A Blast in the Proxy War
Posted on 26. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Two longtime Afghanistan hands, Elizabeth Rubin and Bob Shepherd, have told us repeatedly about the struggle between Pakistan and India playing out on the field of Afghanistan. And, by all accounts, the three suicide bombings today in Kabul targeted Indian nationals.
Two of the explosions occurred at guesthouses for Indians working in Afghanistan, and a Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera that the goal had been to strike at the “enemies of Afghanistan from among the foreign Indians.”
So what does this mean as the US steps up its involvement?
Well, for one thing, as Bob Shepherd tells us today, “It would appear as several steps back from the exit strategy if McChrystal has to put troops back into securing Kabul again.
No Love for India
“It makes the flag raising on the dot on the landscape of Marjah look very insignificant when NATO have nothing to do with securing the capital.”
The Pakistani government, as we know, has been working with the US to track down—and successfully so—Taliban members. Additionally, only yesterday, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India met, for the first time since the Mumbai bombing. “The attack looks to have more to do with [that] meeting, given the amount of Indian deaths in the attacks and Indian managed establishments that were hit,” Shepherd points out.
The Taliban—and others—have a vested interest in keeping up tensions. For one thing, more trouble between Pakistan and India means less heat on them. Seven out of 15 members of Mullah Omar’s branch of the Taliban have been captured by Pakistan in the past few weeks.
- Michele Mitchell
How to Start a Restaurant
Posted on 26. Feb, 2010 by admin in Economy, Middle Class Crunch
The economic crisis has caused a lot of businesses to close their doors, but it hasn’t been all bad.
Luis Morales saw an an opportunity in the crisis. With two fellow investors, he decided to open the first modern pan-Asian restaurant in San Jose, Costa Rica. Called Gan-Bei – which means “Cheers” in Chinese – the restaurant is the one place that serves fortune cookies in all of Costa Rica. So if you’re in San Jose and want to hear your fortune, go to Gan-Bei!
We recently spoke with Morales about the trials and tribulations of starting a business.
http://www.vimeo.com/9759667
The Rules of Engagement vs. Hearts & Minds
Posted on 25. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
This week, General Stanley McChrystal apologized to the Afghan people and personally to President Karzai after at least 27 civilians were killed by a NATO airstrike in the southern Province of Uruzgan. To his credit, General McChrystal has taken concrete steps to limit civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Since becoming commander of coalition forces, he has tightened the rules of engagement to restrict the use of artillery attacks and airstrikes. These measures were definitely needed. But I would like to see General McChrystal go even further.
Admittedly, General McChrytal has a tough balancing act. Limiting the rules of engagement, especially in an insurgency, makes it harder for the troops on the ground to pursue the enemy. But the devastating impact of civilian causalities on the coalition’s objectives cannot be overstated. Afghanistan is unquestionably a media-led war and an incident like the one in Uruzgan can easily overshadow weeks of restrained operations by coalition forces. Every time a civilian is killed inadvertently by NATO forces it is a public relations victory for the Taliban and other militant groups.
Not Winning Hearts and Minds
For the better part of this conflict, coalition troops have been spread thin on the ground and artillery attacks and airstrikes have been used to compensate whenever they get into trouble. But the cost of using these blunt instruments is proving too dear, especially in a conflict where the enemy uses civilians as human shields (a time honoured terrorist tactic). I fought my first insurgency at the age of 17 and continued fighting them throughout my twenty-three year military career. I can’t imagine what would have happened if the British military had whacked a missile into a Belfast estate because an IRA member had fired on a patrol or was believed to be hiding in a house. Such tactics would have obliterated any chance of a peaceful resolution to ‘the troubles’.
Afghanistan is a messy conflict and the Taliban will always nestle among innocents. But NATO must hold itself to the highest possible standards by doing everything in its power to avoid civilian deaths. Airpower in Afghanistan should be restricted to mobility and surveillance purposes only. To compensate for the loss of airstrikes, NATO should concentrate its forces in specific areas to achieve its objectives. No more leaving the troops to battle against extraordinary odds because they’re spread out like butter.
Restricting the rules of engagement further could very well draw out the conflict even more. But unless it wins the battle for hearts and minds, NATO’s war in Afghanistan will never end.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Suck it, Congress!
