My Top News

For those that don't know, the arrest of Mullah Baradar by the CIA and US in a joint operation just around a week ago was initially heralded as a huge success and the most significant capture since 9/11.

However with more information out there and time passed, the opinion pieces positive look on the capture has been hampered a little. An article from the NY Times claims the biggest winner was Pakistan, earning itself a seat at the table for any negotiation to end the war in Afghanistan.

Worse is the announcement by the Pakistani senior minister that #2 Baradar will not be handed over to the US along with two other high-value militants. Instead if they are found to have not done anything, they will be deported to Afghanistan.

In addition, the NY Times reported that Pakistani security officers didn't even know who they had captured - a US offical called it a "lucky accident". Acting on a US tip, the security officials met no resistance during the raid. Lastly a push by the CIA to transfer Mullah Baradar to an American-run prison in Afghanistan was prompted by the reported refusal by the Militant to provide information on insurgents.

Unfortunately what was a big capture that was not only a big impact of the man being captured, but what appeared to be a big reversal in US-Pakistani relations, the state of closeness of the ISI and the Taliban as well as the wealth of knowledge Baradar had on Taliban operations, camps, etc.

I don't want to be a pessimist, as the capture is still a big deal as he was the senior military leader of the Taliban, but instead frustration with Pakistan. For some reason they still (or the ISI doesn't) view Taliban as a threat to them, instead only India. Now let me note they are just articles not with the best sources so let's hope they turn out wrong and the initial assesment of Pakistani change in policy towards the Taliban has finally changes for the better. (for us)

For the doubters they had arrested two shadow governors of Afghanistan and there refusal to simply turn over three high value targets to the CIA is understandable. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.

"Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, dropped his strongest hint so far on Friday that he might try to return to the Kremlin and run in the 2012 presidential election."

I was dreading this day since Putin "left office". The so-called Russian democracy saw a hand-picked president choosen and Putin remained on as "Prime Minister". Putin used the logic of himself and Medvedev compared to Blair and Brown in the UK.

Now I don't know if he ignored or maybe he forgot that Blair resigned, whereas Putin simply ended his second term - kind of a difference. Maybe he was referring simply to the fact that the public didn't have a chance at voting for Brown and if so - he isn't exactly well liked over there, so not a comparison you want to be drawing. :p

Regardless this might be the biggest non-surprise since Chavez "won" the election again and talked about becoming President for life. The bad news in all this is the Russian public - they want it. Polls have shown very high popularity for Putin and a high percentage would be happy with Putin back as President.

Unfortunately it looks like there wish will likely come true.

NOTE: I almost forgot to say that the one bit of good news out of this is the apparent signs of Medvedev actually trying to distance himself from Putin. See here.

Conveniently being tried after North Korea's recent missile/nuke tests (they've been held for months), 2 US Journalists charged with illegally crossing into the communist state, have been sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp.

Despite the administration taking a hard stance, it's definitely quite interesting to see North Korea keep raising the stakes. With neither side backing down, the US has already said they are looking to intercept NK ships that may have weapons/nuke materials which will really raise the pressure.

It will be interesting to see if we keep upping the pressure or not. Something like intercepting North Korean ships would be high stakes, but also more likely to work rather than sanctions. (but by all means, sanctions are a good thing) As well, Obama is looking into a legal way to reverse the Bush decision of removing North Korea from the terrorist supporting list.

As always with North Korea, it's about limits and what each side is trying to achieve and how it's going to cool down. This time both have no intentions of backing down or making concessions which makes things more dangerous and more uncertain. North Korea is determined to be in the "Nuke Club" and build a respectable weapons armada, of course the US wants nothing of this for 1. North Korea with Nukes isn't a good idea and 2. An arms race, which seems more and more likely with the increasing aggressiveness by NK.

We'll stay tuned and hope for the journalists to be released as soon as possible.

Every so often North Korea does something - usually not good that gets people's attention, otherwise they're ignored completely. This time North Korea REALLY wanted attention, one nuke and 6 missile tests later, here we are.

Not as often North Korea also likes to essentially threaten war - this time it disregards the 1953 armistice and threatened "nuclear war" for even any minor incidents. (right) This is the first time in a little while that North Korea has freaked out this much but there are some interesting theories.

