Afghanistan and Central Asia

Today I would like to go over recent developments in the conflict spanning the Afghan-Pakistan border as the conflict’s many sides (NATO, Afghans, Taliban, Pakistan military, Al Qaeda, and local tribes) have all recently been in the news for various reasons: The Bush administration has authorized even greater use of missile/drone attacks inside of Pakistan, the Pakistan army has made some headway into the tribal region of Bajur, Tribal leaders have attempted to once again rise up and challenge the Taliban, and Afghan and Pakistan tribal and political leaders have moved ever closer to negotiations with elements of the Taliban.

US forces have been using drones to target Al Qaeda and Taliban units since the beginning of the war, but this strategy has increased greatly of late and has moved ever deeper into Pakistan sovereign territory. Slate’s William Saleton catalogs many recent attacks, including one yesterday in which 20 people were reportedly killed, and argues with evidence from a New York Times article that despite claims from Pakistani officials, their government tacitly supports this tactic.

What the Pakistan government is adamantly against in the presence of US/NATO troops on their territory, as their officials argue it undermines their legitimacy. This is indeed true, but the US needs to see some results from the Pakistani military that these border regions are being governed and policed. While it appears that the Pakistani military, long accused of making deals that favor the Taliban, has made some progress in the Bajur area of the tribal belt. The region has been deemed a ‘mega sanctuary’ for the Taliban militants and after two months of hard fighting the Pak military has caused an outright fleeing of militant elements from the area. However, the holding of this strategic region will be the true test of the will and ability of the Pak military, this is indeed a welcome development.

Another encouraging sign is the slight reintroduction of lashkars, or tribal militias, into the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal regions. These tribes and their leaders have been decimated, first by the Pakistani gov in the 1980s (with US help) in their fight against the Soviets, and recently by the Taliban since 2001, who have strongly challenged their rule in the tribal regions. Despite great mortal threat to their lives, many lashkars are rising up, and supporting the Pakistan army in removing the Taliban from their regions. It seems impossible to imagine the Taliban defeated without the help and reemergence of these lashkars.

Lastly, a delegation of Afghan and Pakistani officials met in Islamabad to approach the issue of reconciliation with elements of the Taliban who would recognize both state constitutions and renounce violence. The US remained quiet on this issue, weary of former Pak gov deals with the militants, but has stated that it supports reconciliation with those elements who give up violence. Here is an excerpt:

Pakistani and Afghan leaders vowed Tuesday to seek dialogue with Taliban insurgents, saying the “door is now open” for reconciliation.

The declaration by political and tribal leaders adds force to existing moves in Afghanistan and Pakistan to talk to the militants amid what appears to be growing international recognition that dialogue with moderates is key to ending the violence.

Former Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah said both countries would talk only with those militants who “accept the constitutions of both nations,” but did not explicitly say they must first disarm.

Another delegate to the two-day talks between political and tribal leaders in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad said that the offer was not open to al-Qaida members blamed for some of the worst violence in both countries.

Just like the reemergence of the lashkars and more strategic uses of attacks in border tribal areas, negotiations with elements of the Taliban that are willing to live peacefully in the region will be necessary for a conclusion to this current conflict.

What do this new, and old, developments and strategies mean for the future of this conflict? Are these positive developments or just one more part of a long, sad story?

(Photo Source: New York Times: Tribal Militias with the Pakistani Army)

Continuing yesterday’s thread, I would like to highlight one major aspect of progress in Afghanistan; the role of women in the workplace and in society as a whole. To do this I will showcase the stories of a few particular women, and unfortunately in their stories there is great suffering and too visible of signs of how far the nation needs to go to be a place where there is equal opportunity and rights for all citizens. However, these stories which you are about to hear would be impossible before the Taliban’s removal in 2001 and would surely become negligible in the near future if the Taliban gained control back over more and more parts of the country.

Malalai Kakar became Police Lt.-Col. Malalai Kakar soon after the Taliban were overthrown in 2001 and she quickly rose to become Afghanistan’s highest ranking female police officer. Her bravery and will lead her to use her position to fight for and protect Afghan women suffering from domestic violence and other crimes. She chose this vocation knowing full well the threat to her physical life and in fact received death threats on a frequent basis. Unfortunately, her personal story ends on a tragic note, as perpetrators claiming to be members of the Taliban, finally murdered her and severely injured her son in late September. Kaker was obviously viewed as a mortal threat to the Taliban’s existence and way of life. If any one story personifies what is right and what is wrong, this has to be it. Kakar’s murderers need to be brought to justice, the Afghan populace needs to see that this is unacceptable and these wrongdoers will need to be seen paying their debt to society.

