OBL and the Handwringers

The fatuous complaints by Osama bin Laden’s son, Omar, in the Paper of Record regarding the well-deserved killing of his father who not only admitted, but took pride in the murder of thousands in New York and thousands elsewhere deserve only derision and contempt.  As a New Yorker, Omar, I can only applaud what happened.  He was not executed and this was not an assassination and further, none of the action violated international law.  It’s bullet point time (pun intended) for Omar and  all the hand-wringers and New Germans out there as well as the amateur international law pundits and legal eagles at various human rights’ groups:

·         Assassination is defined as murder for political purposes. OBL was not a political figure. He was head of an organization that had been systematically killing thousands of people. 

·         OBL was head of a command and control apparatus of a paramilitary organization which was at war with a sovereign state. The killing of enemy military personnel in time of armed conflict is not assassination.

·         Over and above the fact that he got exactly what he deserved and the vast majority is happy he is dead (even in Pakistan), he was a lawful target under international law. The United Nations Charter firmly recognizes the right of a state to defend itself from attack. Bin Laden had demonstrated that he could and would attack the United States. He was also directing attacks against US troops in Afghanistan, who are there with UN sanction. He was doing this every day. Furthermore, Pakistani troops routinely invaded Afghanistan for purposes less urgent than self-defense in the 1990s.

·         The ICC has no jurisdiction. Period

·         The ICJ has no jurisdiction. Period

·         The UN would need a Security Council resolution to bring this to the attention of the ICC, which otherwise has no jurisdiction.  That’s about as likely as the Republican Party in the US doing something about oil companies and banksters.

So, Omar, crawl back under your luxury rock with your wealthy family in Riyadh or wherever in Saudi Arabia you live part time and allow us to forget you and your family name.

And while I’m on a roll – to everyone out there second and third guessing how the operation into Pakistan was planned and implemented and are now indulging in safely ludicrous discussions on international law, human rights’ issues and whether Pakistan’s sovereignty should have been breached, know this: You – all of you – know nothing about what went on in the back rooms or between the ISI, US military, GoP and CIA.  New reports in The Guardian firmly indicate that not only did the GoP know about what was happening, but had been approving incursions for the past decade. And that’s only the scratching the surface.

You also know nothing about the operation itself except what is being released because  it is none of your damn business and if you think there will ever be transparency in this type of operation then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Idiots.

System Down

No system, no posts.  Not my fault.  Blogger hit a wall and crashed.

In Other News...

In what undoubtedly is a massive understatement, at Victory Day celebrations President Lukashenko of Belarus announced that “the West” was the prime enemy of Belarus.  Well, he’s probably right.  But perhaps he should look over his shoulder back to the east where his government is in negotiations with Moscow for an economic bailout. Yet again. It is probably too much for the last dictator in Europe to swallow that the Russian Federation is only a reluctant friend of his government and probably wishes he would just go away.

Luki has been in a snit ever since the EU basically slammed the doors closed around him, his family and supporters with very effective economic sanctions.  On April 25, he refused to travel to Ukraine for the 10^th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which heavily impacted large chunks of Belarusian territory in and around the Pripyat and Gomel regions.  Why refuse? Well, as part of the EU boycott, the current EU commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso had asked President Yanukovich not to invite him to a conference in Kiev on the consequences of the disaster. Ukraine complied with the EU demand, hoping he would still show up to the Chernobyl anniversary, but Luki had taken umbrage.  It seems he is angry with Ukraine as well.

Considering he has vowed never to give up power, has jailed or exiled all opposition leaders and appears to be grooming his son for succession (remind you of Egypt?), perhaps he is losing sight of the fact that Moscow is not an ardent supporter, but treats him more as a useful clown; and, that Ukraine still has a saying that the reason Belarus was invented was to make Ukraine look good; and, that the EU simply wants him gone. When you’re a leader of a country with a bankrupt economy, surrounded by people who either don’t like you, actively seek your removal or, in the case of Russia, find you barely tolerable, perhaps an attitude improvement would be in order. 