One of the most interesting I've heard has to do with the president, Kim Jung Il. Since his apparent stroke the "dear leader" has been in declining health. One theory is that Kim is in dire health and essentially making a distraction for transfer of power or a distraction for infighting due to the transfer of power.

It's all speculation, but certainly interesting because of the apparent randomness of the latest North Korean freak out. Of course the worrying part is if the truth is something close to that, the normally crazy (but rational) leadership could do things it normally wouldn't.

But as I've heard a few say on TV. It's completely understanding why the US/SK military has upped it's alert level, but in reality North Korea does what it does best - blow smoke.

Ask anyone following current events and everyone is worried about Pakistan and Taliban. When this latest war between the two started I was very cautious, waiting for some good signs or bad ones before saying too much. Unfortunately there have been some signs and they aren't good.

Starting out is the latest news and it's very bad. When Admiral Mullen (Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman) was asked if he had seen evidence of Pakistan increasing the size of there nuke arsenal he said simply "Yes". This is quite shocking to a lot of outsiders trying to follow the events in Pakistan. This along with the recent announcement by Pakistan that they do not need any more troops (therefore not removing any troops from the Pak-India border) is just terrible news.

Those two together paint quite an obvious picture - despite the movements by the Taliban, India is Pakistan's foremost enemy and top concern. Besides an International promise that India won't attack pakistan if pakistan moves troops from the border, it's astonishing with the Taliban in actual control of part of Pakistan and 60 miles away from the capital, India is still a much more important concern.

Worse, with the recent aid to Pakistan and proposed more of it - this story of increased nuke production has to make many people wary that this aid has/is going towards there nuclear programme instead of more important areas.

Unfortunately it doesn't sound like the war for Pakistan is going great. Despite there claims of 1,000 (out of 5000-7000 taliban fighters) taliban dead, US intelligence claims it's wildly exaggerated and just yesterday the Taliban attacked a police checkpoint, capturing four policemen.

Stay tuned here and The Long War Journal for updates.

After all that's happened with Pakistan, especially the past week, it was alarming but more so - the urgency expressed by General Petraeus. If you haven't heard about it, he essentially says that the next two weeks are key to Pakistan's survival and the US is looking for serious action by Pakistan on the Taliban by then.

One of the military leaders that I always listen to when they speak is Petraeus, so it's even more worrying coming from who I think of as a "realist". We've been looking out for this situation to blow up and it looks like it very well could quite soon.

While Pakistan is fighting the Taliban, it's nothing large scale and is only in a small amount of areas, Swat not included. The other problem is the troops used. According to the Long War Journal, it's the "Frontier Troops" instead of the Army, a large gap in training quality/quantity. It had been warned that if Pakistan used Army troops, ethnic problems could cause the Army to literally "choose sides" and split apart. That pretty much says it all.

Good luck to Pakistan!

One of the more ridiculous opinion articles I've read in some time, especially surprising since the NY Times often has good articles. The basic idea is getting rid of the Air Force.

Yeah, even the basic premise is ridiculous. Worst, as it goes on the writer - Paul Kane, argues for something which is essentially the draft. Before I get started, read over the article:

NY Times Op-Ed - Up, Up and Out

Right off the bat, this offensive statement:

"At the moment, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are at war, but the Air Force is not."

Forgetting the fact that it is, the worst part is 40 have died in two wars that they apparently don't have a part in.

"Yes, air power is a critical component of America’s arsenal. But the Army, Navy and Marines already maintain air wings within their expeditionary units. The Air Force is increasingly a redundancy in structure and spending."

So Kane proposes dissolving the Air Force into the other branches - okay. But apparently that saves money how?

"War is no longer made up of set-piece battles between huge armies confronting each other with tanks and airplanes."

Oh how naive this man is. I'm not expecting World War III tommorow, but at the same time War changes over time and as well - each war is different. Also, if we apparently are done with huge armies conforonting each other - why not get rid of tanks? Since we don't need planes, why do we need tanks?

"...introduce national service at age 18 for all Americans. Under such a system, young people from all classes and backgrounds would either serve in the military or do other essential work like intelligence assessment, conservation, antipoverty projects, educational tutoring, firefighting, policing, border security, disaster relief or care for the elderly. The best qualified would be assigned to the military."