Unfortunately, this next story highlights that even the government and the country’s judicial system are at times anti-women’s and equal rights. Perwiz Kambakhsh, a young journalist, had a life sentence commuted to just 20 years in jail! for distributing an article critical of Muhammad’s treatment of women’s rights. What Kambakhsh wrote may have been offensive, but offensiveness should not translate to jail time or a death sentence. If the Afghan government is to reform the judicial system must become a greater voice and pillar of a constitution based on equality and freedom of speech.

Otherwise women and others who are oppressed will fear to speak out for their rights and well-being. Farida Nekzad, managing editor for Pajhwok Afghan News, discusses the dangers from all directions for those who dare to speak out for women’s rights and safety:
“When the reporters write about these issues, the ruling power does not want to tolerate it, does not want these issues to be heard by people or to be talked about,” she says. “When a woman leader comes out and talks about the issues of women’s rights, women’s freedom, and freedom of speech, that woman is in a lot of danger.”

So this trip through the progress of Afghan women has been bumpy to say the least, and this will no doubt continue, but I want to leave you a story of a group of women in the Bamian Province. These women now hold law enforcement positions, can drive a car, and a woman is actually governor of the entire province. I would like to say that this is a happy ending to my piece today, and in many ways it is, but we must know, as this group of women surely does, that their current way of life is being threatened everyday by the Taliban, other extremists, and at times their own government, and only time will tell what the future holds. But one things for sure, these women are extremely brave and their courage is no doubt an inspiration to all those who will hopefully follow in their footsteps. Enjoy the video.

If you read most of the news and editorial pieces I posted on Monday, you probably have a negative outlook on the stability and chances for progress in Afghanistan, and for the most part, rightly so. But there are positive things going on in the country, things that before 2001 probably seemed impossible to most Afghanis. I have mentioned before on this page that the tremendous work of NATO soldiers, humanitarian aid workers, and skilled trainers, both foreign and domestic, has brought progress to many sectors of Afghan life and that these people’s work was largely unreported, and this is still true today. The US State Department and the Afghan government are aware of this and have started to try to get the word out, but they need to do more. So does the overall US/Western/Middle East/Asia media, who too easily just report on the latest bombing, Taliban attack, civilian casualties, all vitally important, but not the entire story.

So as I said above, how has Afghanistan ‘improved’ lately and how has the US State Dep and Afghan government tried to get the word out about this progress? While US Ambassador and Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy David A. Gross and his Afghan counterpart, Amir Zai Sangin, Minister of Communications and Information Technology have written editorials and made appearances in an attempt to showcase the nation’s progress in the communication field, mainly in the growth of the Internet and telephone industries. Though they acknowledge the tremendous amount of work to be done, they are proud of the accomplishments so far of the Afghan ministry of communications, which has ‘quickly licensed private mobil phone providers, effectively regulated a competitive communications environment and encouraged direct foreign investment into the extremely challenging post-conflict economy.’ In 2001, Afghanistan had fewer than 40,000 telephones and no cell phones, but today the country has 6 million telephone subscribers, of which an incredible 5.4 million of are cell phone. Five national and three highly competitive regional carriers support these networks. The amount of foreign direct investment in the telecommunications industry has exceeded $1 billion and the sector was expected to bring in revenues topping $100 million for the Afghan government.

Regarding the Internet, Afghanistan now has more than 500,000 Internet users and at least 18 providers. With US government support the Afghan government has started a project to construct a national fiber-optic network ring along with a new national system of highways. This project in Afghanistan is part of a larger State Department endeavor called the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, which brings together government, NGOs, and private industry to work toward these goals: 1. To address the challenges to free expression and the free flow of ideas on the Internet, 2. To advocate for the availability of the widest possible universe of content through the Internet, and 3. To actively minimize the success of repressive regimes in censoring information, and increase the transparency of content restrictions.

