He Said, She Said

Sarah Palin dipped into the Afghan fray on Tuesday, posting a Facebook comment in response to President Karzai’s NATO ultimatum on civilian casualties after at least nine civilians were killed in their home in Helmand province.

What President Karzai is saying is that if we don’t severely limit our air campaign he will take “unilateral action.”  And he further says that if the airstrikes continue we will be seen as an “occupying” power. This is an indirect way of saying that American and NATO forces will be fair game, which is obviously an unacceptable situation that threatens our troops […] Let us be clear: we are in Afghanistan fighting for the Afghan people and for the security of our country and our allies. If President Karzai continues with these public ultimatums, we must consider our options about the immediate future of U.S. troops in his country.  If he actually follows through on his claim that Afghan forces will take “unilateral action” against NATO forces who conduct such air raids to take out terrorists and terrorist positions, that should result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the suspension of U.S. aid.

The public statements of politicians are made to serve myriad audiences and their rhetoric should not be taken literally.  Karzai is attempting to crest the wave of war fatigue and anti-foreigner sentiment rising through Afghanistan.  Palin is trying to prove that the view from her Alaskan home extends beyond Russia, right into the heart of Asia.  At most, their comments demarcate the extreme positions of the much more nuanced debate taking place behind closed doors and between cooler heads.  At the very least they should be dismissed as posturing and brinkmanship.

However, the former governor gets a few things wrong.  At no point did Karzai make the threat that “Afghan forces will take ‘unilateral action’ against NATO forces.”  It’s his government that will take action, militarily, diplomatically or by other political means.  And, in the wake of bin Laden’s death, Palin’s labeling of the Taliban as terrorists is subject to some debate.

Karzai, currently the only one of the two who is an elected official and representing a presidency, must be held to a higher standard of accountability than a private citizen on a non-campaign family bus tour.  But with millions of “friends” comes great responsibility.  The cyber-phenom that is Sarah Palin has so far stirred almost 4,000 responses to her Afghanistan Facebook post; likely far more than Karzai could ever hope to elicit, and dwarfing a lifetime of responses for this humble blogger.

Alim

Religious Rants

As a proud Canadian and a three-day-a-year Muslim, I was gobsmacked by an Op-Ed in the National Post, one of our two Canadian national newspapers. Jonathan Kay, managing editor of the paper, highlights Dutch Politician Geert Wilders and his controversial views on Islam.

Out of haste (I’m on deadline) I’m lifting from The Atlantic Wire’s summary:

Wilders insists that he doesn't hate Muslims but considers them "victims of bad ideas," describing Islam not as a religion, "but rather a retrograde political ideology with religious trappings." Kay understands why Wilders's opinions have branded him "a hatemonger" in the eyes of many Europeans. Still, "His insistence on the proper distinction between faith and ideology deserve to be taken seriously," he argues. "For it invites the question: If we permit the excoriation of totalitarian cults created by modern dictators, why do we stigmatize (and even criminalize) the excoriation of arguably similar notions when they happen to be attributed to a 7th-century prophet?"

Being in no position to challenge Wilders on what is and isn’t in the Koran, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.  And from the little I’d previously read about Wilders, I wasn’t left aghast by his comments.

But it’s Kay’s closing thought that irks. It singles out without context or perspective.  There’s little question that Christopher Hitchens might have issues with Islam but at least when he strikes a match he burns down the whole pantheon:

[…] I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger.

Granted, it would be irresponsible not to discuss the role of Islam in a study of today’s geopolitical landscape and there’s room for only so many words in an Op-Ed piece, but to confound religion and ideology is mistaken—even in the case of Islam, whose current convulsions through it’s own Enlightenment are creating a branding challenge, to put it lightly.

Challenging and questioning the diktats of prophets, 7th-century or otherwise, can never be a bad thing.  But if Islam is to be judged ideology rather than religion on the basis of its most literal interpretation then there can be no halfway.  The yardstick must stretch across the religious (er,  ideological?) spectrum before it can find any moral force.

In crises of faith I often turn to a trusted friend to help light the way—television.

I leave you with The West Wing, season two, episode three:

Alim

Fungible Oil

The FT had an interesting note on oil markets last week.  It seems US traders are floating barges full of oil down river from Oklahoma to Louisiana where a barrel fetches an extra $15.10.