This sounds so familiar. I think we should think of a name though, rather than this long explanation - maybe "draft"? That might work. Yeah it's different from the traditional draft, but it still sounds mandatory - the reason why the draft is so incredibly unpopular. I like the basic premise of making todays youth more productive, but forcing in this way is one of those things of the past that we've kind of moved on from.

While the article has a few good points such as the physical requirements lacking compared to other services and the "up or out" policy, but the main points are just plain ridiculous.

What some people refuse to accept or understand is that the United States is the sole super power in the world. Reducing the amount of nuclear weapons we and others have is admirable - eliminating them is a pipe dream. Not needing an air force would be nice, as well as no chance of being involved in any major war - but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Get with reality. Though the unfortunate thing other than this article coming from a usually good and informative source, is the fact that the author is not only a Marine (maybe it explains some things) Veteran, but "a former fellow with the International Security Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government". I don't want to insult his intelligence, but some of this is just doesn't make sense in real life.

That seems to be the plan apparently. That's not a big shock as the total amount of nuclear weapons on both sides have gone down steadily for quite some time, but the number is what's surprising - 1,000 each which is an 80% cut. (according to Wiki the US has 4k active nukes and 5,500 total - Russia has 8,800 total with 5,200 active)

Obama admin. seeks treaty to cut US, Russia nukes

While I don't mind a cut in the amount of nukes it's crazy to see some people think and some even are for total nuclear disarmament. Don't get me wrong, if it were possible to get rid of all nuclear weapons forever - that would be great. But while were at it why don't we cure cancer, fix the economy in the next week and let's just all sit in a circle of peace - make love, not war!

Seriously, when it comes to certain issues there can be 2 sides but sometimes there's a wacko 3rd side or it's an issue that really isn't an "issue", but the other side is just crazy. 2005-2007ish it was those that kept denying the Iraq war wasn't going well, no it's just the liberal media making things up. In this case it's the people that want the US to seriously disarm completely all it's nuclear weapons and trust that every other country will willingly give them up.

It's not just nukes, nukes is just a small part of what I guess some would call more of a "peace" generation but I can think of a different word. If there was no war, then that would be awesome and of course I'm for war being the very last option but that is not the reality. Sometimes war is necessary and some people can't/won't accept that.

Whenever I think or talk about nuclear weapons I think of Albert Einstein and how much he regretted recommending to Roosevelt what we now know as the "Manhattan Project". The great irony is one of the last things Einstein said was:

"I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made"

And yet the nuclear bomb not only ended World War II a few million less dead then the alternative (Invasion of Japan), but it may of been "the" thing that got us through the rest of the 20th century relatively unscathed. Imagine a world where we invaded Japan, where deaths were projected in the millions, and a world where the two mighty super powers had nothing standing between them, preventing them from attacking each other and invoking millions more to parish.

The irony without a doubt is when Einstein said that he would of never guessed that the Nuclear Weapon is in an odd way, the weapon of peace and thanks to it and MAD, got us through the Cold War and keeps us here without a world war since before the nuke was first made.

With that said, those that think nuclear disarmament need to come to reality. There will be wars, I'm sure a major one in the next few decades (aren't we due?) and peace will also prevail in some places, but it isn't always the right answer. As well, Nuclear Weapons won't always exist! Once a more destructive weapon is found, it'll take "the bomb's" place.

Some people might call me a "war-monger" or pre-judging those in the future, but it's reality. War will always exist and getting rid of the world of nuclear weapons will simply not happen, it's a fairy tale. It's great if we reduce the amount and work to try and prevent others from learning to build there own nukes, but actually totally disarming? That's a fairy tale.

For those that have been following the events of the latest Hamas-Isreal War, it's been apparent from the start boots on the ground would be required at some point and it seems this will happen quite soon.

Apparently the ground attack was delayed until better weather and Al Jazeera is reporting the invasion may be happening now, tanks are supposedly shelling Gaza as I type - however I'll wait for a better source.

Stay tuned.

With the cross-border attack by US forces against the Taliban inside Pakistan and a step-up of attacks on Taliban camps in Pakistan, ties between the two countries have deteoriated quickly.

First is a New York Times story that claims President Bush has allows US Special Forces to enter Pakistan for ground attacks against the Taliban without prior approval to Islamabad. If true would be a significant policy change after years of fighting, previously only allowed unmanned vehicles and limited.