Posted on 23. Feb, 2010 by admin in Economy, Middle Class Crunch
The Iwig family knew they’d run out of time to save their dairy – the bank was ready to foreclose, emergency funds promised by the federal government were slow in coming, and their congresswoman wasn’t returning their calls. So they played the last card they had: their community.
Check out the latest “Political Graffiti” episode, featuring the conclusion of the battle to save the Iwig family farm.
Falkland Feud
Posted on 19. Feb, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Environment, Uncategorized
At this moment, the UK is sending a deep-sea oil drilling platform over to the Falkland Islands, and the Argentineans don’t like it one bit. The government has arrested a ship bringing in supplies, and it has even passed a law that all ships sailing to the Falklands through its waters need a special permit.
The Falkland sovereignty question goes back decades. Britain and Argentina fought a war over the islands in the early 1980’s. Argentina lost, and the issue, not surprisingly, still stings.
The last two Argentinean administrations have aggressively pursued new negotiations. In 2007, then-president Nestor Kirchner unilaterally scrapped an agreement with the UK to share fishing rights and the proceeds of oil discovered in Falkland waters.
The recent flare up of tensions isn’t really about the Falklands’ sovereignty; it’s about money. Geologists estimate that up to 60 billion barrels of oil could lie in the seabed around the islands. It’s no secret what a difference the extra revenue could make to Argentina’s rapidly deteriorating finances.
60 billion barrels and it's all ours!
Some argue that current president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is using the Falkland question to stir up nationalist sentiments to divert attention away from the country’s large international debt. Thirteen billion dollars of Argentina’s international debt matures this year and economists predict a budget shortfall of up to $7 billion.
But is Argentina acting in its own interest? No. The country stands to gain tremendously from a large oil boom. The Falklands – populated by a mere 3,000 people – don’t have anywhere near enough man-power, infrastructure or space to helm a large drilling and extraction operation (and neither do the islanders want to).
There’s a lot of room for Argentina and the UK to work together. Argentina would be the natural choice to land oil on the mainland. In this high priced energy environment, even a couple hundred thousand barrels a day of oil could plug a significant part of Argentina’s budget deficit. However, if the UK doesn’t see a good partner in Argentina, it could easily opt for Brazil as a viable alternative.
If it wants to capitalize on any oil windfall, Argentina needs to find another way to manage relations with England and its island neighbor.
- Ed Head
A Pivotal Week for Afghanistan?
Posted on 18. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
The past week has witnessed two actions billed as possible turning points for the war in Afghanistan: the launch of Operation Moshtarak in Helmund and the capture of Mullah Baradar, the top military commander of Mullah Omar’s Taliban. Could either event be a potential game changer?
The capture of Mullah Baradar is significant, especially if it leads to the arrest of Mullah Omar and/or more of his top tier commanders. But I doubt whether taking Mullah Baradar out of action will make a drastic difference at ground level in Afghanistan. After all, Mullah Omar’s Taliban is just one insurgent group fighting the coalition. Mullah Baradar’s arrest is unlikely to curtail the operations of the Haqqani network (which many consider the most capable militant group in Afghanistan at present) or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-i-Islami.
War Weary in Helmund
The impact of Mullah Baradar’s capture on Operation Moshtarak, the joint NATO-Afghan offensive in Helmund, is more difficult to gauge. Having lost their top military commander, Mullah Omar’s Taliban must now scramble for a replacement whilst under fire. They are on the back foot. But with an estimated ratio of fifteen coalition troops to one insurgent, Moshtarak was never a battle the Taliban were going to win anyway.
The bigger question is whether Operation Moshtarak will, in the words of one US commander, mark ‘the beginning of the end of the insurgency’ in Afghanistan. NATO forces, as always, appear to be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities in very difficult circumstances. But the clear, hold and build strategy laid out by General Stanley McChrystal has a major weakness in my view. Keeping the locals on side has been a key feature of the so-called ‘new war model’ that has shaped Moshtarak; hence why civilians living in and around target areas were given ample warning to evacuate.
I first travelled to Helmund back in 2004 when I drove with a small team of journalists unilaterally from Kabul to Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital. I’ve visited the province several times since then through military embeds with the media and while accompanying other actors. My interactions with civilians in the province have admittedly been brief. But one, unmistakable message I have gleaned through the years is that the people of Helmund are tired of outside forces destroying their villages and interfering with their lives.