Perhaps the best aspect of a growing telecommunication’s network in Afghanistan is its ability to provide employment opportunities, as Gross and Sangin stated that already the sector has created 60,000 jobs. The other positives are that greater availability of phones and Internet services can help businesses begin and start up with greater potential for growth and these industries provide outlets for the Afghan people to see and hear views and cultures from anywhere in the world. New ideas and avenues for information will be more and more at their finger tips. The spread of greater telecommunications networks will hopefully also aid the Afghan government’s work, helping it be more efficient and effective in reaching its citizens and providing them the services they deserve. As Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post warns though, we must be careful where our aid money is spent, as even positive steps such as those mentioned above could have unintended negative consequences.

Tomorrow I will discuss another sign of progress in Afghanistan, the role of women in the workplace and in society. A few personal stories will show how far the nation has come since the oppressive Taliban regime, but also how far it has to go.

Kyrgyzstan’s capital of Bishkek, which just last week hosted a Commonwealth of Independent States CIS summit, was the site of a meeting between US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher and President Bakiyev and a following news conference. Boucher stated that the two sides discussed security and energy relations and issues. Specifically, the US sponsored Manas air base was discussed, with Boucher emphasizing its importance in stabilizing Afghanistan, providing security from terrorist and extremists in the region, and in its ability to support regional crisis, specifically its help in the aftermath of the recent earthquake in Kyrgyzstan. Boucher was less forthcoming regarding energy issues, but stressed that the US was there to help the nation prepare for energy shortages during the coming winter season.

A reporter also asked about Kyrgyzstan’s relations with Russia, asserting that the nation was moving closer and closer to Moscow. Boucher gave this rather diplomatic answer:

“I don’t think we criticize any relationships that you have. We’re not here for any competition or any games to play with other countries. Our interest is in the independence of Kyrgyzstan and the welfare of the people of Kyrgyzstan. We expect the government to have good relationships and to develop its relations as much as possible with neighbors like Russia. I guess north, south, east, west, Kyrgyzstan needs to have relations with China, Europe, India, with us far away. The more relations you have, the more choices you have, the more independence you have. That’s our interest — ensuring the independence of Kyrgyzstan. So, we’re glad to see Kyrgyzstan take advantage of these opportunities, as long as they contribute to the independence and the prosperity of Kyrgyzstan.”

It sounds like Boucher may be running for President of Kyrgyzstan. Watch out Bakiyev!

The ways the world’s leading newspapers have covered NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan and the situation on the ground there have morphed several times in recent years. After taking a backseat to the War in Iraq for nearly 4 years, the Afghan conflict came back into the mainstream about a year ago, mainly with statements that it was ‘the right’ or the ‘good’ war. But lately, we have seen a harder, more nuanced look at the troubling situation brewing in Afghan/Pakistan, and more and more cautious and negative toned editorials and articles have appeared of late. Of course, this seems mostly logical as the war in Iraq has settled down quite a bit, we had a presidential candidate emphasize its policy, and most importantly the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become increasingly volatile and unstable to be ignored any longer. So here a few recent news stories and editorials to take a look at below. Have you noticed a change in coverage? What about its tone? More negative? Positive? Why has this occurred?

News

Firstly, here are two articles both focusing on Afghan civilian casualties in this conflict and the fog of war; one reporting last Thursday’s brazen Taliban attack on two buses in which dozens of civilians appeared to have been killed, and another discussing the increasing toll on NATO generals of either mistaken or ‘unavoidable’ instances where Afghan civilians have perished, specifically the Azizabad airstrike that may have killed around 90 people.

Here is an update on the progress of a reassessment review of US strategy in the country by top level officials which is due to be completed right after the Nov. 4 US election.

Lastly, here is quick report about President Karzai’s recent shuffling of his cabinet and its possible implications.

Editorials

The following pieces present to the audience a gloomy picture of the Afghan situation and acknowledge that time may be running out for a chance at stability and strong government in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The New York Times editorial boards’ ‘Downward Spiral
Spiegel Online’s Susanne Koelbl’s ‘The West is at a Loss in Afghanistan‘
Financial Times Rodric Braithwaite’s ‘New Afghan Myths Bode Ill for Western Aims‘

David Miliband, foreign secretary of the UK, contrary to the previous editorials, argues in ‘Mission Possible‘ that NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is winnable, we just have to have a greater understanding of what that mission is. Miliband stresses that we should not expect Britain-style society to flower, but that we must help create an Afghan government with institutions with the capability and legitimacy to deny the Taliban power and influence. Miliband does not deny the sacrifices needed for this to come to fruition, but he thinks it is far from ‘mission impossible.’

