteran of the 1980s war against invading Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and wanted militant Mohammad Safeer.

Both are members of the Jaish group, he said.

Safeer was wanted over an attack on a church in the Pakistani town of Taxila in 2003.

"The suspects were preparing remote-controlled devices for the Taliban in Afghanistan,'' the official said.

"It's a major breakthrough in the fight against terrorism and reflects Pakistan's strong commitment to fight militancy,'' a senior security official said.

But the question remains: if these suspects were known, wanted men, why weren't they stopped last year, or the year before, or the year before that? Who else is doing the same thing in Pakistan and yet won't be stopped this year, or next year, or the year after? I still get the feeling that Pakistan is trying to placate both sides, rather than treating Islamic fundamentalism as an existential threat.

"Then I felt the bomb."

An account given by a six-year-old Afghan boy named Juma describes how he was forced to wear a bomb vest by the Taliban and told to blow up Americans.

Juma said that sometime last month Taliban fighters forced him to wear a vest they said would spray out flowers when he touched a button. He said they told him that when he saw American soldiers, "throw your body at them."

The militants cornered Juma in a Taliban-controlled district in southern Afghanistan's Ghazni province. Their target was an impoverished youngster being raised by an older sister - but also one who proved too street-smart for their plan.

"When they first put the vest on my body I didn't know what to think, but then I felt the bomb," Juma told The Associated Press as he ate lamb and rice after being introduced to the elders at this joint U.S.-Afghan base in Ghazni. "After I figured out it was a bomb, I went to the Afghan soldiers for help."

While Juma's story could not be independently verified, local government leaders backed his account and the U.S. and NATO military missions said they believed his story.

Abdul Rahim Deciwal, the chief administrator for Juma's village of Athul, brought the boy and an older brother, Dad Gul, to a weekend meeting between Afghan elders and U.S. Army Col. Martin P. Schweitzer.

Schweitzer called the Taliban's attempt "a cowardly act."

As Deciwal told Juma's story, 20 Afghan elders repeatedly clicked their tongues in sadness and disapproval. When the boy and his brother were brought in, several of the turban-wearing men welled up, wiping their eyes with handkerchiefs.

"If anybody has a heart, then how can you control yourself (before) these kids?" Deciwal said in broken English.

Wallets quickly opened, and the boys were handed $60 in American and Afghan currency - a good chunk of money in a country where teachers and police earn $70 a month.

But the Taliban is indignant that anyone would accuse them of such a thing.

A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, denied the militant group uses child fighters, saying it has hundreds of adults ready for suicide missions.

"We don't need to use a child," Ahmadi told the AP by satellite phone. "It's against Islamic law, it's against humanitarian law. This is just propaganda against the Taliban."

However, a gory Taliban video that surfaced in April showed militants instructing a boy of about 12 as he beheaded an alleged traitor with a large knife. U.N. officials condemned the act as a war crime.

How on Earth could reasonable people suspect the Taliban of violating either Islamic law or humanitarian law? Oh, I forgot -- it's because they're evil murderers.

Something with poison in it, I think.... Poppies...

The Afghan government has tumbled to the notion that allowing billions of narco-dollars to flood into a restive region isn't the best way to counter the insurgency there:

The Afghan government has demanded that British troops destroy the opium trade in the country after a record poppy harvest that threatens to flood Europe with cheap, high-purity heroin.

Officials are so concerned that they want the British to abandon their policy of non-intervention in the drugs war.

Counter-narcotics officials argue that the insurgency faced by the British in southern Afghanistan and the trade that centres on the province of Helmand are now indistinguishable and must be dealt with as such.

Billions? Not an exaggeration. In 2004, Afghanistan was estimated to produce 4,200 tons of opium with a value of US$600 million. And now:

Figures for this year's opium harvest show that Helmand is producing more than half of the world's heroin, even with British troops present, and that production has soared by 30 per cent in a year to a record 6,100 tons.

The Afghan government realizes it can't defeat the insurgency without taking on the opium trade.

"The drug dealers, the Taliban and the warlords are the same network," said Gen Khodaidad, Afghanistan's deputy minister of counter-narcotics.

"Nato should destroy these people. They should hit their headquarters, their convoys, the drugs labs and factories.

"Drugs are the main source of income for the Taliban."

The Afghan government has figured out that drug money pays for the Taliban to hire the warlords to protect the poppy farmers to generate the drug money to... you get the idea.

"This may be the place where the military has to get involved. There is an increasing relationship between the Taliban and the drugs trade. Drugs feed corruption and a lack of governance. Any security is an illusion unless the drugs issue is tackled."

The Taliban are estimated to earn tens of millions of dollars by charging a tithe for protecting poppy fields, where farmers benefited this year from good weather and corruption among officials.

However, the British, whose military forces operate in Helmand province, are slow to get this. For them, the operative theory up till now has been not to do anything to upset the local population.

Officials in Kabul were incensed when British psychological operations teams put out radio broadcasts in April that announced that British soldiers would not destroy poppy crops because they knew people had a livelihood to earn.

A senior Western diplomat in Kabul said: "Nato is adamant that it will not become a poppy eradication force, but there is a need for them to provide much more active support on interdiction and trafficking, even security for (Afghan) eradication teams."

It makes sense. The Taliban and warlords cannot defend the poppy fields from aerial attack. If the NATO forces (or Afghan forces with NATO support) destroy the crop this year and make a credible promise to destroy it next year as well, the opium industry in Afghanistan will collapse, and opium buyers will abandon Afghanistan for more secure sources of supply. The Taliban and the warlords will no longer be able to extract their livelihoods from the sweat of the local population, and will have nothing to offer except the certainty that they will bring war, death and destruction to the locals.

Burn the poppy fields -- using napalm if necessary -- and let the poppy farmers know that NATO will not let another poppy crop mature in Afghanistan. Tell them that the days of allowing opium cultivation so that the farmers can feed their families are over -- that it's time for the farmers to find other crops (perhaps with outside aid) or starve.

Is the British government capable of understanding this imperative? If not, will they rearrange their deployment to let American forces do the job?