The Foreign Affairs Thread

[Chief Rum]

I had a brainstorm of an idea, given my recently renewed interest in world events and history and what not.

Iraq, the Sudan, Georgia, Venezuela, Palestine, etc.; we seem to have a lot of discussions that center around these places. I have found that we have had lots of good single focus threads at FOFC that have certainly helped both foster discussion on that focus, but also not messing up the OT forum with lots of different threads revolving around the same (loosely interpreted) issue. So why not a focus area for international affairs, with an eye toward America's role in the world, and the impact of various political and military and diplomatic events on both the world in general and specifically the U.S.?

Some issues, like America's role in Iraq, are probably (no, certainly) far too big for this thread. But others would fit in perfect here. The hotel bombing in Pakistan? The bombing in Oman? Russia's invasion of Georgia? Kim Jong-Il's rumored ill health? The American approach (and or responsibility) in the hot regions of the world, like the Middle East or the Pacific rim or sub-Sahara Africa? The UN approach to, well, anything?

It would be nice to come to one thread where people post critical world events that may not get as much play in the American media as they should, and then discuss their impact and what, if anything, should be done.

Likely as not, this thread will probably disappear andnothing will come of it. But I will give it a go, and see if it takes.

One helpful hint/request: if posting about an international event or linking to a stroy about said event, it might be a good idea to include the name of the country/region affected in the subject of your post.

Such as Pakistan subject area

Link to Islamabad bombing post area

But again, just a suggestion.

[Chief Rum]

BTW, while I am someone who finds himself in agreement with many of the ideas and policies of the Libertarian Party, one area where we differ sharply is in foreign affairs, where the LP is extremely isolationist. I believe we have an important role in the world, and a duty to participate in it. I also don't believe that isolationism as a policy really works anymore in today's global economy and political clime.

[Buccaneer]

But how far do you take the participation? Free economic trade and humanitarian aid are hallmarks of a libertarianistic philosophy but military aggressiveness and nation-building are not. What I don't know, though, is a WW2-like response to help the Allies. I guess I may be neutral on that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But how far do you take the participation? Free economic trade and humanitarian aid are hallmarks of a libertarianistic philosophy but military aggressiveness and nation-building are not. What I don't know, though, is a WW2-like response to help the Allies. I guess I may be neutral on that.

No, I agree, the isolationist philosophy of the Libertarian Party is much more limited to a military and political scope.

That said, I believe that America has put itself in a position to be required to be a world policeman. The world depends on the U.S. economically, but the U.S. depends on the world just as much. Few nations have the ability to exert their influence world wide as the U.S. can, and the fact is, there are few corners of the world in which we do not have an economic interest. So I believe we should accept the role of policeman--for our own benefit and self0interest in our own economy and the overall economic welfare of the American people.

People decry the U.S. for fighting over oil, for instance. It sounds and is nasty. But you know what? Oil is energy, and energy is economy, and economy is our financial (and in the long run, personal) well being.

What I don't like is the notion still sometimes thrown out there that we are somehow morally right to do this, or that we have a destiny to do this. Bull. We have the power, and it is in our interest to do this. As someone who is American before he is much anything else, I fully support actions that are in favor of Americans.

There are lines to not cross, of course, and those lines are often fuzzy, and I think that's where the discussions get really interesting (what actions are okay within the scope of our self-interest, and which ones are far beyond the pale from a moral point of view).

For instance, taking a leading role in the U.N., which can cause a lot of focus on us and force us to exert a lot of resources to that support and role is certainly on this side of that debate. Engaging in something truly abominable, like genocide, is at the extreme of the other side. Fighting for oil? There's an interesting discussion.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Anyone else expect this thread to be about Dr. Sak learning one of his cougars was a Russian mail order bride?

[Chief Rum]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27020496/


Countries push back against Somalia's pirates

Officials reinforce unified front to curb seizures in world's shipping lane

DEAUVILLE, France - Armed pirates aboard fast-moving skiffs have increasingly turned the shipping lanes off Somalia into a lucrative hunting grounds: commandeering vessels large and small and leaving the world's maritime powers frustrated about how to stop the seafaring bandits.

Now, however, momentum is growing for coordinated international action to back up the sharp response after the stunning seizure late last month of a Ukrainian cargo ship laden with tanks and heavy weaponry — as the pirates quickly found themselves encircled by U.S. warships and receiving only silence to their demands for millions of dollars in ransom.

It could be a sign of a more aggressive and unified front in the one of the world's most important shipping lanes.

Several European Union countries are planning to launch an anti-piracy patrol, and Russia announced Friday it would cooperate with the West on fighting the pirates. U.S. warships, meanwhile, are being diverted from counterterrorism duties to respond to the hijackers.

America and some of its allies already have 10 warships in the area in the Gulf of Aden, north of Somalia on Africa's eastern elbow and between the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.

France's defense minister this week — meeting in northern French seacoast town of Deauville — said eight EU countries have volunteered to take part in an anti-piracy operation off Somalia that could get a formal go-ahead next month.

