Word on the local news here in Albuquerque today is that another New Mexico soldier has been killed in combat.  Captain Thomas Casey, 32, was killed in Sadiyah, Iraq in the past 72-hours.  Not many details have been released, however he was a member of a Military Transition Team and was one of two soldiers killed when insurgents attacked his team with small arms fire.  The flag in my back yard will fly at half staff in remembrance of Captain Casey.  I did not know him, but nonetheless he will be missed by all in New Mexico.

This week I had a visitor to my home.  His name is Sgt. “Drew” Miller.  Sgt. Miller is a member of 2/7 Cav with whom I was able to spend many a combat mission during my stay in Mosul, Iraq.  I had always extended an open invitation to all the soldiers I met on my journey to visit should they find themselves passing through Albuquerque.  Sgt. Miller was the first to take me up on my offer.  My wife and I are glad he did, as we extended our brand of Southwestern hospitality to him.  We found ourselves discussing a whole range of topics including Mosul and Iraq in general.  The time seemed to go by too fast and his brief overnight stay was over before I knew it.  After he left, I found myself thinking deeply about the recent past and the upcoming future.  I will try to explain as best I can.

As most know, the transition period from combat deployment to “normal life back in the world” is a challenge for anyone.  There are ranges of emotions and experiences that transpire no matter who has to pass through this path.  It just happens.  I am relieved to say that so far, those I’ve been in contact with are making the transition in good order.  But we all have times that bother us and being able to go through it with other comrades is a blessing.  Sgt. Miller is fine, and so are my wife and I.  Yet, when we come in contact with those that have been there, we each find ourselves speaking about the things that matter and the things in our daily life that seem more on the not so important side of it all, tend to not rile us as much as they used to.  In any event, what I am trying to convey is simply this….being in the company of a comrade whose been in harms way, is a reassuring experience to help us to “carry on.”

And carry on we must.

In recent events that I follow via various news sources it is apparent that the north part of Iraq is still a very hot locale and war continues.  All must admit that a substantial amount of progress has been accomplished thanks to the superb efforts General David Petraeus and all those who have been under his command. Even those in the current political hooplah, vying for a position on the Presidential ticket, have to admit this obvious result.  Although the “spin factor” is nearly always present in everyone’s rhetoric, no one can argue that when the military is called upon to pull the politicians out of a jam, the warriors always step up to the plate and perform the tasks at hand.

And they just carry on.

I’ve been spending much time these days going back over photos, audios and writings that I gathered in 2007 from the journey I took in Iraq.  Looking back on the photos and listening to the audios and re-reading the posts that I reported, I’m understanding the events as fresh history and looking forward to what paths to take for the good of all concerned.  At the same time, I find myself bombarded with the noise of the current political atmosphere called, “The 2008 Presidential Campaign” and spending a bit of time sorting out who is saying what and why.  This is a monumental challenge.  But in the end, I realize that it is not so important to become bogged down in the process, but more important to look forward to whatever the outcome is determined to be.  I find much solace in the realization that the best thing I can do is to say, “Amen,” and carry on.

The world events of this day and age are enormous and carry a weight upon us all that cause each and everyone of us to recognize that we are indeed living in a time that is unprecedented. However I remember at times traveling through places in Iraq and having the distinct realization that I was walking over terrain that had been traversed by many before me thousands of years earlier.  They too had been a part of historical battles that many of us have read about beginning in Sunday school classes as little children.  Today, we are no different, we are just present in 2008.  I know in the depths of my being there is a plan that is much bigger than I am.  What exactly that plan is, may not be fully realized by me alone.  But my experience as of late has shown me that my comrades in arms are a part of it and together what I currently see in part, may be made known in full as I take each day forward, one step at a time.  Never before have I been so clear as I am at this moment to just….
“Carry On.”

Perhaps in the days and weeks ahead, more of my friends will visit.  Everyone who knows me is aware that when someone knocks on my door, it shall be opened.  It is not so much what I have to offer someone, rather, my experience tells me that I have received much more than I have ever been able to impart.  For this one reason alone, I press on for one more journey to report among those I come in contact with for all to enjoy.  It is why I am diligently seeking to return and follow the steps once again of those in harms way.  They have so much to share with us all in the midst of such a complicated situation.  This is the enjoyable part of “supporting the troops”.  I am glad Sgt. “Drew” Miller stopped by my home.  I am encouraged and strengthened to “carry on.”

In the mean time, I will continue to find things to write about and relate it to what I see as the burden at hand.  The war in Iraq is still very much a day to day process.  Although I am half a world away from it at the moment, I need to look no further than the flag in my back yard and realize that many thousands are still carrying on for the many millions still at home.

I look forward to all your comments and replies and will respond to each of them personally.  For more information how to become a part of my next journey, feel free to contact me at:

jimspiri@yahoo.com or phone me at home at: 505-898-1680.

“Carry On…!”

Sincerely,
Jim Spiri

When the pivotal awakening figure Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was assassinated by a roadside bomb, the response from the Anbaris was swift and stern.  “All the tribes agreed to fight al Qaeda until the last child in Anbar,” his brother, Ahmed Abu Risha.”

