it will be hard to change course given that the manipulation has always been self serving with pakistan and its people welface ignored and exploited simultaneously.... i don't know if any of the countries you mention can get beyond their own self interest... they have consistantly proven otherwise... quit living in a fantasy is another way to put it....

NATO could start not by increasing economic aid but by calling a halt to collateral damage. It takes 36 hours to get a oil tanker truck from Karachi to Kabul--36 hours to target the truck by people outraged at the civilian death toll.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/08/fuel-for-war-in.html

As to economic aid, NATO will have to decided whether it's worth it. If the bulk of the aid is merely recycled into the Pakistani elite's Swiss bank accounts, which it probably will be, then it's pointless.

While we're at it, when is someone going to define the strategic interests at stake in Afghanistan, the mission, and the measurable objectives? To any objective observer, we're there because we're there, busy creating more terrorists.

Steve, China's been more deeply and more intelligently involved in Pakistani politics than the US for many years now. I think the best thing for Obama and McCain to do would be to call for a policy that actively seeks their advice and their engagement in stabilizing both Pakistan and Afghanistan-- both of which actually border onto China and are of very direct concern to Beijing's rulers.

@JohnH, it's not NATO that's undertaking the really counter-productive aerial attacks against targets in Pakistand and Afghanistan, it's the US Special Forces. And yes, they absolutely need to be reined in.

I've argued for some time now (1) that the present era is one of 'the Return of Geography', which in itself makes the idea that NATO and the US can possibly 'solve' the Afghan problem; and (2) that it will take the entire shared wisdom of all responsible members of the, erm, 'international community', as embodied in the institutions (and the legitimacy) of the UN, to be able to resolve the Afghan-- and now, also, the tightly linked Pakistan-- crisis.

I'm not sure the EU has any special role in this, except at the level of trade policy. But that can't be addressed absent a clear political framework.

Ethanol usage drives up commodity prices just as much as peak oil.

That's a bigger threat to foreign policy than any other item at this time.
Don't cry for Barack, Iowa....

Maybe Dana Rhohrbacher has a plan?

This much could be said:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/avowedly-with-them-ted-barlow-takes.html

Someone help me understand the Pakistan deal.

First Bush championed Musharraf..then he fell out of favor because he wasn't regarded as Pro American enough and dems like Hillary and Biden started calling for his removal cuase he wasn't routing AQ out fast enough.

O.K., he's now 'removed' and Mr. Ten percent has replaced him.

Now I suppose Mr. Ten Percent is suppose to guard the Pakistan nukes from terriers and rout out AQ.
Except his regime is already shaky and I doubt it will last because he is seen as 'too' Pro American and he will probably be assassinated like his wife was.

Call me un American but given a choice between having strongman Musharraf guarding the nukes and having Mr. Ten Percent guard the nukes from the scary AQ and Muslims in Pakistan I would rather have Musharraf who had iron balls than Mr Ten Percent who will most likely flee back to his secret graft stash somewhere in Europe at the first sign of trouble.

I don't get it...or rather I do get it..and it's your typical stupid. Yep we is gonna rout AQ 'and the Taliban 'and guard the nukes 'and spread democracy in Pakistan with Mr Ten Percent.

Opps, almost forgot Iran..that's still cooking too.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/27836054.html?page=2&c=y

Last update: September 5, 2008 - 5:15 AM

The U.S. Congress may inadvertently lay the foundations for war against Iran when it reconvenes in Washington this month.
Two essentially identical nonbinding resolutions call upon President Bush to "immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities."

The House resolution has more than 200 cosponsors, including Minnesota Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Jim Ramstad. The Senate resolution has more than 30 cosponsors, including both Minnesota senators, Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar.

The methods for increased pressure differ slightly in the two resolutions. The House resolution calls for "stringent inspection requirements" of all goods entering or leaving Iran. The Senate resolution does not call for the inspection of all goods but joins the House resolution in calling for an embargo of refined petroleum products to Iran, which lacks the refining capacity to meet its need for gasoline. Achieving either goal would require a naval blockade -- a de facto act of war on the part of the United States, though paradoxically both resolutions explicitly exclude authorization for military action.

Other provisions call for an economic embargo of banking operations, with the House resolution adding a prohibition of international movement on the part of Iranian officials.