Record stocks of 40m barrels at landlocked Cushing, Oklahoma (the delivery point of West Texas Intermediate, the US benchmark price), have produced a supply glut.  There’s talk of building a pipeline to move 400,000 barrels per day from Cushing to Houston to connect “stranded” barrels with the global energy infrastructure.  In the meantime, oil is being moved by truck, train and boat to take advantage price differentials.

The economics and infrastructure are such that one oil company is even sourcing Canadian crude from a pipeline in Mississippi and literally shipping it to refineries in Louisiana. 

“We’re taking a steady diet of crude through our proprietary barge system down to our Garyville refinery,” said one oil executive. “Who would have ever thought that we would be moving western Canadian all the way down to Louisiana?”

The current trend of price anomalies reconfiguring energy markets is reminiscent of the oil price swings of 2008.

At that time, however, it wasn’t geographical price differences—exacerbated by a Middle East supply shock, growing emerging markets and loose monetary policy—that traders were cashing in on.  It was quite the opposite in fact.  As the world economy fell off the precipice in 2008, traders, oil companies, and even investment banks, were taking advantage of the record price differences between tumbling current prices and rebounding future prices caused by oil supply outstripping global demand. 

Punters were hoarding the cheap, excess oil, storing it offshore on super tankers, while at the same time entering agreements to sell that oil at a future date and at an agreed upon higher price, thereby locking in a profit.  The difference then between WTI for immediate delivery and a one-year forward contract was $21.50 a barrel.

But not all oil is created equal, independent of if it’s bought today or tomorrow.  The crisis in Libya has halted the production of its light, sweet crude that is prized for being easily refined into diesel and petrol, and for having a low sulfur content, making it cleaner to burn.

Saudi Arabia has said it “will meet any shortage” of oil supply but its oil is heavier and higher in sulfur, leaving it as a more expensive product for oil refineries to work with.  WTI oil, also sweet and light, is a better substitute for Libyan oil, which means unrest in North Africa has helped push the US benchmark to $114 a barrel. 

Luckily a flattening has been occurring across the crude spectrum in the last few years.  Since oil prices reached their record level of $147 a barrel in 2008, refiners have invested hugely in infrastructure allowing them to process heavy crude much more efficiently and thus putting on smaller premium on the sweeter variety.

Had this not been the case, who knows how far, and by what means, traders would be moving Canadian oil just to make a quick buck.

Alim

The Endgame Cometh

Happy Mujahideen Victory Day.

Nineteen years ago, today, a rag-tag group of insurgents overthrew the previously Soviet-supported Afghan government.  It’s a national holiday here in Kabul.  The roads, usually clogged with traffic and pedestrians, are clear not only because Afghans are staying home to celebrate but also because many international civilians are on lockdown. 

A string of high profile attacks on government and military buildings in the past few weeks have cast a pall over the holiday.  And a blockbuster prison break this week has only added to tensions.

But in commemorating a day that was precipitated by the withdrawal of Soviet troops three years earlier in 1989, it’s worth looking forward to how the next major foreign military withdrawal from Afghanistan might shape the country.

Lost in the stories of Taliban infiltration of Afghan security forces has been reporting on how Afghans across the country are starting to hedge their bets as U.S. and coalition forces prepare to drawdown their forces this July, a process that should end by 2014.

Taliban are turning themselves in to authorities to be reintegrated into society, sometimes as part of local militias.  Ethnic minority groups are beginning to rearm themselves in anticipation of a return of the Pashtun Taliban.  And armies of pundits have weighed in on the false hope of talks with the Taliban or are exasperated that a 10-year war has gone on this long without a diplomatic component to compliment the military hardware.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of all this is what exactly happens after 2014.  Ahmed Rashid commented on Karzai’s request for a “strategic partnership agreement” with the U.S. after 2014:

The Pentagon is keen on this so it can maintain between two and six bases in Afghanistan to keep pressure on al-Qaeda. Most countries in the region – such as Pakistan, China and Russia – will object to an indefinite U.S. military presence, while Iran will see it as a permanent threat.

The New York Times reports that upon hearing talk of a U.S. presence beyond 2014, Iranian, Indian and Russian officials made a mad dash to Kabul.  The Times goes on to explain how talk of long term U.S. bases could sink the burgeoning peace negotiations.

[The strategic partnership agreement] is without doubt a delicate process, and one that comes at a critical time.  Afghan officials have expressed concern that the negotiations could scuttle peace talks with the Taliban, now in their early stages, because the insurgents have insisted that foreign forces must leave the country before they will deal. That they are already talking is an indication they are willing to compromise on the timing of a withdrawal – but it is hard to imagine Taliban acceptance of a lasting American presence here.

