The Sons of Iraq.. I mean Afghanistan.

As the readership knows, I have occasionally used my post at the Casbah to criticize Dan Rather. Take last week for example, Dan had three younger, thrill seeking so-called Iraq professionals depict the the country like it was a amusement park--enough to make anyone crazy.

So last night I held my breath and bought Rather's new program on Afghanistan (on itunes of course). The Commander, so it is called, seems to take an honest look at the dire situation in Afghanistan. Unlike his program on Iraq, Rather interviewed top U.S. General David McKiernan, who gave a sobering assessment of the military's role in the country.

The aspect of the interview that I would like to focus on, however, is the paying off of Afghan tribesmen--Iraqi style. The logic goes: 1,300 dollars a year can employ an Afghan police officer, allow him to train under Western supervision, and take much of the burden and threat off coalition forces. This new strategy also offers a sort of economic stimulus to rural areas because the money that the Afghan officers make is largely sent to support the officers families.

While General McKiernan doesn't go into any details about this "Sons of Afghanistan" program, scholar Daveed Gartenstine-Ross breaks it down in his new piece, "How to Export an Awakening." Very interesting idea. We must remember that many of these federal institutions are going to be built for the first time in Afghanistan, not to mention that the place has some of the lowest literacy and highest poverty in the world. Statecraft will not be as "easy" as it proved in Iraq.

Think it will work?

Oh, and another thing... isn't it time that the U.S. starts to develop another institution for nation building other than the Army? We need people who are trained in local customs and economy, not just combat. But at the end of the day, it looks like the Army is stuck with it until a "Department of Nation Building" is created.

From Luxembourg to Pakistan: May I Ask Who's Calling?

Ahmad Naeem Khan, a respected journalist from greaterreporter, wrote a great article a few years back on mobile phone fever that swept Pakistan in a matter of months. From 2003 to 2004, mobile phone purchases and registered numbers increased 500 percent according to Ufone statistics. Most users were listed as labourers who earn as little as $1.60 per day, but can be seen jabbering away on their $50 cell phones with ten dollar a month service packages.

Although many of the companies offer reciepient pay packages; where the person answering the call pays for the call, which is the most popular package currently in operation. Many of the users, estimated to be around 4 million, spend almost half of their monthly income on cell phone charges.

Instaphone, a Luxembourg based telecommunications company and the largest supplier of cell phones to Pakistan, stated that interviews by the company have concluded that many Pakistani's consider the cell phones a "necessity in the new age of instant communication". SO I was wondering to myself what the cell phones value scale was in comparison to other "necessities" at a cost of half of one's income?

SO in a follow up to Khan's article, The Rooster has contacted Instaphone for an interview request, for which I have recieved no response as of yet. When I do recieve a response, I plan to ask what measures are being taken to assist the market of labourers in providing other "necessities" in this new age of instant whatever...like say jobs that pay more than $1.60 a day?

Time for an Election, Iraqi style

I'm guessing you have heard: Iraq is having an election. It’s the second major election since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. For the Sunni population, who boycotted the first election, this will be the first time their community comes out in large numbers. Personally, I am going to be looking for two things:

1. Who takes the south. Remember, these are provincial elections. The two main contenders are the Shia religious parties, Dawa and SIIC. Dawa is the less religious--if you can call them that--party of Prime Minister Maliki. SIIC is nominally controlled by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who chooses to wear clerical robes and openly embraces Iran. Keeping an eye on who wins this bitter battle could be an overture to were the Shia bloc is headed.

2. The Sunni's vote. While many experts are guessing that the overall turnout will not be as high as the first election, many are expecting the Sunni's to come out in a more proportional manor. But keep an eye on security and political assassinations. Just yesterday alone, three Sunni politicians were killed--one in Mosul, one in Diyala and one in Baghdad. They all came from different factions.

So now all we can do is wait. The streets are expected to be swamped with chaos, but also lined with security. If Iraq can pull off this election, freely and in relative peace, then it will certainty say a lot about were the country is going--and how the next chapter will be written.

So now I need to learn Arabic, Dari and Urdu?

Ever since 9/11 there has been a flurry of Americans graduating from Arabic language courses. The reason should be obvious, but if it isn't, it’s as the hardcore Iraqi based journalist, Richard Engel, said when asked why he learned Arabic: “[I] decided that the Middle East would be the story of my generation." Read the article if you have time, it's pretty cool.

But Engel isn't the reason for this post. No, the reason is that I'm a bit frustrated at the moment; I can't decide what language I should be learn.