This loss of the heart of the population has harmed the effort by al Qaeda, most particularly in Anbar, but extending into Baghdad and North to the Diyala province as well.  With their rooms of horror in Anbar and torture complexes in Diyala, Bin Laden had to come up with something for the Sunnis in Iraq, and in his latest audio he apologized for a few mistakes here and there, but reminded the Sunnis that everyone is human and humans make mistakes.  He then goes on to warn the tribes against siding with the U.S.

“I advise those who follow the path of temptation should wash out this disgrace by repentance,” he said in the 56-minute recording posted on the internet on Saturday.

“This participation [in the Awakening Councils] is a great apostasy and sedition that will lead them to Hell.”

His verbal abuse of the Sunnis – as if they cannot understand their own religion – betrays the fundamental duplicity in his argument.  Earlier in his speech he rebuked those who feel that al Qaeda threatens or harms the innocent, yet then goes on to define the innocent as those not guilty of siding with the U.S., a set of criteria perfect for al Qaeda to argue that they should continue with their torture of the Sunnis in Iraq who do not side with al Qaeda.

Tautology that it is, the Sunnis of Iraq were neither intimidated nor impressed with his logic.

The Al-Anbar district commander said that Al-Qaeda had no influence in his province and that his forces would continue to hunt down the organization until the last of its men was eliminated.

A forces commander in the Salah Al-Din district, in northern Baghdad, called Al-Qaeda “gangs and highwaymen who harm the honor of the women of the Iraqis and shed [Iraqis’ blood,” and added that the deeds of bin Laden’s men were counter to Islamic principles and to morality.

A member of the Awakening forces in the Diyala district accused Al-Qaeda of spreading corruption in Iraq and of attempting to occupy Iraq in the guise of serving the religion and Islam, and promised to eliminate Al-Qaeda members.

Al Qaeda is seventy five percent diminished in Iraq, and fifty one al Qaeda in Iraq leaders were killed or captured in the month of December, 2007.  While much of this success is due to kinetic operations by U.S. troops, there was certainly much participation by “concerned citizens” and other tribal protectors.  When a people promise to eradicate you by fighting to their last child, you must know that your future is bleak.

I have previously discussed the intense disagreement between the British and the American defense departments over the strategy in Iraq and the British retreat from Basra, this disagreement spilling over to the campaign in Afghanistan.  The British desire to negotiate with mid-level Taliban officers to attempt to split the organization away from the most senior leaders, an effort aided by Hamid Karzai that has as its price a place in the new Afghan government for the Taliban.  But the U.S. is of course deeply opposed to this strategy, and this disagreement has reached an important milestone.

The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that two senior diplomats were expelled from Afghanistan and the U.N. wants them back in the country.  The Brits see this all as very disturbing and some in the British government praise the attempt to talk to the Taliban, but these two individuals were no diplomats.  They were MI6 agents whose job it was to negotiate with the Taliban.

The Australian is reporting on the agents and their discussions.

KABUL: A UN official and an EU diplomat ordered out of Afghanistan on allegations of posing a national security threat left the country yesterday.

It was the first time the Government of President Hamid Karzai had expelled senior Western officials and is a sign of growing frustrations at the lack of progress in the country.

The UN employee, British national Mervyn Patterson, left on a UN flight. The EU official was identified as Irish national Michael Semple, the organisation’s second most senior representative in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Government on Tuesday gave the men 48 hours to leave, saying they had posed a security threat.

Officials said on condition of anonymity that the men had been in contact with the Taliban.

The UN says the affair was a misunderstanding that arose after the diplomats visited the southern town of Musa Qala, which was in Taliban control for 10 months until a military operation about two weeks ago. They had visited in co-ordination with the Afghan Government to assess “stabilisation” efforts after the military offensive.

The men left the country as reports claimed the British secret service had engaged in peace talks with senior Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, despite Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s pledge that Britain would not negotiate with terrorists.

Reports claimed MI6 agents held a number of discussions, known as jirgas, with members of the hardline Islamist group over the northern summer.

We have advocated a more robust presence in Afghanistan, in addition to seeing Afghanistan as the key to Pakistan, rather than vice versa.  Musa Qala fell to the Taliban due to inadequate force projection, and seven purple hearts had to be awarded to U.S. soldiers because of the battle to retake control of this area as a result of previous “negotiations.”  Rather than a single city, the British and U.S. strategists are locked in combat over the way to approach the counterinsurgency campaign for an entire country.  Afghanistan hangs in the balance.

It’s been a while but now is the time to write.

The troops I covered in both Mosul, Fallujah, and other places in Iraq, including my own son in Taji, have returned home now.  For many, the reunion was glorious and very long awaited. I was able to be present on one particular homecoming on December 8, 2007, at Biggs Army Airfield, in Ft. Bliss, Texas, near El Paso.  Members of 2/7 Cav came home via commercial airliner and arrived to a multitude of family and friends all quite excited.  It was a sight to see and a lasting image in my mind shall remain forever.  I felt that it was the culmination to a long journey that had to be witnessed.