Will it happen?  No. The former collective farm manager has dug in his heels and gone into hedghog mode.  Everyone is stuck with him until the youth in the country explodes or Medvedev’s tolerance for fools thins sufficiently to arrange a long vacation – or both.

Making Up Facts

Why is it that Republicans in the US find it necessary to make up facts?  OK.  That was rhetorical. We all know why.

But, from Condi Rice the statement (on MSNBC) that Canada took part in or even supported the invasion of Iraq is just another example, this time from the worst Secretary of State ever, of the type of flexible truth and memories of Republicans.

I suppose that for a person thrown into a world without the Soviet Union - when one's entire life of study was devoted to a defunct empire - this type of remark is acceptable and would not be subject to an embarrassing challenge by the media.

Academics and Practical Foreign Policy

When I was in law school about a century ago, litigation tactics were a required area of study. Although I never liked litigation, I thought some of the anecdotes on opening and closing statements to a jury were instructive for daily use in almost any setting. One such story involved a pair of joint defendants accused of theft, each with his own counsel. One goal for the attorney representing one defendant is to create a reasonable doubt that his client had nothing to do with the actions of the other. To shorten, considerably, the story, it turns out that the co-defendant who committed the theft had lied while testifying about once stealing his father’s wallet (the details of which I’ve left out - sorry). In the closing statement the other attorney addressed the jury and told a story which, again shortened, goes like this. He and his entire family always went to the same restaurant on Sunday with his grandfather who always, without exception, ordered beef stew. This time he hesitated, but ended up ordering it again. He took a piece and immediately made a face as a piece of meat seemed to be off. Now, asked the attorney to the jury, what should he have done? Should he have rummaged through the stew, eating only the good parts or should he send the whole plate back? The answer was obvious. His client was acquitted.


So, what to about this. Paul Herrichs has his facts wrong, and I suspect deliberately. Washington, was not the driver behind the intervention in Libya. It was Europe or more precisely the French government. Washington was dragged into this “mess”. Furthermore, and again likely due to his particular academic shading, Germany was not smart in its position against intervention. It was stupid as it clearly shows its inability to work with other European members, not to mention NATO; this is the same sort of German cowardice/arrogance exhibited during the monetary crises in Europe. Germany is no longer a reliable ally to anyone – except to Russia.

His assertion that no one has a vital interest in Libya except its immediate neighbors is simply stupid. The Arab uprisings have an immediate impact on European security, economy and immigration policy. Libya is a European problem and is, indeed, of vital interest.

He dismisses the R2D issue by drawing a false comparison between Libya and Sudan. Libya and Rwanda. Libya and….Wake up or grow up Paul and come out of your academic shelter. This operation – started by France and the UK – was always about regime change once the chance was given through the entirely credible threats against the civilians of Benghazi and has been true in Misrata and other rebel held cities.

You don’t like Western intervention without a threat of a vital interest being threatened? Your definition of vital for France and Italy is obviously not theirs. And while we are at it – what about Australian intervention in East Timor?

He finally claims that the Libyan intervention fails on all counts. Really? When the author sets up the criteria, does the term “straw man” come to mind? The fact is, like the closing argument to the jury, when one piece of the puzzle is tainted, why should we accept the conclusion?

Paul should stay in his ivory tower and read a little history of the region and get his facts straight. If anyone is the rookie, it is he.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Death of bin Laden

If you’ve noticed a dearth of postings it’s because I’m busy with my day job. I’ll be posting more often once the frenetic pace abates a bit.


Now that OBL & Son are defunct, several items of a more important practical nature need to be reviewed. At the top of the list are Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The elimination of OBL is an opportunity for the US to declare victory in Afghanistan, saddle-up and move out. As I have always maintained, the surge advocated by General Petraeus and largely implemented by the US, was the wrong way to go. It has not been a success and since the original objective of the mission was to destroy al Qaida and take Afghanistan off the table as a safe base for jihadist training, the US and NATO have succeeded, it is time to leave. The mission was never to nation-build.