With Arabic, one could talk to all 22 countries in the Arab League. While regional dialects remain different, the basic modern standard version works as a means of communication--thank all those Arab TV stations for this one.

With Dari, or should I just say Persian, one could talk to people in Iran, Afghanistan and a few Tajiks as well. Not a lot of Westerners know a Persian language and having even basic skills would unlock a lot of what could be called “old Persia.”

And then there is Urdu, the language of Pakistan. How can one ignore this? Pakistan is going to be the story of 2009. And it's kind of nerving to watch British and American news agencies try to come to terms with this reality. Mostly because nobody in the West--outside of the CIA--speaks Urdu, or has really any understanding of the place. The people who are currently covering Pakistan are underpaid, undertrained, diehards who are given a camera to point at dangerous places. If you want to read a good book review to back this claim, click here.

So there it is; the Arab countries are going to be the story of my lifetime; Persian is language of a revival, and Urdu is without a doubt the story of the year—I’d even bet the next decade.
Any suggestions?

Live from Bethlehem

As a loyal reader, listener and viewer of the only independent media network in Palestine, I was thrilled to stumble upon a link to this trailer for a new documentary about Ma'an News Agency. Check it out.

Obama to address dissidence campaign inside Iran in letter

Here at the Casbah, it seems that every week or so we start talking—by this I mean speculating--about the CIA/JSOC's covert operations inside Iran. It is a piece of an even larger issue: the U.S. and Iran are engaged in a cold war.

The Guardian did a very interesting special today about the letter that President Obama and his State Department are going to send to Iranian leaders--largely thought to be a response to President Ahmadinejad's "welcome to leadership" letter he sent to Obama.

As the Guardian reports, the CIA/JSOC's actions within Iran will be one of the key issues in the letter. Take a look.

"One of the chief Iranian concerns revolves around suspicion that the US is engaged in covert action aimed at regime change, including support for separatist groups in areas such as Kurdistan, Sistan-Baluchestan and Khuzestan."

Obama's shuttle diplomacy a precursor to love?

In case you did'nt know, the term "shuttle diplomacy" became widespread following Henry Kissinger's term as U.S. Secretary of State. Kissinger participated in shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East and in the People's Republic of China. The notion of shuttle diplomacy is said to have emerged from Kissinger's efforts in the Middle East in the early 1970s. He flew back and forth between Middle Eastern capitals for months in an effort to bring about peace after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. The central feature of his "American Plan" was separating the ceasefire from long-range problems and minimizing Russian involvement in the process.

In the major outbreak of Israel-Hezbollah fighting in 1996, U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher conducted shuttle diplomacy, traveling to, among other places, Syria. Having persuaded the Syrians to rein in Hezbollah, Christopher achieved a cease-fire, sort of.

In 2008 shuttle diplomacy was used by Matthew Nimetz between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia to resolve the Macedonian naming dispute. Enter the Obama administration...

Officials of Barack Obama's administration have drafted a letter to Iran from the president aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks.

Supposedly, the U.S. State Department has been working on drafts of the letter since Obama was elected on 4 November of last year. It's in reply to a lengthy letter of congratulations sent by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Obama on 6 November.

So, are we witnessing the beggining of a new era of shuttle diplomacy by the Obama camp? Who cares anyway? Well, shuttle diplomacy has been largely successful at staging presidential visits and open communique between rival countries. And as history shows, it is usually a precursor to some sort of partnership, either business or pleasure.

Guru Friedman and his so-called 5-Stater

Abu G. isn't always the biggest fan of THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN. Abu G. thinks, along with many others, that Thomas L. Friedman has a propensity to over simplify. And while Abu G. isn't always Thomas L. Friedman's biggest fan, Abu G thinks that his article in the NY Times today was worth reading.

The speculative nature of a second King Abdullah interview is thought provoking. Just the other day Abu G. remembers hearing the King threatening, no wait, telling, a TV station that his 2002 Peace Plan was going to be taken off the table if everyone doesn’t serious up a bit. So yeah, it's a good time for a guy like Friedman--who got the original interview for the plan--to speculate a little. After all, the Times needs to sell more papers.

The so-called 5-State Solution sounds reasonable. But Abu G. quarrels with the fact that it says nothing about the existing counter forces of the five-state alliance, I.E., Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah etc.. What if point #2, Hamas and Fatah forming a national unity government, suffers from the same kind of fractionalization that has hit the Middle East; what if the Hamas/Fatah division is one of the front lines of this regional tension?

So while Abu G. is all for the 5-State Solution, Abu G. would like to hear guru Friedman suggest how these currents of division can be tamed--then we can talk about a 5-stater.