As many of you know, I’ve been  home since October.  I knew that the others would follow by early December.  My wife and I made the trip from Albuquerque to El Paso one day in early Devcember and coordinated with the ones in charge to be present.  It was good once again to be among the warriors who “have been there and done that” as the daily life routine of adjusting to the “normal” life presses on. And it will continue.

As I watched the plane taxi to its designated parking spot, I found myself once again with my camera awaiting the opportunity to snap the steps of warriors, this time returning home.  In years past, I’ve been among parents who awaited their own sons and I surely knew the feelings inside.  This time, I would be a comrade with a camera and feel just as close as any other family member.  For these ones had taken care of me as I was able to record for history their journey and experiences in the war zone a half a world away.  Now, we would all be on familiar ground together.

I would meet family members who knew of me but I did not know them.  Many came up to me prior to the arrival of their warrior and embraced me as one of their own.  Through the blog I had managed to touch and connect the soldier to the family from afar. It was all good.

To describe the entire scene and convey all the emotions is a challenge.  But, everyone can imagine that it was just right and realize that words alone cannot completely explain it all.  There were children awaiting their dads, wives awaiting their husbands, parents awaiting their sons and daughters, husbands awaiting their wives, grandparents awaiting their grandchildren and so on and so forth.  In short, it was America awaiting their sons and daughters home from war.  It was the heartbeat of America at full pulse, and it was good.

In the time since I’ve returned from Iraq, and the homecoming as well, I’ve pondered all that I’ve experienced in the past year or so.  I can only say that I have been most blessed to be a part of the “mission”.  It is true that adjusting to the life at home is full of challenges.  The most complicated part of being home is trying to find ones way without a mission at hand.  But in time, it comes to pass.  But it is a challenge.

As I greeted each soldier that I recognized as they walked off the plane and stepped onto American soil, I saw smiles and excitement and the awareness of a familiar face to greet them.  As each one was directed to the processing area, I followed them and was present as they waited to see their families.  Each are taken to a warehouse type area where a brief process is done and a coordinating of the group takes place prior to the march into the waiting area where families are.  I had the opportunity to see them one by one and speak briefly to many of them.  Their trip had been long but everyone was wide awake.  In a half hour or so, they would march into the area where the hundreds and hundreds of family and friends were waiting.

As the time came for the march to the waiting area, I made my way back to where the families were.  The crowd was electric.  The time had come.  The automatic door was raised and the entire group marched in unison and perfect step.  The crowd all cheered with screams and yells of joy that could drown out any sports stadium gathering.  Then, the announcer said, “welcome home, dismissed…!”  And the crowd all met the soldiers.

It was a beautiful and glorious sight.

Soon, the crowd would diminish and the flow of folks would disperse.  I managed to snap some photos and observe families with tears of joy embracing one another with soldiers encompassed by loved ones.  One by one they would leave for their homes.  As I was leaving I found one family whose son I had covered.  The father recognized me and came up to me and hugged me and simply said, “Thank you Jim”.  He knew I had found his son in Mosul and relayed a story of his son’s courage and experiences.  This one father had made the trip for me all the worth while.  I could hardly speak but as fathers we both knew what the sons had done.  We said good bye as the crowds were now almost gone.

Upon leaving the facility, we made our way down one hallway that I had seen earlier.  It was here that I knew I had to pass through once more before I left.  For in this particular hallway there are the photos of members of the unit that did not return home from Iraq alive.  As I passed by the photos of the fallen, I stared intently at one in particular.  His name was Captain McGovern, of Echo Company.  I had done a mission with his men at one point in time and wrote about it on the blog.  I recalled Capt. McGovern and  thought of the last time I saw him.  This face I had known.  He was killed less than a month after I left Iraq.  I followed the story over the Internet from my home in Albuquerque, NM.  As I stared at his photograph, I realized that other families were suffering in the midst of others rejoicing.

Candi and I left Biggs Army Airfield at Ft. Bliss, Texas that night. We drove back the five hours late at night to Albuquerque.

I realize now more than ever that this journey never ends.  I will go back to Iraq once again, soon, hopefully by March 1, 2008 and continue following the stories of more of America’s sons and daughters in harms way in what we call “The War in Iraq.”

To find out more how you can help and be a part of the next journey, contact me via email or phone at the address below.

Sincerely,

Jim Spiri
jimspiri@yahoo.com
phone:  505-898-1680

Click pictures to enlarge.

Sgt. Moreno of the 27th BSB, from Ft. Bliss, TX is seen greeted by his daughter upon return from Iraq on 12/8/07.  Photo by Jim Spiri

An unknown soldier is seen with his family after returning home from Mosul, Iraq, on 12/8/07 at Ft. Bliss, TX. Photo by Jim Spiri

Photos by Jim Spiri, 12/8/07, Ft. Bliss, TX.  Family and friends of members of 2/7 Cav, await the homecoming of their soldiers at Biggs Army Airfield, Ft. Bliss, TX.