Both resolutions have begun to cause alarm throughout the United States, and have caused several representatives to withdraw their cosponsorships. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., summed up the concerns in an article for the Huffington Post: "It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that 'nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran' that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as 'a green light' to use force against Iran."

According to the Jewish Daily Forward, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., offered an apology to a representative from the antiwar group Peace Action, saying, "I regret the fact that I did not read this resolution more carefully." He further told the Valley Advocate of Northampton, Mass., that he's "all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far. I'm going to call the sponsors and tell them I'm changing my vote."

Both Wexler and Frank are assuming some risk, because they are opposing the powerful American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which had a strong hand in the drafting of both resolutions. Just days before the resolutions were introduced, AIPAC issued a memo outlining what should be done to put more pressure on Iran. The language of the memo mirrors the language of the resolutions. The introduction of the resolutions also conveniently coincided with AIPAC's annual policy conference during which it had more than 7,000 people on Capitol Hill to lobby. Its top legislative priority was for cosponsorship of the resolutions. AIPAC is careful to avoid direct calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities but makes no secret that it would support such an action by the United States or Israel."
>>>>>>

Barney Frank didn't read the resolution throughly?
This ladies and gentlemen is your congress. What would they do without wars to pontificate about and campaign on and use to point out their own importance on the world stage?

Instead of going on and on about this election we should be burning Washington to the ground. But hey, that's way too uncivilized and direct. Better to let Washington burn the rest of the world down first by throwing all our money into the fire pits and then tossing some bombs in behind it, that's the civilized democratic way.

Carroll,

Couple of things "did not read it carefully" shouldn't be taken at face value. And if Frank and Wexler can oppose AIPAC, maybe AIPAC is opposable.

My worry is that any money sent into Pakistan without very strong controls over where it goes will only aggravate the situation and fill the bank account of another Pakistan leader. The people in the camps that have fled the battles to the north could help if they felt protected and supported. Our support is short-sighted when directed towards the powerful.

I just read the NY Time Magazine article referred to here. It
confirms what I have been hearing about Pakistan for a couple of
years. That is where most of the trouble originates.

Terrible choices here--no easy ones, either. I note that the US aid
to earthquake victims in Pakistan has had little or no effect on the
anti-Americanism there.

Monday, August 4, 2008
Raise the issue of Dr. Afia :Make a difference
Dr. Afia Siddiqui, was arrested along with her three children by a Pakistani intelligence agency in early 2003 and has been missing since then. American and Pakistani intelligence agencies confirmed that she had been arrested in connection with Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organisation run by Osama Bin Laden. However, later both agencies denied that she had been arrested. Dr. Afia's whereabouts remain unknown but it is suspected that she is being held in an American detention centre.

CASE DETAILS:

The press reports claimed that Dr. Afia had been picked-up by Pakistani intelligence agencies while on her way to the airport and initial reports suggested that she was handed over to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). At the time of her arrest she was 30 years and the mother of three sons the oldest of which was four and the youngest only one month.

A Monthly English magazine of Karachi in a special coverage on Dr. Afia reported that one week after her disappearance, a plain clothed intelligence went to her mother's house and warned her, "We know that you are connected to higher-ups but do not make an issue out of your daughter's disappearance." According to the report the mother was threatened her with 'dire consequences' if she made a fuss.

Whilst Dr. Afia's whereabouts remain unknown, there are reports of a woman called 'Prisoner 650' is being detained in Afghanistan's Bagram prison and that she has been tortured to the point where she has lost her mind. Britain's Lord Nazeer Ahmed, (of the House of Lords), asked questions in the House about the condition of Prisoner 650 who, according to him is physically tortured and continuously raped by the officers at prison. Lord Nazeer has also submitted that Prisoner 650 has no separate toilet facilities and has to attend to her bathing and movements in full view of the other prisoners.

Also, on July 6, 2008 a British journalist, Yvonne Ridley, called for help for a Pakistani woman she believes has been held in isolation by the Americans in their Bagram detention centre in Afghanistan, for over four years. "I call her the 'grey lady' because she is almost a ghost, a spectre whose cries and screams continues to haunt those who heard her," Ms Ridley said at a press conference.