With the step-up in attacks there has been some serious rhetoric by Pakistani leaders, including the military chief and Prime Minister. On Wednesday the army leader said:

"the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost"

"No external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan"

Another story came out yesterday with Pakistani opposition lawmakers threatening to "quit" the War on Terror. Today "The Pakistan Army has been ordered to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country".

Overall just a very tense situation. However all indications are that the amount of attacks will only increase, hopefully relations with Pakistan can get back to normal.

In early 2006 the attack that sprung forth quite possibly the lowest point in the Iraq War, he Gold Mosque attack. The holy site spurred hundreds of killings in the following days and was likely al-Qaeda's biggest victory in the War.

Around that time the anti Iraq-war sentiment was also at it's highest point, President Bush's ratings were low and the thought of a Republican President being elected in November 2008 was though of not as difficult, but impossible. Now here we are 2 1/2 years later and not only did the person who first proposed the now successful surge stands as the Republican nominee, with Sarah Palin re-energizing the base like few ever expected, we now have a good Presidential Race.

I'm still just in disbelief that I'm writing here as a sane person after the low points in the Iraq War that we've had, that we actually have a toss-up on who will be the next president. There are still some tests and a heck of a lot of time before one can even seriously think of picking a winner, but it sure looks like it'll be close.

Despite what all experts expected, after basically being told "No" by his own advisers when McCain wanted Liberman, he could of easily picked someone like Romney who many conservatives like (don't ask me why), Bobby Jindall (would of been a good pick actually), Tim Pawlenty and a myriad of other typical republicans. Instead just as McCain came way out of right field to get the nomination, he rolled the dice on a little-known Alaskan female Governor.

We still have 60 days to find out if McCain will be the next president and if his Vice President choice will work out in his favor or not, but at minimum his pick as taken the republican party and re-energized it in a way I haven't seen in my very young life and also mixed up this race. For the first time the headlines are not about Obama, but a republican. (in a good light...excluding the dailykos type attacks)

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you have to be excited. Also whether or not Palin was the right choice, some might argue she was the only choice in order for McCain to have a chance at winning. Get ready because this is going to be a crazy 60 days up to November 4th!

UPDATE: US confirms raid inside Pakistan

Despite it being denied officially, it's been known for some time that there is an agreement in place between Pakistan and the US that allows US unmanned planes such as the Predator to enter Pakistani airspace. However they have refused to allow any US forces enter Pakistan, despite it happening 2 years ago and apparently with or without permission, may of happened just yesterday.

According to The Long War Journal via Geo TV (Pakistani) US helicopters launched missiles at three homes in Taliban-controlled South Waziristan. Originally it was claimed by Geo that these helicopters landed and troops dismounted, troops then began searching homes. It has been confirmed by Pakistani military that the attack "occured in the region". (real specific, huh?) The AP reported this confirmation.

So far the only details revealed is the typical evil US soldiers went in homes and killed 15 people, women and children. 2 Pakistani intelligence officials claimed 19 were killed. So far the US has not commented, the military denied US forces were involved.

If this is true, it wouldn't be tough to guess that the target was someone of very high value. What's more, were they able to kill/capture this person? If so, of course, you have to wonder who and if this attack happened, what long-term impact does this have on the new Pakistani government?

So many questions, hopefully some will be answered.

For anyone that has watched the news in the past week, at least knows about the recent conflict between Georgia and Russia. I unfortunately wasn't able to post about the conflict until now.

This was probably the most difficult conflict for me to read about - simply because the propaganda on both sides were so strong. Both still insist the other side committed genocide, intentionally killed hundreds/thousands of civilians and many other claims...oh yeah, almost forgot ethnic cleansing.

Once the dust somewhat settled, some facts were found out:

• Technically Georgia started the War. South Ossetia, some elements, fired upon Georgia which sparked the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. (ironic, invading your own country...)
• The 2000 killed by Georgia in South Ossetia, accused by Russia, was discounted by Human Rights Watch, citing hospital sources at about 44 dead and 273 wounded.
• After the initial cease-fire was declared, Russia advanced further into Georgia.
• There have been incidents involving South Ossetia, Russia and Georgian troops actually firing at Journalists. Angry Georgian troops started pointing and firing a pistol at Journalists (video shown on FOX News), a now famous youtube video of a Russian sniper shooting at a Journalist and another video of two Turkish journalists in a car being caught in the cross-fire, one was shot in the head. (but is somehow okay)

In the end of this...well there isn't an end in sight. Russia has no intent of letting Georgia EVER get back South Oessetia or Abkhazia. Whereas Georgia (as well as it's citizens) intend to get both back someday. If there's good news, it could be if UN troops take over "peacekeeping" duties from Russia, this will at least delay the inevitable.