Photos by Jim Spiri, 12/8/07, Ft. Bliss, TX.  Spc. Doyle, Sgt. Miller and Sgt. DeCarlo, of 2/7 Cav, are seen arriving home from Mosul, Iraq into Biggs Army Airfield at Ft. Bliss, TX on December 8, 2007.

A mother and father await the return of their son from Iraq.

Photos by Jim Spiri, 12/8/07.  An unidentified soldier is seen holding his son for the first time upon his return from duty in Iraq.

Spc. Simon Valdez, of Albuquerque, NM is seen greeted by a relative upon his return from Mosul, Iraq.  Valdez and I traveled extensively on combat patrols in the summer through the streets of Mosul.

We are announcing that The Captain’s Journal now has a new contributor.  His name is Jim Spiri, and you can read about him and how he came into blogging on the About page.  We are glad to have him, and look forward to his thoughts and experiences from a recent embed in Iraq.  He was, in fact, embedded with the Marines of 2nd Battalion, 6th Regiment, Golf Company, with my son who fought in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom during Operation Alljah.

Jim has some soon-to-come photographs and thoughts of homecoming at Fort Bliss, Texas, from an Army unit with which he was embedded in Mosul.  Also, there is a new Paypal donation button near the bottom of the page.  If you wish to donate to Jim’s coming embed, you can make a contribution and note it as going towards Jim’s work.  All of it will go for this purpose.  Please drop Jim a note and tell him you appreciate his work and encourage him to publish his thoughts.

Osama Bin Laden has released an audio that has some interesting content regarding the campaign in Iraq.  From Al Jazeera, here is a partial transcript of his communication.

“I advise myself and all the Muslims, particularly brethren in the al-Qaeda organisation everywhere, to avoid fanaticism.

“The interest of the Islamic nation surpasses that of a group. 

“The strength of faith is in the strength of the bond between Muslims and not that of a tribe or nationalism.

“The strength of faith is not in the affiliation to the tribe, the country or the organisation.

“The interest of the group should be given priority over the interest of the individual, the interest of the Islamic state should be given priority over the interest of the group, and the interest of the Umma [Muslim community] should be given priority over the interest of the state.

“These indications must be practical realities in our life.

“I advise myself and my brethren to be pious and patient as they [these qualities] are the weapon of those who seek victory.

“My brethren, be careful of your enemies, particularly the hypocrites who penetrate into your ranks to spark strife among the mujahidin [Muslim fighters] groups. Those should be referred to trial.”

“[Committing] mistakes is of mankind’s nature. When mistakes occur, disputes emerge among people, and mistakes have occurred.

“But the ill-hearted people pursue the mistakes of the mujahidin, and they may attribute these mistakes to the ritual of jihad, under the name of violence and terrorism.

“The mujahidin are the children of this nation; they do right things and wrong things. Those who are accused of violating of God’s commandments should face trial.

“Scholars, emirs of the mujahidin, and tribal leaders should make efforts to reconcile every two conflicting sects and should rule between them according to the sharia [law] of Allah. And the two conflicting sects should act in response to the scholars.”

“Unite your ranks in one rank.

“My brethren, the emirs of the mujahidin, Muslims wait for you to unite under one banner to enforce that which is right. 

“When you perform this obedience, the nation would soon be blessed by the Jamaa year through your own efforts.

“Honest scholars should make efforts to unify the ranks of the mujahidin, and I hope that they would not feel bored of going along the path that would lead to it [unity].”

What is important here is what al Jazeera didn’t transcribe from his recording.  Al Jazeera has included only the soft words, and these words lack context, so this context will be supplied here – at least in broad strokes.

OBL speaks of “mistakes” and “uniting ranks” for very specific reasons.  He knows that al Qaeda has been guilty of unspeakable atrocities in Anbar and other places in Iraq.  Not too long ago I published Hope and Brutality in Anbar in which I discussed some of the torture tactics and rooms of horror used by AQI.  The same tactics were used in the Diyala province when AQI was run out of the Anbar Province, leading the coalition forces to discover what they termed an al Qaeda torture complex that was recently found and shut down.  OBL also knows that the unintended consequence of this has been loss of the heart and cooperation of the population.  So he wants to soften the message: al Qaeda, says OBL, has made mistakes, like all people, but this shouldn’t reflect poorly on jihad.

But on to the harder words from the audio recording.  OBL takes direct aim at the leader of the Anbar “awakening.”

In the audiotape, bin Laden denounces Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the former leader of the Anbar Awakening Council, who was killed in a September bombing claimed by al-Qa’ida.

“The most evil of the traitors are those who trade away their religion for the sake of their mortal life,” he said.

Bin Laden said US and Iraqi officials were trying to set up a “national unity government” joining the Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds. “Our duty is to foil these dangerous schemes, which try to prevent the establishment of an Islamic state in Iraq, which would be a wall of resistance against US schemes to divide Iraq,” he said.