Meet the Casbah Guerrillas'

Comrades,

As you may or may not know, the Casbah has been like a child to me. But as the world expands--moreover I mean--as our understanding of the world expands, well, so do our avenues for commenting on it. So, without further delay, I would like to introduce the new team of Casbah Guerrillas’--aka the blogging staff.

Coming in at a meaty 5'11 or so, with a charisma that is deadly with allure, we have, The Rooster. Although his name suggests that this might be a blog about farming, don't let it fool you--this cat means business. He was in northern Israel during the 2006 War and watched Nusrallah's Katyushas fly over his head without fear. The Rooster will cover international news, weaponry, and even throw in a Zionist rant everyone once in a while. But let me tell you, if you like cyber- warfare, he's your guy.

Not to be outdone by The Roosters saga with Hezbollah rockets, Abu Danger was in Lebanon during the IDF's strikes. Abu Danger, I recall the story was something like: officials kicked everyone out of the American University of Beirut, so you naturally went to the store, bought out all their beer--with a few buddies of course--then proceeded to the roof of your high rise apartment, to drink the beer and watch Israeli warplanes have a field day on the airport in Beirut. But never mind; Abu Danger is our Middle East correspondent. He is our eyes and ears on the streets of Palestine. He works at a Palestinian news agency--that will never be mentioned--and posts exclusive interviews, such as the one with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, that happened a few weeks ago. Abu Danger...trust me, you don't want to quarrel with Abu Danger.

And then there is myself, the Sheik of the Casbah, the Emir of the streets, the Shah persuasion, Abu Guerilla. I write about such things as counterinsurgency, Middle East politics, American war's in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and even those crazy non-state actors that all the kids talk about.

So with that said, I would like to restate the mission of this blog: "This site is dedicated to Middle Eastern current events, analysis, travelers, diehards and anyone else who stumbled across this ancient Casbah"—and I mean it.

If there is one vision, one reason that this team has been assembled, it is that we are trying to provide a non-conventional approach to understanding the Middle East. We are young and have traveled to many countries in the region. So while traditional scholars tend to rarely escape the confines of their academic prison, we, have dedicated our lives to knowing the streets of the Casbah.

From San Diego CA,
Abu G.

P.S. Casbah is a transliteration from French to Arabic. It literally means old city, as the front picture shows. I took it in Nablus, Palestine in 2007.

America's Little Dragon: Singapore and the fight against terrorism.

Many have only heard of Singapore in reference to the famous drink the "Singapore Sling" named after the tiny bustling island nation. Located in Southeast Asia, Singapore is little known to the majority of westerners, although it is very well known to the estimated 7000 multi-national corporations that operate out of the conservate yet business friendly city-state.

So what does Singapore have to do with the fight against terrorism, or in Middle East politics for that matter? Well, let me enlighten you to a much overlooked aspect of U.S. policy decisions in respect to Asia and the Middle East.

Due to Singapore’s strategic location on major sea lanes, combined with an industrious population has given the country a unique economic importance in Southeast Asia that is disproportionate to its small size. According to the State Department of the United States, in response to its lack of natural resources, Singapore adopted a pro-business, pro-foreign investment, export-oriented economic policy framework . Thus, the United States has maintained formal diplomatic relations with Singapore since 1965 following its independence. The subsequent efforts by the Singapore government to maintain economic growth and political stability, in conjunction with its pro-business, pro-foreign investment policy framework have created a solid basis for the harmonious relations with the United States. Singapore has produced real growth that averaged eight percent from 1969 to 1999, reaching a high of ten percent by the year 2000. The effects of this growth have been directly influential to the position that Singapore holds in regards to America’s presence in Southeast Asia, making Singapore the United States’ strongest supporter in the region.

Singapore boasts one of the most conservative societies of Southeast Asia, and many of the politicians subsequently view jihadi groups as a prime security threat, a worldwide view it shares equally with Washington. Yet even before the emergence of jihadi groups to the region, Singapore viewed the U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific as crucial to its security and regional stability. Perceived threats from the Soviet Union, a growing Chinese military, and a nearby Japan loomed heavily in the minds of the little island. With the emergence of global terrorist organizations, and the spread of Al Qaeda's ties in Southeast Asia, Singapore became even more influential in American foreign policy.

To compliment the economic relationship between America and Singapore, the government of Singapore and its citizens for the most part, also support a strong American military presence in Asia. In June 2004 at the annual International Institute for Strategic Studies conference in Singapore, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged “our steadfast friends here in Singapore” in the context of facing terrorism and other security challenges.

