Winning Hearts and Minds

I have been reading the news the last few days and I came across a couple of things that were interesting, but not in a good way. In any conflict, it is so easy for us to explain away the ills we commit on our side as being necessary or a mistake. I find it rare that we evaluate ourselves with as critical an eye as we do our perceived enemy. In Afghanistan, this happened just a few days ago.

Afghan officials, quoted by wires services, said a Sunday night airstrike in the town of Nijrab, north of Kabul, killed a family of nine, including several young children.

A coalition spokesman told CNN the airstrike, carried out by U.S. forces, targeted insurgents who fired rockets on a U.S. military base in Nijrab, located in Kapisa province.

No, my problem with this is not that civilians died, but that it was completely avoidable. Although I am not a fan of the concept of “collateral damage”, this case is an example of where the military will apply that term but it should not be allowed to.

The insurgents fired rockets at a US base, and then ran for cover. US soldiers saw the men run into a house and knew where they were. They did not need to call in air strikes, they could have handled in a more precise ground operation. They did in fact call in an air strike and ended up killing 9 people of one family. The US Military then blamed the insurgents for running and hiding amongst the civilians and endangering them.

The logic here escapes me. Why do we expect insurgents to behave in any other way but to save their lives? They are more than willing to put civilians at risk for at least two reasons: First, the military is less likely to attack them if they are surrounded by civilians, as they should be. Second, if in fact civilians do die, then those deaths will be attributed to the US Military and not the insurgents which will further engender support among the populace which the insurgents rely on for their cover. We have everything to gain by not attacking civilians and nothing to gain otherwise. A population living under a foreign military is not going to understand the differences we have created in our minds between civilians deaths and collateral damage. All they understand is that the US Military killed some people who had nothing to do with anything, and maybe the insurgents/militants/Taliban/terrorists are right.

This sure didn’t help our cause either:

The U.S. military is also investigating another incident on Sunday in which U.S. forces fired on people after a suicide car bombing attack on its forces near the southeastern city of Jalalabad.

Eight Afghan civilians were killed and 35 were wounded in the attack, but it was not clear if the casualties were caused by the initial explosion, by Taliban gunfire or return fire from troops in the convoy.

An Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman basically said the military became emotional after the suicide attack and started firing at the civilians fearing another car bomb. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard about our soldiers losing it after a suicide attack, and something serious needs to be done about it. These soldiers need a combination of post traumatic stress help, and clear heavy sanctions for serious violations. 35 people were wounded, that is some serious firepower that was sent out at the civilians to have caused that kinda damage. The damage will be felt greatest to our reputation.

Interestingly the US Spokesman also said this about the attack:

Accetta said the convoy's attackers "must have a blatant disregard for human life to have attacked coalition forces in a populated area."

Spells out my point clearly. Point that finger at yourself every once in a while and we’d do a much better job at winning hearts and minds.

Dubai Ports Bid: Political Gift, Pointless Debate

I’m gonna start out by saying that this is one of the very rare cases where I support President Bush’s argument that Dubai Ports World poses no more significant threat to US National Security than any other foreign company. This is a management company; all security is administered by the Coast Guard. The much more interesting thing about this whole deal is the political fallout of all this.

This is a classic battle between Hearts and Minds. The Bush Administration has consistently used fear as a motivator post Sept. 11, 2001. The Democrats have been forced to fight every argument using logic. This has been true in every aspect of security. One example of this is the current War on Terror. The Bush administration has vowed to kill or capture terrorists wherever they exist, and to keep doing it until they stop hating us. The logical argument would clearly show you that for every terrorist you kill, you produce three more, thus this is a logically flawed approach. This argument, however, always gets lost. This is basically because both sides are fighting to control fear, which most of the time thinks with its heart, and not with its head. Fear in this country has been inflamed and coveted by the Bush administration, and keeps the American people thinking with their hearts.

The problem came this week when the Bush Administration found themselves making a logically sound decision, but something that instinctively seems strange, mostly because of the general fear of the middle east that is pervasive in this country. The Democrats took this time to inflame that very fear that the Bush Administration has used in the past. Regardless of the logical arguments the Administration makes, the fearful beast they have created will not hear it. This is probably why most Republicans came out against this deal. It is only smart to come out against this deal at this point. Logical arguments will fail to convince a fearful society, when that logic goes against their preconceived notions of the world.

I doubt the Democrats actually believe what they are saying when they tout National Security concerns, but this has been a much needed political gift. They needed to show how they were more concerned about National Security than the Bush Administration in a language the American People now speak; fear. The Democrats have always been concerned about National Security, but they always used logic to bring their point to bear, today they have taken the fear tool from the Bush Administration and hit them with it.

The Bush Administration has two options: Find a safe way out, without seeming to give in to the Democrats, or stand their ground. If they give in to the Democrats, then they are conceded that they made an error in National Security, and the Democrats caught it. If they stand their ground, they continue to say that we have already done adequate checks so all this is pointless. This will also hurt the Bush Administration. They need a safe way to back out of the deal without giving Democrats any advantage.