Maybe the worst part of this, aside from the negatives of war, is the long-term relations hit this will have on the US and Russia. What's more is that it has now peaked a big question in the minds of analysts and normal everyday person - does this now mean Russia will take action against other countries that were once under USSR control?

Continued...

I'm a HUGE news guy, especially middle east news and I'm always watching out to see what's going to be big news or at least something that I have to keep an eye out for, news wise. Although the media coverage will probably be weak, the one area you have to keep an eye on is Pakistan.

I posted a little over a month ago questioning whether Pakistan could even be an ally - Pakistan is an ally?

At the time I thought it was a big deal, but it would cool down - wrong. Just two weeks after my blog I saw quite an interesting article on The Long War Journal:

Northwest Pakistan descends into chaos

In a nutshell, not only is Pakistan struggling to keep control of some areas of there own country, but in several areas they have no control and in others, are losing control. Ironically one story that was heavily reported was when 9 US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, one story that has not been heavily reported is that once again the US was fired upon from fighters inside Pakistan - US returns fire on Taliban inside Pakistan. So what's all this mean?

Although I think it's for political reasons, Obama is right to shift the focus to Afghanistan. We can send over 10,000 troops and that would help, but it's also a situation that requires a second aspect being fixed - Pakistan. How? That's the un-answered question.

The ISI (Pakistan Intelligence) is often said to have at least element cooperating with the Taliban, at minimum. Musharaf won't be in power for that much longer and he's not in a situation where he can do that much.

A prime example is the Indian Embassy bombing in Afghanistan, more than 60 killed. Shortly after there were articles questioning Pakistans involvement - Is ISI behind Kabul embassy blast?. However the tip of that iceberg was the Afghanistan President, Hamid Karzai, publicly accused Pakistani agents of involvement in the embassy bombing, specifically even the ISI of orchestrating attacks in Afghanistan - Link. I'll keep updated on this topic and I recommend all readers do the same.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I honestly thought that this newest truce between Hamas and Israel wouldn't last a day, heck I wouldn't of been surprised to hear that it was blown in an hour. (I think that's happened before...) But somehow it took 5 days for Hamas to violate the cease-fire agreement.

AP Story - Rockets fired at Israel from Gaza shake truce

Depite at times the media having trouble covering anything related to Isreal fairly, I was surprised to see the only one who had a little trouble was MSNBC - Link. It's kind of funny how they go from reporting the story fine and then take a deep dive. Let's take a look:

"Militants in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip fired at least two rockets into southern Israel on Tuesday, breaching a five-day-old cease-fire."

I still have no idea why groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are regarded only as "militants" and not "terrorists", but whatever. Anyway, starting out it looks good.

"The attack came hours after Israeli troops killed two Palestinians in a West Bank raid. The victims included an Islamic Jihad commander. The militant group later claimed responsibility for firing the rockets, saying the attack was intended to avenge the Israeli operation."

Okay, a prelude to the violation, that's good to note.

"The West Bank is not formally part of the Gaza truce. But the Israeli raid could be seen as violating the spirit of the cease-fire."

See, this is why I went through the first few paragraphs. We go from the general situation to a crafty two sentences where the writer actually says that the area Israel had the raid (West Bank) was "not formally part of the Gaza truce", then preceeded to say that it could be considered as a violation of the truce. (or the spirit of it, whatever that means)

It truly is crafty writing. "not formally" part of the truce in reality means the West Bank is NOT part of the truce, period. Then "violating the spirit of the cease-fire" means that actually they may have violated the cease-fire.

As part of the cease-fire, Hamas claimed responsibility to keep the other groups in check (they are in charge, after all). This means that they didn't and it violates the cease-fire, Hamas being the one that broke it. To end this post, I leave you with a pretty funny headline from "Ace of Spades HQ":

MSNBC: Israel Violates Hamas Ceasefire By Allowing Itself to Be Attacked By Rockets