Discussions of permanents bases also plays into Afghan conspiracy theories that the U.S. is only here to steal Afghanistan’s mineral wealth and to have a permanent base in the region from which to exert influence over the eventual nuclear state of Iran and the current nuclear power of Pakistan, to say nothing of China and Russia.

A Wall Street Journal piece nicely explores of the geopolitical posturing that surrounds an Afghan-U.S. strategic partnership.

Pakistan is lobbying Afghanistan’s president against building a long-term strategic partnership with the U.S., urging him instead to look to Pakistan – and its Chinese ally – for help in striking a peace deal with the Taliban and rebuilding the economy, Afghan officials say…

Some U.S. officials said they had heard details of the Kabul meeting, and presumed they were informed about [Pakistan’s] entreaties in part, as one official put it, to "raise Afghanistan's asking price" in the partnership talks. That asking price could include high levels of U.S. aid after 2014. The U.S. officials sought to play down the significance of the Pakistani proposal. Such overtures were to be expected at the start of any negotiations, they said; the idea of China taking a leading role in Afghanistan was fanciful at best, they noted.

And yet, Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, has met Karzai three times since the Pakistani overture.

Alim

60 Cups of Tea

60 Minutes, last night, aired an expose on Three Cups of Tea author Greg Mortenson.  While acknowledging his promotion of girls’ education in Pakistan and Afghanistan, their report brought into question his “origin story,” financial irregularities within his Central Asia Institute and exactly how many schools his NGO has built.

For those unfamiliar with Three Cups of Tea—recommended reading for the rank and file of both the US military and Oprah’s book club—an Outside magazine article chronicles Mortenson’s activities in Afghanistan.

The fascinating nexus between book clubs and the military was highlighted in a New York Times piece last summer:

The collaboration [between the US military and Mortenson], which grew in part out of the popularity of “Three Cups of Tea” among military wives who told their husbands to read it, extends to the office of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Last summer, Admiral Mullen attended the opening of one of Mr. Mortenson’s schools in Pushghar, a remote village in Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush mountains.

On the ground here in Afghanistan development workers will confess that Mortenson’s inspirational story re-ignited their passion and drive for their often frustrating line of work.  However, many hold reservations about the efficacy and sustainability—to say nothing of the possible harm—of this “cowboy” approach to development work.

Alim

Counterpoint

A refreshing counterpoint to the Rolling Stone U.S. Kill Team story.

Alim

April Showers

The Persian new year was celebrated in Afghanistan just over a week ago. With it's passing, millions of wood-burning stoves have been relegated to storage and spring has officially arrived. Budding rose bushes and apricot trees dot Kabul courtyards.

But spring also heralds the return of the insurgent fighting season. The retreating cold releases its grip on supply routes to safe-havens across the mountainous Pakistani border, while the increasingly dense foliage provides impressive cover from NATO and US fire.

There is hope, however, in both Washington and Kabul, that this spring will mark a new year that breaks the rhythm of war in Afghanistan. President Barrack Obama's 30,000 troop surge, which came into place last fall, along with General David Petraeus' renewed focus on special operations, and the continued enlargement of the Afghan National army have secured a handful of strategic districts in the country's restive south for the first time in years. Cricket diplomacy between Pakistan and India could pave the way toward Pakistan playing a more constructive role in negotiations with Afghanistan's Taliban.  And fallout from the corruption scandal at Afghanistan's biggest bank may push forward reforms and introduce some semblance of accountability in the Karzai government.  Just last fall, six in ten Afghans said the country was moving in the right direction.

Granted, expectations should be tethered.  The afghan public is weary of the foreign military presence and gruesome pictures of a US "kill team" do little to allay the fears of civilian casualties, which reached a high water mark last year.  Moreover, this past winter proved more violent than most, a disturbing portent for the coming year.  Barely a week into the new year, 300 Taliban—yes, 300—overran an entire district in eastern Afghanistan.

Only a day before the Taliban invasion from the east, Laura King wrote this in the L.A. Times:

In addition, the spring will test a gamble by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force in eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are being withdrawn from areas once described as crucial bulwarks against Pakistani-based militant groups such as the Haqqani network and the Hezb-i-Islami faction led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

U.S. troops have been "repositioned" away from former battlegrounds such as the Pech and Korangal valleys in Kunar province, where commanders said sophisticated surveillance and "intelligence-driven" raids would prevent a rush of cross-border movement. 

 Should old acquaintance be forgot, indeed.
Alim