Larry Everest in ‘Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad‘ argues against the idea that the US and NATO are in Afghanistan for legitimate and global order purposes, and instead, with much paranoia and dubious assertions, claims it is another imperialist adventure by a Western power and has the undeniable support of both future presidential candidates Obama and McCain.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

How does one reconcile the governmental promotion of atheism in a society with strongly entrenched religious beliefs and customs? The Chinese communist government has tried to square this circle for years now, and the Xinjiang Province’s Uighur Muslim majority has proven its greatest challenge. Edward Wong of the New York Times explores this societal conflict and reports on the most recent Chinese government efforts to control and undermine Xinjiang’s Uighur Muslims.

Here is a portion of Wong’s article where he discusses rising Chinese government attempts to restrict Islamic practices in Xinjiang, emphasizing that a more serious ‘crackdown’ may be in the works:

Many of the rules have been on the books for years, but some local governments in Xinjiang have publicly highlighted them in the past seven weeks by posting the laws on Web sites or hanging banners in towns.

Those moves coincided with Ramadan, which ran from September to early October, and came on the heels of a series of attacks in August that left at least 22 security officers and one civilian dead, according to official reports. The deadliest attack was a murky ambush in Kashgar that witnesses said involved men in police uniforms fighting each other.

The attacks were the biggest wave of violence in Xinjiang since the 1990s. In recent months, Wang Lequan, the long-serving party secretary of Xinjiang, and Nuer Baikeli, the chairman of the region, have given hard-line speeches indicating that a crackdown will soon begin.

Mr. Wang said the government was engaged in a “life or death” struggle in Xinjiang. Mr. Baikeli signaled that government control of religious activities would tighten, asserting that “the religious issue has been the barometer of stability in Xinjiang.”

Anti-China forces in the West and separatist forces are trying to carry out “illegal religious activities and agitate religious fever,” he said, and “the field of religion has become an increasingly important battlefield against enemies.”

The Chinese government does indeed face a violent threat from extremist elements in Xinjiang and from foreign sources who support the province’s muslims, but these crackdowns and rules targeting Uighurs are mainly imposed to further expand the government’s rule over the region. Wong details the government’s efforts in controlling Uighurs’ Hajj to Mecca and Ramadan practices, both sacred rights for all Muslims. The Chinese government fears the spread of Islamic radicalization and separatist motivations and organizations, and both of these they believe can be combatted if they strengthen their control over the Xinjiang region and its people. That is why the government has been importing Han Chinese into the region in great numbers, diluting the Uighur majority and their cultural and societal norms, and building infrastructure, specifically railways, which connect the region to Central Asia and more importantly, to eastern China.

How successful do you think the Chinese government’s anti-religious and anti-Uighur custom laws have been and will be? Are these measures, some quite oppressive and restrictive, more likely to sow a more governable and stable state for the Chinese government or are they more likely to foment greater amounts and degrees of radicalization and separatist feelings and actions? What would a McCain or Obama administration policy be towards the Chinese government’s treatment and efforts in Xinjiang?

(Photo Source: New York Times)

In recent weeks the Mediterranean states of Greece and Turkey have pushed to strengthen their diplomatic ties to the Central Asian region and its states. In the case of Turkey, it is the continuing of a growing relationship, and in the case of Greece, it is an attempt to reinvigorate what has in recent times been a minimal presence in the region.

Turkey has successfully reemphasized its historic connections to the region and its people, and Prime Minister Erdogan diplomatic visits to Turkmenistan and Mongolia in early October is just the latest in a series of up close efforts to strengthen bilateral relations. Erdogan, who traveled with a group of influential Turkish ministers, attended a Turkish-Turkmen Business Council meeting and met with Turkish expatriates and businessmen in Ashgabat. Though I could not find a report stating so, there is no doubt that energy supplies were also discussed as Turkey and the EU desire routes circumventing Russia and in the weeks following the Georgia crisis, Moscow has been deepening its energy supply monopoly with the states of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, while also making efforts in Azerbaijan. In Mongolia, Erdogan inaugurated the Bilge Khan highway, constructed with Turkish assistance, the Orkhon Museum, and a monument of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, in Mongolia’s capital city of Ulan Bator.