The United States and Singapore have come to view each other as vital partners, especially in regards to regional security and the “war on terrorism”. In 2000, Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, told the Williamsburg Conference that “no other country can substitute for the U.S.”. In 2005, not long after the Prime Minister made public Singapore’s ardent support for the United States, the two governments signed a Strategic Framework Agreement that updated a 1990 Memorandum of Understanding allowing U.S. military forces to exercise with Singaporean forces.

Recently, as of June of this year, the Singapore Armed Forces, the United States Navy, and the United States Coast Guard are all participating in the annual U.S.-Singapore Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training exercise , the fourteenth exercise of the series that began in 1995. Additionally, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Singapore hosts between eighty and one hundred U.S. Navy ship visits per year. Complimenting the Naval ship visits, Singapore has constructed a new dock on the Changi Naval Pier for U.S. carriers as well as extended the runway at the Changi International Airport out to the dock. Officials from the U.S. Navy noted that, “It will be the only facility where planes can be off-loaded from carriers in this part of the world” . Clearly Singapore has taken major steps in ensuring the United States remains an active presence in Southeast Asia.

So, after all that, I will address the fact that Singapore is and will continue to be a major influence for U.S. policy in both Southeast Asia and in regards to the Middle East. Next time a policy is enacted, look for the connection to Singapore, I'm sure you will not be dissapointed.

Barack Obama on al Arabiya

And so it happened; last night President Obama addressed the Arab world via Saudi TV. It was a move that is widely viewed as a first step in mending Arab-U.S. relations. Making such an appearance in the first weeks of his presidency--while having already deployed an Arab-Israeli peace team--shows that Obama means business.

I'm sure you have already heard people like Wolf Blitzer give his AIPAC like assessment on the interview, thus this post is not a traditional recap. So in the non-conventional spirit of the Casbah, I thought I would offer a few not-so-talked about points:

1. Did you know that the U.S. has an already has an Arab TV station? Get out of town, really?-- it does--it's called al Hurra. And while this station is notorious for having little credibility and even lower ratings, it continues to cost the American taxpayer a bundle. So if Obama isn't going to use it, then why is it still running? Shut it down already!

2. Big boost to Saudi Arabia. Yes, the Kingdom definitely feels good about this one. In the bitter Arab media wars, al Arabiya is the Saudi contestant. Even though its Qatar based rival network, al Jazeera, reaches more people, and got a boost on the Arab street by showing Israeli brutality in the recent Gaza nakba, al Arabiya is viewed as being a little more neutral. These dudes at Arabiya for sure got some credibility back from this Obama tape.

Army COIN: How Hezbollah Fits

I’ve been following the blog abu muqawama for about six months now. Cool guys; they’re edgy, light with humor and of course thought provoking. It's everything that makes for a good blog.

The lead dude, abu muqawama, did an article a few years back on Hezbollah and their military performance in the 2006 Lebanon War. At one point he posted it on his blog—and at another, I praised it on The Casbah.

In addition to reading abu muqawama's report on Hezbollah, I also got a hold of the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual—hyped on his blog of course. This 400+ word document, the so-called "Iliad of COIN," is credited with many of the strategies that transformed Iraq, aka The Surge. So for my next trick, I will draw on abu muqawama's article and fill in the COIN manual's rubric on how I understand Hezbollah.

Insurgents and Their Motives
(On page 9, if you have the manual. I will shorten the 'Point' when appropriate…don’t tell Gen. Petraeus)

Point 1: Root Causes of the Insurgency.
Abu G: The Shia oppression in Lebanon began before the French left a confusing constitution that defined the Shia as a politically inferior religious sect.

Hezbollah did not exist before the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982. With help from Iran, Hezbollah, meaning Party of God in Arabic, was formed primarily to protect the Lebanese Shia from the Israeli Defense Force. And what of the Palestinians after Black September? I'll leave that for another day.


Point 2: Extent to which the Insurgency Enjoys Internal and External Support.
Abu G: Internally, as in the Lebanese parliament, Hezbollah came out vastly ahead in May 2008 when the Lebanese government tried to crack down on their telecommunications network. It was a bloodless coup in Beirut. With the Shia population in Lebanon, Hezbollah has since become a popular political party. Especially because of its social services and rebuilding initiative after the 2006 War.

Externally, and according to Middle East author Vali Nasr, Hezbollah is generally viewed throughout the Arab world as a symbol for Israeli resistance. But to be specific, Iran and Syria are the official sponsors.