While I’m confident that the coalition will succeeded in driving the Taliban out of strongholds in Helmund, the plan to have ANA forces hold those areas will do nothing to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population. The people of Helmund are ethnic Pashtoon. The ANA by contrast is dominated by Tajiks. Don’t forget that back in 1992, a bitter civil war erupted between ethic Pashtoons and the Tajik-led Northern Alliance. Many Afghans still regard that period as the worst in living memory. A Tajik-led ANA force will not be well received in Helmund or any other part of southern Afghanistan. It will be seen as alien as NATO and possibly more hostile. General Stanley McChrystal’s ‘government in a box’ that is ‘ready to roll in’ after the offensive is also unlikely to impress the locals. You cannot impose a government on people and expect them to embrace it.
Operation Moshtarak will definitely change the game in Helmund, but to whose long-term advantage?
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com. To listen to an interview with Bob, please click here.
Taliban Shakeup
Posted on 17. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Eight years after the September 11th attacks, Afghanistan remains mired in violence and war. (Check out this 2008 episode of Common Sense to see what we mean.) Last summer, with the country plunging further into chaos, President Obama decided to raise troop levels by 30,000, hoping to pull back out in a couple years
Whether this new strategy will succeed, only time will tell. But in the past week there seems to have been some payoff. The Taliban’s deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was captured in Karachi, with the help of Pakistani intelligence. The capture came right as coalition forces were staging an attack in the Taliban stronghold of Helmand.
A few months back we checked in with our regular columnist Bob Shepherd, ex-SAS officer and author of the best-selling The Circuit, to get his thoughts on Obama’s troop increase. Now Shepherd weighs in on where the Taliban stands after the latest blows.
The Health Insurance Noose
Posted on 16. Feb, 2010 by admin in Economy, Uncategorized
Wendell Potter, former CIGNA executive-turned-health-watchdog, told us last fall that, no matter what happens with Congress and its health reform bill, the current rate of premium increases was unsustainable. It was only a matter of time, he said on “Political Graffiti,” until insurance cost more than the average household earns.
“Before it costs someone’s entire salary, we’re seeing more and more people go without it because they can’t afford it,” said Mike Tipping of the grassroots group Maine People’s Alliance.
How's my pulse, doc?
Tipping points to Anthem, the insurance company that has a near 100 percent monopoly on health insurance—wants to raise individual rates by as much as 23 percent. (The kicker is that Anthem is currently suing the state of Maine for pushing back against the 32 percent increase the company requested last year.)
Maine has relatively strong consumer protections, Tipping explained, so companies like Anthem “aim big because they know it’s going to get cut back.”
“Also,” Tipping added, “they’re shameless.”
There’s not a lot of variety. Anthem, for example, is a subsidiary of Wellpoint, which incidentally had a fourth-quarter profit of $4.75 billion in 2009.
So why raise rates? Anthem says it’s because of the bad economy, rising health care costs and—perhaps related—more people canceling their individual plans. The company also points out that the increases affect only a small group of people, those who obtain individual policies. The lucky folks with insurance through their employers, whoever they are now, presumably will remain unaffected.
But as companies should, of course, be allowed to make a profit, let’s take a quick look at the evolution of the medical loss ratio: in the early 1990s, health insurance companies spent more than 95 cents out of every premium dollar to paying doctors and hospitals for taking care of their members; today, insurers pay about 81 cents. And state laws often give them even more leeway.
For example, California—currently facing its own hike issues with Anthem—requires only 70 cents go to actual care.
The medical loss ratio, of course, is one way investors measure profitability. Potter points out in his blog that “in a private health insurance industry that collected $817 billion this year, a 14 percentage point difference in the MLR represents $112 billion a year.”
A small business owner in Marietta, Georgia, who saw his insurance go up 35 percent last year, told us he had to reduce his coverage just to be able to afford it.
“Not only do I pay more with my rate raised, my deductible went up a thousand dollars, so that’s another 80 dollars a month,” he said. “I am now in a position that if I were to come down with cancer, my insurance would last until it rose so much I couldn’t pay it. I would go bankrupt. They can’t cancel your insurance but they can raise your rate so much that you have to cancel it.”
- Michele Mitchell
A Dangerous Decade for Journalists
Posted on 12. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
The latest World Press Freedom Review from the International Press Institute contained some sobering figures: 735 journalists died between 2000 and 2009 in conflicts – 110 last year alone. Not surprisingly, the country which proved most hazardous last decade was Iraq where 170 journalists lost their lives.