OBL warns the Sunnis in Anbar against joining the coalition, and goes further to say just exactly what is in store, according to him, for those who join against AQI:

He also urged Iraqis not to join the Awakening Councils which are predominantly Sunni tribal police funded by the US military to fight al-Qaeda and reduce violence.

“I advise those who follow the path of temptation should wash out this disgrace by repentance,” he said in the 56-minute recording posted on the internet on Saturday.

“This participation [in the Awakening Councils] is a great apostasy and sedition that will lead them to Hell.”

The Multinational Force was quick to trot out a rebuttal to OBL’s claims:

An audio tape released by Osama bin Laden yesterday purports that al Qaeda does not kill innocent civilians, but the terrorist network’s actions contradict this claim, a coalition spokesman said yesterday.

During a news conference in Baghdad yesterday, Navy Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, director of communications for Multinational Corps Iraq, told reporters that al Qaeda car bombings, suicide attacks and torture houses are evidence that the network targets innocent civilians, and belie conflicting messages the group avows.

“Al Qaeda’s extreme, Taliban-like ideology and deliberate disregard for human life has led to its rejection by the Iraqi people,” Smith said.

While true, this rebuttal misses the point.  The definition of “innocent” includes almost everyone to the Multinational Force.  But it includes almost no one to OBL and al Qaeda.  Notice again the caveats and qualifiers OBL has given us.  Anyone who participates in the new Iraqi government is guilty of great apostasy and sedition, and Sheikh Risha is a “traitor.”  Thus, while to the U.S. those who are not fighting the U.S. ( and some who are, as shown by payment to “concerned citizens”) are all innocent, to al Qaeda only those who are fighting alongside them are innocent.  All others are guilty.

It is a matter of definitions.  Thus OBL can claim that the innocent are spared, while apologizing for a few “mistakes” here and there, and still preach his sermons about hellfire for those who side with the coalition.  Everyone knows the game.  A more effective Multinational Force rebuttal might have gone something like this:

We have read the worthless screed published by the terrorist OBL, and conclude that he and his outlaw organization are the same duplicitous, murderous liars that they have always been.  Al Qaeda’s message is basically that if you side with them they will refrain from drilling holes in your ribcage with a power drill.  Otherwise, if you help the coaliton at all, or even if you withdraw from the struggle and try to live in peace, you side with the evil attempt to stop a fundamentalist Islamic state in Iraq.  Al Qaeda, they claim, are the ultimate arbiters of all truth, and will decide your fate as their whims dictate.  You will die if they want you to die, and if they want you to live, they will use you and your children for their own ends.  Al Qaeda has shown in actions, and now tries to justify in words, that they do not harm innocents, but then they surreptitiously define the term innocent to meet their own criteria as if the people are too stupid to see their Sophistry and tricks.  Al Qaeda, you are a loser on the field of battle, and now you are losing the war of ideas.  Your end in Iraq is surely near.

At any rate, this kind of communication would couple well with the hard fought gains on the ground in Iraq.  It’s time to take the gloves off of the Multinational Force communications.  Finally, what we learn from OBL’s audio is that nothing has changed.  We should continue to expect that AQI will use torture, brutality and other atrocities as they see fit and are able.

With some time having elapsed since Bhutto’s assassination where we can consider the implications of Pakistani politics, it is good to rehearse where the U.S. stands in the global war on extremist militants.  Regarding Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, I commented:

I have said before that ”counterinsurgency in Pakistan begins in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border. Unless and until we devote the troops and effect the force projection to let the people in these AOs know that we are serious about the campaign, there will be no success.”  I have advocated more troops in the Afghanistan campaign for the simple reason that not only must we win in Afghanistan, we have an unmitigated opportunity to kill Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan where we are not dealing with issues of sovereignty of Pakistan.  In other words, we have the best of all possible worlds in the current campaign in Afghanistan (similar to the campaign in Iraq, although this is waning somewhat due to Iraqi sovereignty).  We can fight international jihadists with the full approval of the administration and for the most part without the overhead of issues of national sovereignty.

This campaign, once shown to be successful, can then be expanded into Pakistan with the tacit approval of the Pakistani government (i.e., small incursions and concealed operations, expanded to larger operations if the need and approval were forthcoming).  Here is where the administration of Pakistan is important.  Musharraf is likely an American ally only to the extent that he believed Richard Armitage when it was said to him that the U.S. would enjoy his cooperation or Pakistan would be “bombed back to the stone age” (the words as reported by Musharraf himself).  Bhutto, on the other hand, would have been a willing participant in the global war on religious militancy, and is said to have desired international assistance in the Pakistan counterinsurgency campaign: “If Bhutto returns to power this week, Gauhar predicts the U.S. will finally get what Musharraf has refused it: “She will allow NATO boots on the ground in our tribal areas and a chance to neuter our nuclear weapons.”

In the days following the assassination, many have weighed in on Bhutto’s financial indiscretions and other examples of malfeasance as Prime Minister.  One of the most significant critiques has come from the always interesting Ralph Peters at the New York Post.  He is even more frank and forthcoming on his feelings in a recent commentary for The Australian.