Point 3: Appeal to the Target Population (Ideology and Narrative).
Abu G: I once heard that Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, was described as Ayatollah Khomeini meets Che Guevara. Hezbollah has an anti-Zionist edge, but it makes sure to stick up for the Shia in Lebanese politics. To take this further, it has a regional vision that is part of a so-called Shia revival. (You can debate this with me if you like)


Point 4: Insurgents' Motivation and Depth of Commitment.
Abu G: One of the things that abu muqawama talked about in his essay on Hezbollah is how the level of commitment mirrored that of the Israeli's. The Arabs in '67 and '73 had regimes in which they never really believed, but Hezbollah guerrilla's showed in 2006 that they have the organization, drive, and tactical support to pull of a perceived stalemate with the IDF.


Point 5: Likely Insurgents Weapons and Tactics.
Abu G: This is where abu muqawama hits it out of the park with his military assessment of the 2006 War. On page 6 of his essay, there is a chart that is full of the weapons that Hezbollah used against Israel. But for this post, let’s just say that Hezbollah used the following: the AK-47 for machine guns, fired .122 caliber katyusha rockets, took out an alarming amount of Merkava’s with various anti-tank missiles, and finally, the C-802 Noor shore-to-ship missile that nearly sunk an Israeli naval ship.

As far as tactics are concerned, the Israeli Air Force came in with a heavy air campaign only to be followed by a conventional ground invasion by the IDF. It is certainly worth noting that the IDF is trained and largely employs American tactics—and suffered a perceived stalemate. Can’t stress this one enough.


Point 6: Operational Environment in which Insurgents Seek to Initiate and Develop Their Campaign and Strategy.
Abu G: This one is very tricky. Hezbollah and its relationship with the government in Beirut is a topic that you could write a book on. I described it, however, in an article I wrote for the Santa Barbara Independent last year. In short, I said, that although Hezbollah may be stronger than the Lebanese army, Hezbollah needs the weak government in Beirut in order to relieve the international pressure of owning a nation-state.

So I know what you’re thinking: how can you use this ultra-linear COIN manual to describe a non-conventional guerrilla movement like Hezbollah? Well yeah, I agree, but it's like the manual says: "few insurgencies fit neatly into any rigid classification."

But the real reason I took the time to write this post is that many people, including myself, often think of Hezbollah in an abstract, non-conventional sense. And stopping every once in a while to think about how an organization like Hezbollah fits into a bullet-pointed manual really shakes things up. So thank you neck-tied, no sense of humor writer of the Army COIN points; I see Lebanese guerrilla’s in a whole new light!

It's like my guy for your guy... ok?

As you may or may not know, al Jazeera does online specials on various Middle Eastern issues. One of these issues has been the controversial topic of the Israeli-Hezbollah prisoner swap after the 2006 Lebanon War.

More than a few times I've shared my disgust with the spiritual leader of The Casbah (Abu Danger) about the fact that Hezbollah had a huge celebration for Samir Kuntar upon his return to Israel. This guy, simply stated, is a baby killer. And it makes me sick when a group like Hezbollah--who has some legitimate political claims--welcomes back this psycho with flowers and parades.

All and all, the program is worth an hour of your time. The interviews that al Jazeera was able to get for this is certainly better than anything else I've seen. So clear out the afternoon, kick off your shoes, and tell your secretary to hold your calls--it's time to watch Israel negotiate with Hezbollah.

Click to Watch the Program

Hard Drugs and Rockin Roll: The last hope for the Middle East

The more I learn about the Middle East, the more I have learned to take Thomas Friedman with a grain of salt. He is an op-ed columnist at the NY Times. He has an agenda; he has to keep it below “X” amount of words.

My quarrel is that he often oversimplifies things. And in my highly non-scientific research of remembering various Friedman criticism over the past year, the stats agree.

Franco (a regular stumbler into this Casbah) posed a question not too long ago: "What would need to change in Israel, in order for them to shift their thinking?" Let me quote a passage of sage Friedman to answer. From his latest piece:

"It’s five to midnight and before the clock strikes 12 all we need to do is rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements, court Syria and engage Iran — while preventing it from going nuclear — just so we can get the parties to start talking."

And moreover, Friedman says that this whole rocket launching business needs to be shut down. If those 2-mile homemade Qassam's (fired from Gaza) turned into 20 miles studs from the West Bank, then all it would take would be a small band of rocket launching diehards to shut down the Tel-Aviv airport. Not even a green peace Israeli would let this one fly.

Yeah, Friedman... I want to like him; I want to think that his 'five to midnight' laundry list could mean something. But perhaps the real problem--the problem that Friedman left out--is that everyone has been too focused on what happens in Ramallah, Tel Aviv, Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus and Tehran and not focused enough on the cat sitting in the Oval Office—it’s a subjective opinion.