Ms Ridley, who went to Pakistan to appeal for help, said the case came to her attention when she read the book, The Enemy Combatant, by a former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg. After being seized in February 2002 in Islamabad, Mr Begg was held in detention centres in Kandahar and Bagram for about a year before he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. He recounted his experiences in the book after his release in 2005. Mr. Imran Khan, leader of Justice Party (T.I) suspects that prisoner 650 is the Dr. Afia Siddiqui and USA and Pakistani authorities are hiding facts of 'Prisoner 650'.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the relevant authorities listed below and request them to investigate immediately. Dr. Afia’s whereabouts must be confirmed and the safety of her children assured. Regardless of whether Dr. Afia is Prisoner 650 or not the fact is that she has been missing, along with her children for five years. The governments of the USA and Pakistan at first confirmed her arrest and then denied it. Both governments have a duty to report any information they might have on the matter.

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear________,

PAKISTAN/USA: A lady doctor is missing with her three children since five years after her arrest

Name of victim: Ms. Dr. Afia Siddiqui and her three children
Block 7, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Sindh province
The units of the alleged perpetrators: Intelligence agencies of Pakistan and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI-US)

I am shocked to know that Dr. Afia Siddiqui, a Pakistani citizen has been missing with her three children since April 2003, after her arrest by intelligence agencies of Pakistan. The whereabouts of children is also unknown, which is a serious act of negligence on the part of the government with regard to its responsibility to protect the citizen of the Pakistan.

According to the information I have received Dr. Afia was picked-up by Pakistani intelligence agencies while on her way to the airport and initial reports suggested that she was handed over to the American FBI. A few days later an American news channel, NBC, reported that Afia had been arrested in Pakistan on suspicion of facilitating money transfers for terror networks of Osama Bin Laden.

On April 1, 2003, a small news item was published in an Urdu daily with reference to a press conference of then Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat when, in reply to a question regarding the arrest of Dr. Siddiqui, he said she has not been arrested. But in another report the minister for interior said,"You will be astonished to know about the activities of Dr. Afia." A weekly English magazine in its special coverage on Dr. Afia reported that after one week of the incident, an intelligence agency official, a motor cyclist in plain clothes, came to the house of her mother and warned "We know that you are connected to higher-ups but do not make an issue out of her daughter's disappearance" and threatened her with dire consequences. After this development the whereabouts of Dr. Afia and her children are yet unknown.

What is also of grave concern to me is that when she was arrested by Pakistani intelligence authorities she was handed over to American intelligence agencies without being tried in Pakistan, I do not find any rationale in sending her along with her children to other country when there are Pakistani laws to deal with the suspected terrorists. It is known that President Musharraf handed over 600 suspected terrorists to America.

There are reports that in Afghanistan's prison of Bagram there is a woman prison known as Prisoner 650 and that she has been severely tortured. It is also widely suspected that Prisoner 650 is Dr. Afia Siddiqui. This prisoner has reportedly lost her mind due to constant rape and ill treatment.

I remind you that this is the duty of coalition government under Prime Minister Mr. Yousaf Raza Gillani to probe cases of those Pakistani suspected terrorists who have been handed over to foreign forces in the name of war on terror. The government should also inform Pakistani citizens about the whereabouts of Dr. Afia Siddiqui and her children. I also demand that government should also ensure the safety of her children.

Yours sincerely,

-------------
PLEASE SEND YOU LETTERS TO:

1. The Chief
Allied Joint Force Command
Head Quarters Brunssum,
Public Affirs office, P.O. BOX 270
6440, AG, Brunssem
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel. No.: +31 45 526 2409
Email: pio@jfcbs.nato.intHeadquar
t

2. Mr. George W. Bush
President of the United State of America (USA)
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20500
USA
Email: presidents@presidentsusa.net

3. Mr. Hamid Karzai
President of Afghanistan
Gul Khana Palace
Presidential Palace
Kabul
AFGHANISTAN
Email: president@afghanistangov.org

6. Mr. Farooq Naik
Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights
S Block Pakistan Secretariat
Islamabad
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 920 2628
E-mail: minister@molaw.gov.pk

7. Mr. Rehman Malik
Advisor for Ministry of Interior
Room No. 404, 4th Floor, R Block,
Pak Secretariat
Islamabad
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 920 2624
Tel: +92 51 921 2026
E-mail: minister@interior.gov.pk

Thank you

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org