Finally, to once again hit on why this whole debate is actually pointless, we need to take a look at the U.A.E.. They have no more terrorist connections than do Germany. Both countries had 9/11 hijackers living there, and more monetary transactions were done in Germany! To fear them because they are Arab is not very sensical. A “terrorist” is just as likely to be Black (Somalia), White (Chechnya), SE Asian (Thailand, Indonesia), S American (Columbia) as they are Arab. Right after 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, in Pakistan, planned to have Pacific Islanders take out airliners with shoe bombs. Would racial profiling have caught that mess? I think not.

The U.S. Bridges the gap with Saddam Hussein

On March 16th 1988, 5,000 Kurds in the Iraqi city of Halabja were killed instantly when chemical weapons were used by Saddam Hussein against them. Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX.

A chemical weapon is defined as "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

In March, 2005 The United States attacked Falluja to release the city of its insurgent stronghold. During the course of the battle, the United States used a chemical called White Phosphorous. Very few in the West have reported on this besides the British Media. The Guardian:

White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air.
According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and
variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles
continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are
hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone."

This chemical has uses other than lethal such as use as a smoke screen or to light a battle field, so it has not been banned outright by the Chemical Weapons Convention. But it is pretty clear, that when this is used against people it is considered a chemical weapon.

Apparently this is not the only chemical used by the US in Iraq. When the Iraq war started, many questions were asked about whether Coalition Forces had used Napalm in Iraq. They denied it. I’m not sure if this chemical is banned, but I believe it is.

In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77
firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function,
the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar.

Napalm is made from a combination of petrol and polystyrene whereas the chemical component of a mark 77 firebomb is made from the combination of kerosene and polystyrene. Napalm is banned, yet this gel in mark 77s is not. The difference; petrol vs. kerosene. Now I’m not a chemical engineer, but to me the difference is marginal when it comes to the firestorm they produce. Would it be ok if they used gasoline and polystyrene? I mean seriously, why do you think Napalm was banned? Probably due to the incendiary devastation it causes on the population it lands on. So why would you think that any other incendiary device is ok?

What makes the U.S. and Saddam Hussein different? Maybe the intentional targeting of civilians. Well, no, Saddam Hussein saw the Kurds as rebels and the U.S. sees the Iraqi insurgents no different.

Maybe its different because Saddam Hussein blanket blamed the whole population for the ills of a few, whereas in Falluja the U.S. differentiated the two; the civilians of Falluja vs. the Insurgents. What if we discover that the U.S. attacked people indiscriminatingly in Falluja, anyone remaining in the city was a target, would that then make the U.S. and Saddam Hussein the same with respect to Hallabja and Falluja?

Personally, I think the use of the weapons even against any people regardless of their status is wrong, and only one question remains in my mind. Now that we know that the United States has used chemical weapons in the far past (Vietnam, WWII) and the recent past, the question remains, who will attack the United States to stop them from using chemical weapons on civilian populations? Makes you wonder doesn’t it?

At Least the Tsunami Victims are Helping Kashmir

Kofi Annan came forward today to publicly shame countries into giving more money for the Kashmiri Earthquake. Is this what it’s come to?? Do we just simply not care about people in need anymore? Recently, a highway bill was passed in the United States and in that bill was alot of wasteful spending. The best example: A bridge larger than the Golden Gate Bridge will now connect 50 people with a town of 8,000 at the cost of $315,000,000. If the congressman who asked for this money had any shame, he would ask for the money to be donated to the victims of this disaster.


BBC Reports:

He warned that tens of thousands of people in remote areas had received no relief, while some three million people were facing the fierce Himalayan winter with no shelter or blankets.

That’s 3,000,000 people facing one of the harshest winters around, outside!

The UN children's agency, UNICEF, has warned that a further 10,000 children could die if relief efforts are not boosted.

I know children die everyday for health, hunger and poverty reasons, and I also know the political reasons why some feel they can’t do enough to help there, but in this case, the problem is clear, it is in a defined location, and the solution is very simple. This is a problem that probably can be solved by simply throwing money at it!

The secretary general complained that the international community had only given firm commitments to fund 12% - or $37m - of the UN's appeal.

37 million?? THAT’S IT?? Why does the UN even have to appeal for this? What should further shame countries tremendously is this:

People in India's Andaman and Nicobar islands are yet to recover from last year's tsunami, but they are now helping South Asia quake victims… the first consignment of relief materials included 200 tents, over a 1,000 blankets and three tonnes of biscuits.

The people of the Anaman and Nicobar Islands had relatively little before the Tsunami, and that was pretty much destroyed after it. Yet they still have an unbelievable heart to contribute whatever they can to help others. This is the “Just World” I hope one day will come to fruition. People giving everything they can to ensure other people don’t suffer needlessly.

Record Setting Wilma

This is pretty much the worst season ever.

Hurricane Wilma, which has swelled into a dangerous Category Five storm, is the
strongest hurricane ever recorded, the US National Hurricane Center says. It says the storm's barometric pressure - a measure of its strength - was the lowest on record in the Atlantic basin. Its winds of near 175mph (280km/h) and heavy rains are threatening Cuba, Mexico and the Cayman Islands.