For the next several days you’re going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan’s former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Her country is better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.

We don’t need to have sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognise that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.

She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and hard-headed journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness but also a thoroughbred democrat.

In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani.

Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.

Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan’s feeble education system to rot, opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.

During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backwards, not forwards. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat, which she artfully played both ways, spread like cancer.

Peters ends his scathing rebuke of Bhutto and those who lament her passing by observing that “A creature of insatiable ambition, Bhutto will become a martyr. In death, she may pay back some of the enormous debt she owes her country.”

Perhaps.  But a careful reading of my analysis proves that it is entirely pragmatic.  I have long said regarding the parliamentary system in Iraq that one serious flaw in the preliminary stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom was the naive belief in the healing powers of democracy.  Democracy is itself produced by a society, and produces nothing.  It is a deliverance of people and their value system, not vice versa.  Said in another way, it cannot effect change.  It is itself an affect or product.  Given Iraqi history and culture, there might have been no good options, but democracy does not seem to have helped.

This same belief in the powers of democracy has caused the U.S. administration to support Bhutto, and Ralph Peters is correct in his diagnosis of her abilities to conjure up an image of peace and stability in Pakistan with the American elite.  However, involvement in the politics of Pakistan should not cloud the analysis, and has not entered into mine.  From the perspective of an American commentator and analyst, the primary concern should be the strategic interests of America, both short term and long term.  Democracy should be supported in Pakistan only to the extent that it is a catalyst of peace and stability and thus in the strategic interests of the U.S.  As to its benefits to long term stability, I have my doubts, but there is no short term advantage.

For my previous analysis, democracy in Pakistan and malfeasance of previous administrations didn’t fit into the equation.  Bhutto, it seems, would have allowed incursions of U.S. troops into Pakistan, and even further – NATO boots on the ground, formally and officially.  It seems difficult to fake this, as it was a major plank in her platform.  The situation in Pakistan is difficult and tenuous, and may devolve into chaos.  But assuming the restoration of stability at some point, the U.S. administration should see this as a gracious and providential warning shot over the bow.

The campaign in Afghanistan remains the first front of the counterinsurgency campaign in Pakistan.  Karachi, with a population of over 14 million people, and Lahore, with a population of over 10 million people, are larger than Fallujah by a factor 20 to 30.  Counterinsurgency in these cities would cost the U.S. armed forces on the order of tens of thousands of dead and more than one hundred thousand wounded – prohibitive to say the least.  But given that Pakistan is a nuclear state with assets that could fall into jihadist hands, the salient question is how to proceed short of such an awful campaign.

Again, the answer is in Afghanistan, where the campaign there is inextricably tied to counterinsurgency in Pakistan.

President Bush held an emergency meeting of his top foreign policy aides yesterday to discuss the deepening crisis in Pakistan, as administration officials and others explored whether Thursday’s assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto marks the beginning of a new Islamic extremist offensive that could spread beyond Pakistan and undermine the U.S. war effort in neighboring Afghanistan.

U.S. officials fear that a renewed campaign by Islamic militants aimed at the Pakistani government, and based along the border with Afghanistan, would complicate U.S. policy in the region by effectively merging the six-year-old war in Afghanistan with Pakistan’s growing turbulence.

“The fates of Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably tied,” said J. Alexander Thier, a former United Nations official in Afghanistan who is now at the U.S. Institute for Peace.

U.S. military officers and other defense experts do not anticipate an immediate impact on U.S. operations in Afghanistan. But they are concerned that continued instability eventually will spill over and intensify the fighting in Afghanistan, which has spiked in recent months as the Taliban has strengthened and expanded its operations.

Unrest in Pakistan and increasing fuel prices have already boosted the cost of food in Afghanistan, making it more likely that hungry Afghans will be lured by payments from the Taliban to participate in attacks, a U.S. Army officer in Afghanistan said.

In a secure videoconference yesterday linking officials in Washington, Islamabad and Crawford, Tex., Bush received briefings from CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson, said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. Bush then discussed Bhutto’s assassination and U.S. efforts to stabilize Pakistan with his top foreign policy advisers, including Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, as well as Adm. William J. Fallon of Central Command and Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. intelligence and Defense Department sources said there is increasing evidence that the assassination of Bhutto, a former Pakistani prime minister, was carried out by al-Qaeda or its allies inside Pakistan. The intelligence officials said that in recent weeks their colleagues had passed along warnings to the Pakistani government that al-Qaeda-related groups were planning suicide attacks on Pakistani politicians.

The U.S. and Pakistani governments are focusing on Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan, as a possible suspect. A senior U.S. official said that the Bush administration is paying attention to a list provided by Pakistan’s interior ministry indicating that Mehsud’s targets include former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, former interior minister Aftab Khan Sherpao, and several other cabinet officials and moderate Islamist leaders. “I wouldn’t exactly call it a hit list, but we take it very seriously,” the official said. “All moderates [in Pakistan] are now under threat from this terrorism.”

Mehsud told the BBC earlier this month that the Pakistani government’s actions forced him to react with a “defensive jihad.”