Furthermore, the mission to kill OBL deep inside Pakistan was undertaken by a small, elite team – not 35,000 or so boots on the ground. The justification for the surge appears to be based on the experience learned in Iraq. That was never a good idea considering the results in that ill-advised war. However, rather than indulging in the surge method of warfare (which always struck me as something you do when you’re on the ropes) or even COIN in Afghanistan the US should have focused on tracking and killing terrorists in Afghanistan with discrete and rapid missions, including from the air. That was V.P. Biden’s advice but because Petraeus was equivalent to Zeus by the Very Serious People in the Beltway, his advice absolutely had to be followed otherwise the world would end. So, the opportunity to agree with Karzai is sitting there like low hanging fruit. Pull out – and do it before the current target of 2014.

A rapid draw down in Afghanistan has a bag full of advantages, not the least of which is that it would save lives. And then there is the money. The budget deficit in the US would get some relief, particularly in combination with the withdrawal from Iraq. It would free-up the US military to actually pay attention to other areas of the world – or better yet – take a rest from patrolling the borders of the empire. It would swiftly cut short the messianic tinged nation-building endeavor into which the conflict has morphed. Not least, none of us would need to listen to the ungrateful whining of the corrupt Mayor of Kabul, Karzai.

Pakistan is a different issue. It is inconceivable that someone very high on the food chain in the Pakistan military or the ISI did not know that OBL was sipping Coke and Pepsi in a huge, multi-million dollar compound with 6 meter walls, close to the West Point of the country and the most fashionable golf course in the north - all 150 kilometers from the capital. How Pakistan is approached, however, will depend on the draw down in Afghanistan and what the US wants to accomplish in the region.

Pakistan is paranoid about India and Indian activities in Afghanistan. The generals see it as an encirclement campaign and will look to China and Iran for help. Pakistan is also beset by its local Taliban while opposing the Taliban in Afghanistan – for now. That may change as the US withdraws and Pakistan’s secret service decides the Afghan Taliban are useful. However, Iran loathes the Afghan Taliban for a variety of reasons – not the least of which is their particular brand of Islam. However, Pakistan’s military is still very reliant on US largess. Even as it becomes an economic and political basket case and becomes overall weaker compared to its heavy hitting neighbor India, the military will want their toys.

However, US foreign policy may be able to disenthrall itself regarding the perceived need to be nice to Pakistan and Afghanistan based on their fear mongering about al Qaeda. Given the swift insertion, action and withdrawal of a tightly organized team to kill OBL the US should wake up to the notion that it does not need Pakistan and Afghanistan as much as they led the US to believe – with significant help from the Republicans. The leverage this produces is huge. Back in the good old days (that’s a joke) when Kissinger and Nixon were around making trouble, Turkey’s generals were snubbing their collective noses at the US regarding missile deployment in Turkey. Kissinger, with considerable risk, basically said that the US clearly saw no reason to indulge the Turkish government if they did not want the help of the US. The same should be said of Pakistan and Afghanistan. What is more important in the region – India or Pakistan? In all of eastern and central Asia, does US foreign policy need to pander to the whims and blackmail of Islamabad, Kabul or, for that matter, Dushanbe and Bishkek?

The death of OBL, and the means of its accomplishment should provide US foreign policy with far more flexibility and allow it to focus on more important issues than the threats from some 3rd rate terrorists who have managed – again with the help of the Republicans – to get American citizens give up basic Constitutional liberties with every little radio and tape broadcast of meaningless threats. If anything, the al Qaeda central command (long gone and now decapitated) and all the little franchises have managed to show that many Americans are, quite simply, cowards and willing to give up all their democratic rights for security regardless of how remote the threat. As Benjamin Franklin said: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

So the killing of OBL opens up a range of opportunities for US foreign policy and withdrawal from Afghanistan will put Pakistan and Afghanistan on notice so they may adjust to a new world of interaction with their neighbors.

Osama Bin Laden and Son are Dead

As a New Yorker, all I can say is very well done Seal Team Six.