Greece’s relations with the Central Asian states has been lackluster as their Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis would agree, but she was out to change this during the recently concluded Forum of Security between the EU-Central Asia in Paris. Bakoyannis met privately with all five CA attending states foreign ministers and stated that 2009 was to be the year when relations with the CA states was to become an ‘absolute priority.’ Bakoyannis mentioned energy supplies and common historical and ethnic connections as being important reasons for closer ties.

Now here are what some of FPA’s other blogs are doing in regards to issues related to Central Asia:

FPA Blogs: Provocative stories involving Central Asia

A. Karin Esposito at Religion & Politics writes about the Islamicization of the Afghan judiciary and the Karzai government’s failure to contain it.  The piece centers on infringements of religious and women’s rights.

B. Bilal Qureshi’s Pakistan blog daily provides in-depth insight and analysis of ‘the most dangerous place in the world.’  Today he tells us the story of Haroon Bacha, a talented singer who desperately seeks refuge from the Taliban who have targeted him because of his musical profession.  I consider Balil’s page a great resource for my discussions on the  current situation of unrest and violence in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

C. Nikolaj Nielsen of Human Rights blog recently did a piece on Uzbekistan’s illegal child labor practices, specifically the harvesting of cotton.  Nielsen takes a European perspective of the purchasing of Uzbek cotton to manufacture clothing and links to several interesting background reports.

On October 6, Federal Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered the release of 17 Uighurs imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, arguing that the US government had no evidence and no right to hold them as ‘enemy combatants.’ The Bush administration has already stated that these 17 prisoners are not a security threat and conceded that they do not plan on accusing them as enemy combatants anymore. However, Urbina’s ruling is being fought by the Bush administration, who fear it will set a precedent for the removal and possible allowance of Guantanamo prisoners into the US homeland as other nations are not likely to want these prisoners.

As we know the Uighurs, who were picked up in Afghanistan/Pakistan, are not going back to China, where they most likely would be welcomed with torture or imprisonment, and most other nations do not desire to anger the Chinese government by taking them on. This leaves the US government with very few choices, one being sending them to small nations that support Taiwan and therefore are already earning China’s ire, and secondly letting them come and stay in the US where a network of Uighur immigrants have shown interest in hosting them and smoothing their transition. The US obviously owes these prisoners more than they could ever payback, and a decent life in the US would be a good start, but the Bush administration fears this precedent will force them to admit all of Guantanamo’s prisoners in the future.

Now this issue is very controversial and involves some complicated legal dealings and definitions, which I am far from an expert on, but this is an important aspect of US relations with Muslims throughout the world, and obviously in China’s Xinjiang Province and Central Asia. Whatever the reasons the US had for arresting these Uighur prisoners now appears to be discredited and the US must fix the situation as soon as possible and this does involve freeing them to a safe location where they can renew their lives. As of right now, their status is still in limbo.

While I have not discussed legal mandates for holding suspected enemy combatants on this page, I have looked into the Xinjiang’s province and its Uighur majority’s population battles with the Chinese government and with radical Islam. There is definitely a connection between Uighur human and religious rights and the aftermath of 9/11, one that goes beyond those 17 prisoners. Peter Navarro author of ‘The Coming China Wars’ articulately describes how the Chinese government used 9/11 as a Golden Opportunity to get the US to either implicitly or explicitly let their government do what they needed to do to deal with their own ‘Muslim extremists’, the Uighurs in Xinjiang. After 2001, China sped up a Hanification policy for the province, bringing in Han Chinese and deporting Uighur women of birthing age to the factories in the east. Navarro rightly sees this process as radicalizing elements of the Uighur community, which he argues led to the terrorist attacks against Chinese police forces around the Olympics.

Now this goes back as to how the US, Chinese government, and the world see the situation. Are the Uighurs an oppressed community who’s way of life is being stripped from them by a brutal overlord? or Are they tainted by other Muslim extremists in the Middle East and Central Asia region who vow for the destruction of western and modern society? Do both elements exist? To what degree?

Any way one sees the situation, I would argue that the US detainment of these 17 Uighurs could only further the radicalization of their community. If the US government does not have evidence that these 17 individuals were enemy combatants it must find a suitable place for them to freely live, otherwise, it risks alienating the whole Uighur community, a group who is busy trying to fight for their way of life against the Chinese government.