I know I was wrong about Rita, and I hope I’m wrong about this one, but it looks bad. The storm is currently more than 300 miles across, with 100 miles of Tropical Storm winds! Thankfully it should come down to a Catergory 4 when it makes landfall, but that would be devestating in of itself.

More on this Shady Letter

For a more intellectual discussion of the authenticity of the Al Qaeda letter captured by the United States, I refer you to Juan Cole and his discussion on why this letter is fake. Here are some excerpts:

On the Blessing to the Prophet

The very first element of the letter is the blessing on the Prophet… the phrase "salla Allahu `alayhi wa alihi wa sallam" (the blessings and peace of God be upon him and his family) is a Shiite form of the salutation…I do not believe that an Egyptian like al-Zawahiri would use this phraseology at all… Adding to the salutation… would be an insult to Zarqawi and to the hardline Sunnis in Iraq.

Al Qaeda themselves have also distanced themselves from this letter.

The U.S. and its Al Qaeda letter

This week a letter sent by Al Qaeda’s #2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri to the leader of the opposition in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was intercepted by the United States and published. After looking this letter over, it is the first one released by the United States that I doubt is real. Following are some excerpts.

“So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to
attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires
several incremental goals: …

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq…

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate…

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries
neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Why exactly is this letter laying out goals for the Iraq conflict? Goals were likely established when Zarqawi met with the Al Qaeda leadership a couple of years ago when Zarqawi formally changed his group to be identified with Al Qaeda with the name “Al Qaeda in Iraq”. Even if they were not then, why would you send the goals in a letter, and not discuss and create them face to face?

Now take a closer look at the goals. All of them support the argument that the United States cannot leave Iraq and must remain to remove Al Qaeda from there. If you were the United States and engaged in Psychological Operations, like we know they are, this is the perfect letter for two reasons. First, it reasons why the United States must remain in Iraq, or else look what they are planning.

Second, the letter goes on to tell Zarqawi that he should change his tactics in Iraq to achieve those goals.

“…For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk
are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this
questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and
it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin
Abi Talib…”

The one thing the United States cannot afford to have is the continual strikes on the Shia. The US can handle attacks on their troops because they can defend against them and minimize them, but are less able to restrain attacks on the Shia. Continual attacks on the Shia have two problems. First, they give the media something tragic to show on the news everyday; the death of 100s of ordinary citizens every month. Second, the more violent and disrespectful the attack, the more likely there will be retaliation. The only thing preventing a civil war right now is that the Shia have not responded to the insurgent attacks, but it is only a matter of time for that to change. It is in the interest of the United States to have Zarqawi change his tactics, not in the interest of Al Qaeda. Although Al-Zawahiri is right in the long term, in the short term it is better for a civil war to break out in Iraq to get the U.S. to leave. Public opinion will plummet when 100s of soldiers begin to die per week, and the United States will be praying for the civil war to stop so they can leave. As soon as it does stop, the U.S. will get out of there quick. I know some don’t think we would leave a place in such bad conditions, but I’d like to remind you of what happened in Somalia. A civil war for a month of two is probably in the best interest of Al Qaeda, no civil war is in the interest of the United States.

For these reasons, I believe this letter is a phony.

Al Qaeda
Al-Zwahiri
Iraq

Why we don't care about Pakistan's Victims

I was discussing the earthquake in Kashmir with a friend today and he asked some interesting questions that I can’t really answer.

Why is it that some disasters get more attention in the United States as opposed to others? Why was there an enormous effort to raise money by ordinary citizens in colleges, schools and churches when the tsunami hit last year, when Katrina hit but not when the earthquake hit Azad Kashmir and Pakistan?

One theory was that 500 deaths in the United States would make big news here, but for events to have the same impact to Americans over 100,000 would need to die overseas. It seems to make sense at first, but when you think more about it, it doesn’t seem so simple.

It seems to me that what affects our desire to help is governed by how emotionally impacted we are by the event. That is largely directed by the media; we would have been less moved if we didn’t see the pictures of the disaster constantly. For example, right now the victims of the Tsunami still need help, but are mostly forgotten.

So how does the media pick which events to prop up as mega disasters, and which ones to glaze over? Is the deaths formula still correct? I’d say no.

Although Katrina, the Tsunami, and the Kashmir earthquake would agree with the formula, other disasters do not. When 800,000+ Rwandans and 1 Million+ Sudanese died, the media was silent, but was ever present during the humanitarian disaster in Somalia, and the Kosovo violence where the total deaths were far less than 100,000.

So what is the answer? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Kashmiris and Pakistanis are mostly Muslim? If there is a anti-Islamic bias, then why cover Kosovo?

Maybe Kosovo is an exception to the rule since our military went there, and our media just followed. Maybe the reason Rwanda and Sudan received no coverage is because they were man-made disasters and dangerous, but wasn’t Somalia man-made and dangerous?

In conclusion, I have no clue why no one cares as much about Pakistanis and Kashmiris.