After signing a condolence book for Bhutto at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, Rice said the United States is in contact with “all” of the parties in Pakistan and stressed that the Jan. 8 elections should not be postponed. “Obviously, it’s just very important that the democratic process go forward,” she told reporters.

The U.S. Embassy in Pakistan warned U.S. citizens Thursday to keep a low profile and avoid public gatherings. A Pentagon official said plans to evacuate Americans from the country are being reviewed.

“We’ve really got a new situation here in western Pakistan,” said Army Col. Thomas F. Lynch III, who has served in Afghanistan and with Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for Pakistan and the Middle East. He said the assassination marks a “critical new phase” in jihadist operations in Pakistan and predicted that the coming months would bring concentrated attacks on other prominent Pakistanis.

“The Taliban . . . are indeed a growing element of the domestic political stew” in Pakistan, said John Blackton, who served as a U.S. official in Afghanistan in the 1970s and again 20 years later. He noted that Pakistani military intelligence created the Taliban in Afghanistan.

How the United States responds will hinge largely on the actions of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in whom U.S. officials have mixed confidence. If there is indeed a new challenge by Islamic militants emerging in Pakistan, then the United States will have to do whatever it can to support Musharraf, the U.S. Army officer in Afghanistan said.

“Pakistan must take drastic action against the Taliban in its midst or we will face the prospect of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of al-Qaeda — a threat far more dangerous and real than Hussein’s arsenal ever was,” he said, referring to the deposed Saddam Hussein.

U.S. officials are concerned about the affect of Pakistan on the campaign in Afghanistan, but seeing things clearly requires looking in the opposite direction.  Settling scores with al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan is much easier than it will be in Pakistan.  The stakes are huge, and the notion of incorporating the Taliban into the government in Afghanistan (as the British advocate in order to create ‘peace’) seems so far removed from realistic regional needs that it is incredible that the idea was ever proffered.  The British want to make peace with the jihadists, but when reality strikes an ugly chord with the assassination of an opponent of jihad in Pakistan, we are reminded of the specter of nuclear weapons in major American cities, and the smoke clears and the room of mirrors is broken – along with our illusions of peace with the jihadists.

I wanted to put out some preliminary thoughts on current news – the assassination of former (and likely future) Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto – but to do this, I will neglect the sweeping, link-laden and highly sourced analyses that I try to provide.  Instead, my thoughts will be in the ‘stream of consciousness’ style.

It is a sad day for the global war on terror, and the American left, always anxious to lay blame, hasn’t yet solidified its talking points.  Peter Beinart believes that the U.S. administration is somehow to blame because we didn’t push President Pervez Musharraf far and fast enough towards democracy.  Alan Colmes believes that the U.S. administration is somehow to blame because we pushed democracy on a country not ready for it.  Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee inexplicably apologized for the incident, expressing “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.”  Inexplicably, that is, unless along with the American left he also feels that the U.S. is somehow to blame for Islamic militancy in Pakistan.

I won’t engage in the omniscient blame game.  But Ambassador Bolton’s concerns are salient when he takes the position that in encouraging Bhutto’s re-emergence on the political scene in Pakistan we “helped to precipitate” the unfortunate events of today, and further remarks that of utmost strategic interest is the safety of the nuclear weapons under Pakistan’s care.  Bolton fails to see how any of this helps the strategic interests of the U.S.

Bolton is not part of the political left, and while I usually agree with him, I take issue with his characterization of these events.  I too, am concerned about the strategic interests of the U.S., and more could have been done after the first assassination attempt on Bhutto’s life (the first day that she returned to Pakistan) to protect her and provide more security.  Bhutto is said to have desired and requested this additional security (and in fact from the U.S. FBI and other assets), and Pakistan is said to have denied this request.  If this fact had been known, then the U.S. administration shares a little of the blame for not pushing hard enough on Musharraf for this protection (and of course, Musharraf is primarily to blame).

However, Bolton is ignoring the long term strategic interests in having Bhutto involved in Pakistani politics.  I have said before that “counterinsurgency in Pakistan begins in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border. Unless and until we devote the troops and effect the force projection to let the people in these AOs know that we are serious about the campaign, there will be no success.”  I have advocated more troops in the Afghanistan campaign for the simple reason that not only must we win in Afghanistan, we have an unmitigated opportunity to kill Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan where we are not dealing with issues of sovereignty of Pakistan.  In other words, we have the best of all possible worlds in the current campaign in Afghanistan (similar to the campaign in Iraq, although this is waning somewhat due to Iraqi sovereignty).  We can fight international jihadists with the full approval of the administration and for the most part without the overhead of issues of national sovereignty.