These are complicated issues and conflicts, and in no way am I defending terror attacks by any group, nor do I want to ignore the dilemma the US government finds itself in in dealing with what to do with prisoners in this still new way of warfare. Balancing acts are occurring everywhere: within the US government, regarding what to do with enemy combatants; the Chinese government, with their Hanification and Tibetan policies conflicting with their international presence and stature; and with the Uighur people, who are seeing their way of life being taken away, but with the utilization of terrorist attacks as probably the most effective but inhumane and possibly counterproductive method of achieving autonomy.

(Map Source: Economist)

I apologize for the lack of posts since Wednesday as I am in the middle of a move from New York to California. Today I would like to go over a few important stories that have occurred in the last week.

Ahmed Wali Karzai a Drug Dealer? - The New York Times ran an article last week, citing American and Afghan sources, accusing President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, of being involved in the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali and his brother have denied these reports, calling them ‘baseless,’ and arguing that they spring from political pressure that the Karzai government has put on the US recently regarding civilian casualties. The New York Times report centers around informants’ descriptions of two large drug shipments intercepted by Afghan police that showed strong links to Ahmed Wali, including a phone call where he told the government to leave the shipment of heroin alone since it was his.

I have discussed the importance of the drug trade in Afghanistan before on this page, mainly as it relates to funding the Taliban, and regarding the combating and neutralizing of the growing practice, not punishing corrupt officials and major civilian perpetrators, like the suspected Ahmed Wali, was not part of the prescribed plan. There is a consensus that for the Afghan government to gain legitimacy and strength in all of the nation’s regions it must show it can combat the drug trade and its perpetrators, especially those who are involved in government. For the people of Afghanistan, and for us in America and NATO who send our soldiers over there, the Afghan government must not be seen as impotent or corrupt, and this case shows both. There is the obvious fear that if Karzai actually prosecuted corrupt drug officials in his government, the breadth of the indictments would cause great instability and may further its lose of legitimacy, and this is most likely the reason the US has not pushed him too hard, but something must be done.

Condoleezza in Kazakhstan - US Secretary of State Rice made a one day stopover in Astana last week and held a press conference with Kazak Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin. She and Tazhin stated that Kazakhstan and the US were ’strategic partners’, but that Kazakhstan had ‘excellent contacts’ with Russia and all of its neighbors. In recent weeks, after the Georgia conflict, Russia’s President Medvedev has laid out in several speeches that Russia has a special sphere of influence, and Rice made several comments combating any thought that this involved Kazakhstan; “We don’t see any of this as a zero-sum game. We don’t see and don’t accept any notion of a special sphere of influence and so we look forward to continue to building our relationship with Kazakhstan.” Another major issue addressed was Kazakhstan’s role in stabilizing and helping in the economic development of Afghanistan, including infrastructure and energy projects. Though Rice and Tazhin did not explicitly discuss this during the news conference, there is also no doubt that energy relations were a hot topic, as Russia has made several successful inroads in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan since the Georgia crisis and West has been put on its heals.

Turkmenistan’s New Constitution - In very late September the government of Turkmenistan adopted a new constitution which seemed to be largely aimed at securing foreign investors and not its citizens’ rights. The constitution abolished former dictator Niyazov’s 2,500 hand-picked legislature and replaced it with a 125 member elected parliament. President Berdymukhammedov made a statement that these parliamentary elections, set for December, would be monitored, but by whom it remains unclear. The constitution also sets the presidential term at 5 years, but it is unclear if there were term limits, but this is highly, highly doubtful. The president was also given the power to appoint regional governors, just like Putin instituted a couple years back. On the positive side, the new constitution did several things to increase commerce and the freedom of investment in the nation. Property rights were strengthened along with market-economy principles, both in hopes of soothing the fears of foreign energy investors. I do not know all the ins-and-outs of this new legal document and only time will tell if it provides for any real progress in the country’s citizen rights and freedoms. A recent protest by Reporters Without Borders at the Turkmen embassy in Paris for the release of journalist Annakurban Amankiychev and human rights activist Sapardurdy Khajiyev, both in jail since 2006, showcases how far the country has yet to go in providing a safe and secure life for all its citizens, no matter what their beliefs or political leanings.