Journalists working in their own countries were most at risk. But the IPI did hone in on a disturbing trend; namely ‘the deliberate targeting’ of journalists in conflict areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Pakistan. Having advised journalists in hostile environments since 2002, I have gained the utmost respect for them. To venture into war zones unarmed and unable to defend against attack takes incredible courage and commitment. Yet too often journalists fail to fully appreciate the hazards they face in conflict areas. I believe more can be done to improve their security.
I’m not going to list all the dos and don’ts of operating in a hostile environment (that is best suited to a full professional training course – something which in my view every journalist should undertake before going to a conflict area). But over the years, I’ve seen even so-called ‘seasoned’ war correspondents ignore some key security basics. Topping the list: awareness. The first rule of operating in a hostile environment is to be aware of your surroundings. This applies as much to walking around the streets as it does to traveling from point A to point B. I can’t tell you how many journalists I’ve seen try to nod off or bury their heads in a Blackberry during a vehicle move. All eyes need to be open and aware to potential hazards when transiting through a conflict zone. The last thing you want is to wake up in the middle of an incident not knowing where you are or what the situation is. Seconds can mean the difference between life and death.
In the Line of Fire
Planning is also an area I’ve seen wanting. Rather than dive head first into a story, journalists in hostile environments need to step back and consider whether it is even possible to access the areas they need to visit. If it is, they must then weigh the safest way to get there – walking, driving or flying. Once in situ, they need to be cognizant of how much time they spend on the ground or whether it is even safe to venture outside their transport. Many of these questions can be answered with the help of local fixers who usually have a very good feel for the environment in which they are operating. But a fixer’s knowledge is of no use when it falls on deaf ears. If a local staffer thinks something is too dangerous, listen to them.
Those charged with commissioning and assigning news stories can also do more to improve security for journalists in conflict zones. In my view, news organization should not commission stories from inexperienced freelancers offering from hostile environments. It sets a bad precedent. As for staff correspondents and support crews, news managers need to ensure that the individuals they assign to hostile environments have the right training, skills, mentality and physical fitness for the job. I’d also like to see management show a greater willingness to make the final decision on whether to pursue a potentially hazardous assignment rather than leave it to the journalists on the ground. It’s not unheard of for journalists to push their luck because they feel it’s expected of them.
Finally, I think experienced journalists have a responsibility to deglamourize war reporting to the next generation. I don’t think it’s clever when journalists (especially famous ones) boast about the risks they take or how they’ve been wounded and/or kidnapped. With any luck, journalists coming up the ranks will ignore the tales of derring-do, look at the casualty figures of the last decade – and proceed with caution.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Remembering Charlie
Posted on 11. Feb, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
I met Charlie Wilson right after 9/11. I was supposed to go to Peshawar to hook up with Abdul Haq, a former mujahedeen who I had interviewed in Rome during the loya jirga planning meeting in the crazed week that followed the attacks, and one of my friends in Washington suggested I meet with Wilson first, just to double-check Haq.
Charles Nesbitt Wilson: June 1, 1933 – February 10, 2010
Wilson was already legendary—he was a longtime congressman when I worked as a communications director to a fellow Texas Democrat, and everyone seemed to have a “Good Time Charlie” story, always recounted fondly. One of my colleagues was invited by Wilson to go to Israel and Russia, and our boss wouldn’t let him. “You? Go with Charlie? To Russia? I’ll never see either of you again,” he said.
Most congressmen, if they had pets, had dogs. There were a lot of dogs, in fact, walking the halls of Congress. But not Wilson. He had two cats, enormous Himalayans, who lived in his office and who, on a regular basis, would walk into his committee room even during hearings. It was a bit startling for those testifying,
By the time I had lunch with him in 2001, Wilson was drinking mineral water and was lobbying for, among others, Pakistan. But he was loaded with sage advice about my upcoming trip, saying, “Haq is one of the few white hats over there,” and then, more sadly, “Haq has had a lot of people disappoint him.”
It was only much later that I realized Wilson was considering himself in those ranks. He took it very personally that the U.S. ignored Afghanistan after the war with the Soviets. He might have had a stinger hanging in his congressional office, but Wilson was no war enthusiast. He wanted to do the “right” thing, and he felt his responsibility.
- Michele Mitchell