This campaign, once shown to be successful, can then be expanded into Pakistan with the tacit approval of the Pakistani government (i.e., small incursions and concealed operations, expanded to larger operations if the need and approval were forthcoming).  Here is where the administration of Pakistan is important.  Musharraf is likely an American ally only to the extent that he believed Richard Armitage when it was said to him that the U.S. would enjoy his cooperation or Pakistan would be “bombed back to the stone age” (the words as reported by Musharraf himself).  Bhutto, on the other hand, would have been a willing participant in the global war on religious militancy, and is said to have desired international assistance in the Pakistan counterinsurgency campaign: “If Bhutto returns to power this week, Gauhar predicts the U.S. will finally get what Musharraf has refused it: “She will allow NATO boots on the ground in our tribal areas and a chance to neuter our nuclear weapons.”

While Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is said to favor an addition of only 7500 troops to the Afghanistan campaign, hope springs eternal that strategic interests would be seriously evaluated around the globe (e.g., Germany and South Korea) and troop realignments would occur to support both the Iraq and Afghanistan counterinsurgency campaigns.

We must think long term, and Bhutto, because she was a clear thinker, was a long term ally of the United States.  It is a sad day for the U.S. and the global war on terror.  Only time will tell how serious this setback is.  My sense is that it’s very serious.

The Telegraph is reporting that there are ongoing secret negotiations between British intelligence and the Taliban.

Agents from MI6 entered secret talks with Taliban leaders despite Gordon Brown’s pledge that Britain would not negotiate with terrorists, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Officers from the Secret Intelligence Service staged discussions, known as “jirgas”, with senior insurgents on several occasions over the summer.

An intelligence source said: “The SIS officers were understood to have sought peace directly with the Taliban with them coming across as some sort of armed militia. The British would also provide ‘mentoring’ for the Taliban.”

The disclosure comes only a fortnight after the Prime Minister told the House of Commons: “We will not enter into any negotiations with these people.”

Opposition leaders said that Mr Brown had “some explaining to do”.

The Government was apparently prepared to admit that the talks had taken place but Gordon Brown was thought to have “bottled out” just before Prime Minister’s Questions on Dec 12, when he made his denial instead.

It is thought that the Americans were extremely unhappy with the news becoming public that an ally was negotiating with terrorists who supported the September 11 attackers.

This is further confirmation,  but to be precise, this is not news.  We have previously discussed the fact that British officials believed the Taliban to be too deeply rooted to be eradicated by military means, and had intended to court the alleged more “moderate” members of the Taliban to attempt to divide their organization.  We have also discussed the fact that Britain does support negotiations with the Taliban and sees a role for them to play in the new Afghanistan.

“Britain will support deals with Taliban insurgents to give them places in Afghanistan’s new government and military, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced yesterday, distancing himself from the Canadian and U.S. strategy of refusing to sit down with the Taliban.  In a speech to the House of Commons announcing a new Afghanistan strategy, Mr. Brown said that Britain will join Afghan President Hamid Karzai in making money and job offers to “former insurgents.”

Brown is referring to an effort underway by Hamid Karzai to obtain the loyalties of the lieutenants of Mullah Omar and thus split the organization.  The price for this loyalty is a place at the table in the new Afghanistan.  So Prime Minister Brown will likely continue to play politics before the House of Commons and explain that Britain really doesn’t negotiate with the Taliban, but supports settling with the more ‘moderate’ Lieutenants of the senior leadership in order to fragment the Taliban.

He is taking this position because not a single country currently engaged in Afghanistan is willing to send more troops into the theater except the U.S., and Gates himself is only willing to commit an additional 7500 troops despite the ongoing review of the Afghanistan counterinsurgency campaign.  The British position is based on the American experience in Anbar of co-opting the enemy, or settling with erstwhile insurgents with the concerned citizens program. Or so they think.

Sadly, this is to mistake the Anbar narrative.  In Anbar, the U.S. Marines gave the U.S. the upper hand from three hard years of kinetic operations, and negotiations with the tribes took place from the perspective of strength.  Further, the Anbari tribes were not, for the most part, fighting from a perspective of religious fervor.  It is one thing to settle with insurgents who need jobs to feed their families.  It is quite another to settle with men who desire your death because of religious beliefs – like the Taliban.  The Brits are involved in a dirty game, indeed.

From the U.S. Air Force:

12/26/2007 – SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFPN) — Coalition airpower integrated with coalition ground forces in Iraq and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan during operations Dec. 25, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.

In Afghanistan, an Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle performed a show of force with flares to deter enemy activities in Gereshk. The mission was reported as successful by an on-scene joint terminal attack controller.

F-15Es performed multiple shows of force in Kandahar and a show of force in Kajaki Dam. The shows of force, including the use of flares, were performed to deter enemy actions. All of the missions were reported as a success by a JTAC.

Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs conducted shows of force with flares to deter enemy activities in Orgune. The shows of force were reported as successful by a JTAC.

In Khowst and Kajaki Dam, multiple shows of force were performed by F-15Es to deter enemy activities in the area. JTACs reported the missions achieved the desired effects.

In total, 39 close-air-support missions were flown in support of the ISAF and Afghan security forces, reconstruction activities and route patrols.

These shows of force have become routine in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  In the best of all possible worlds, they can prevent the need for force by intimidating the enemy.  If this fails, they are available to effect force.  The two taken together are “force projection.”