(Photo Source: International Herald Tribune)

The 2nd Presidential Debate and the 2nd time each candidate failed to inform the American public of the fight ahead or layout a clear strategy for victory for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Here is the transcript and video. Regarding military force and strikes in Pakisani territory, Obama emphasized this as a practical policy and McCain once again painted this Obama position as naive, arguing that he would also support such action, but with a quieter voice and big stick, a la Teddy Roosevelt.  Concerning Afghan strategy, not much new here, Obama and McCain both emphasized more troops, with Obama stressing the importance of getting the Karzai government to be more responsive to its people and McCain arguing that new Central Command Gen. Petraeus will help implement a similar Surge strategy that can help both the Afghan and Pakistan government in the fight against the insurgents.  Obama was adamant on the Afghan/Pakistan border region being the central front of US national security and was very hawkish on getting Osama and Al Qaeda.  McCain continues to support the Surge strategy and states that it will need to be altered, but fails to explain exactly how so or connect it to the amount of troops levels needed.  While McCain may be naive on the Surge’s chances of success in the conflict, Obama’s blaming of the Bush Administration for supporting Musharraf as the major reason for lack of Pakistani people support and insurgent growth is in the same vein.  The US gave billions in aid to Musharraf and not only for military use, but utilizing these funds in the FATA and tribal areas of the border is extremely difficult, shown by the building and then Taliban destroying of schools.  One has to be worried at the same time as pleased that Pakistan has a new democraticly-elected government, as it has not been tested and lacks authority in the border area.  Lastly neither candidate or moderator broached the topic of negotiating with the Taliban or other insurgents.

The one person who stood tallest in the debate was moderator Tom Brokaw for finally asking a direct question regarding the possible dire future and present of Afghanistan and how this might affect US strategy.  Unfortunately Obama and McCain seemed to not even here the question as they surely didn’t answer it.  Here is the exchange followed by the rest of the debate’s Pakistan/Afghan portion:
BROKAW: Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we’re failing in Afghanistan.

The commander said we cannot win there. We’ve got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator.

If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan’s strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

OBAMA: I’ll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we’re going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. [David] McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan — Taliban offenses.

We’re also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that, “You are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that’s necessary.”

I don’t think he has to be a dictator. And we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and, frankly, it’s just not responsive right now.

BROKAW: Sen. McCain, briefly.

MCCAIN: Gen. Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are used.

And I’ve had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course, we have to do some things tactically, some of which Sen. Obama is correct on.

We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis.

But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy, which Sen. Obama said wouldn’t work, couldn’t work, still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq.

He still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq, and that’s the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives.

And once they feel secure, then they lead normal, social, economic, political lives, the same thing that’s happening in Iraq today.

So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory and not in defeat.

 The Rest:
QUESTION: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

OBAMA: Katie, it’s a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They’re stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because that’s the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end. So part of the reason I think it’s so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that’s funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

BROKAW: Sen. McCain?

MCCAIN: Well, Katie (ph), thank you.

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly — talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

You know, if you are a country and you’re trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

When you announce that you’re going to launch an attack into another country, it’s pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with — the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.

Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.

Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

OBAMA: Tom, just a…

BROKAW: Sen. McCain…

OBAMA: … just a quick follow-up on this. I think…

MCCAIN: If we’re going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

BROKAW: No, I know. So but I think we get at it…

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me. It’d be fine with me.

BROKAW: … if I can, with this question.

OBAMA: Then let’s have one.

BROKAW: All right, let’s have a follow-up.

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me.

OBAMA: Just — just — just a quick follow-up, because I think — I think this is important.

BROKAW: I’m just the hired help here, so, I mean…

OBAMA: You’re doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I — I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and, you know, I’m just spouting off, and he’s somber and responsible.

MCCAIN: Thank you very much.

OBAMA: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don’t think is an example of “speaking softly.”

This is the person who, after we had — we hadn’t even finished Afghanistan, where he said, “Next up, Baghdad.”

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan — the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I’m president.

MCCAIN: And, Tom, if — if we’re going to go back and forth, I then — I’d like to have equal time to go — to respond to…

BROKAW: Yes, you get the…

MCCAIN: … to — to — to…

BROKAW: … last word here, and then we have to move on.

MCCAIN: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn’t think so.

I understand what it’s like to send young American’s in harm’s way. I say — I was joking with a veteran — I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.

But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I’ll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I’ll get him. I know how to get him.

I’ll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I’m not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I’m going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.

And we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power and how you do it, and you just saw it in response to previous questions.