Nobody has any illusions that the patrols — which officials say would at first involve only three frigates — will halt piracy through the Gulf of Aden, which is crossed by some 20,000 ships each year.

"It's a positive development, but whether it's sufficient is another matter," said Roger Middleton, an expert on East Africa at Chatham House think tank in London.

World Food convoys

French defense officials say the EU plan will be modeled on successes of another operation designed to protect World Food Program convoys destined for Somalia, a mostly lawless state where warlords and Islamic militias have replaced government control in many regions. The French officials note that none of the 27 relief deliveries was hit by pirates.

International cooperation also has yielded results against piracy in Southeast Asia, where Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore have teamed up to fight bandits in the Malacca Strait.

But there are obstacles to the campaign against Somali pirates. Not least is lack of support from Somalia's embattled leaders — busy fighting Islamic insurgents — as well as the vast expanse of sea to cover and the tricky task of telling a pirate vessel from a fishing boat.

"Frankly we could put 250 boats out there and we'd never be sure we're free from hostage-takings," said one French defense official on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. "It's a little bit like fighting the drugs trade — there's no watertight solution."

EU defense officials say the best they can hope for is to deter the pirates, whose prey has included merchant ships, aid vessels and even a cruise ship and a luxury yacht.

But with many in Somalia driven to desperation because of violence at home and the high cost of prevention, results could take years.

"What is lacking at the moment is a deterrent," said Noel Choong, head of the piracy reporting center of the International Maritime Bureau. "As long as there is no deterrent, the pirates will find ways to attack."

He added: "Navy boats can't be everywhere at all times."

Developed countries are contemplating their full potential arsenal: France has led a charge at the United Nations for legal powers to use force against pirates off Somalia; others floated ideas of using decoy ships to lure pirates into traps or launching amphibious assaults on pirate beachheads.

Few doubt the urgency. The Maritime Bureau's Choong said that through Friday, 67 pirate attacks have been recorded in the Gulf of Aden this year — including 26 ships hijacked. Of these, 12 boats and more than 250 crew members are still in the hands of pirates. Crew members have rarely been harmed, although the captain of the Ukrainian ship died after it fell into the pirates' hands.

"We are seeing ships being attacked every few days. We have never seen this kind of numbers before," said Choong.

'Mother ships'

The bandits are growing increasingly daring and clever. They spot potential victims from fishing boats or from the shore. From "mother ships" far out to sea they attack using smaller quick boats, clambering aboard their prey with ladders and grappling hooks. Some are armed with rocket-propelled grenades and have even tried to attack at least one U.S. Navy ship.

As with pirates of yesteryear, those in Somalia are lured by money. Chatham House estimates that the pirates have reaped up to $30 million in ransoms this year alone, and there's the risk that some may end up in the hands of terror groups.

But history also offers another lesson for the modern pirates: big powers have fought back hard.

Britain threw its formidable naval might to bring the heyday of Caribbean pirates to a close in the early 18th century. Less than a 100 years later, the young American nation fought North African pirate strongholds along the so-called Barbary Coast — battles that are recalled in the "shores of Tripoli" stanza in the Marines' Hymn.

The fight against the new breed of piracy is well-suited to international cooperation, particularly these days with the world's pre-eminent naval power — the United States — managing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The economic stakes are high in the Gulf of Aden: It is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, and rerouting vessels around the Cape of Africa would be costly.

France, which now holds the rotating EU presidency, wants the 27-member bloc to muscle up in defense, and Somalia's pirates may be a limited test case with other countries bogged down, shrunken or uninterested.

The highest-profile incident was last week's hijacking of the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying 33 Soviet-designed tanks and weapons. The Faina, with 20 crew members on board, was anchored Friday near the central Somali town of Hobyo, with six U.S. warships within a 10-mile radius.

Some say shipping companies must do more — mainly by keeping a better lookout for small boats nearby. The IMB recommends round-the-clock radar watches and use of a tool called Secure Ship — a "non-lethal, electrifying fence" that sends out a 9,000-volt pulse to repel potential intruders.



I know the concept of pirates in this day and age is odd, but this is actually a huge problem when it comes to aid issues in sub-Saharan east Africa. Somalia is where the warlords are still pretty much in control, and where 'Black Hawk Down' happened 15 years ago.

The Ukrainian ship has military hardware, but I know a lot more of these ships have food and medical aid and what not that is trying to get to the Somali populace, and to other troubled areas to the south (and through Somali to the Sudan).

I will admit I am more than a little surprised these pirates took over that Ukrainian ship from, what, fishing boats? Way to go on that ship security there, Ukraine!

[Chief Rum]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/..._st_pe/as_rice



Rice says US not trying to undermine Russia

ASTANA, Kazakhstan - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday rejected any suggestion that U.S. efforts to build closer ties to this former Soviet republic are meant to undermine Russian influence in Central Asia.

"This is not a zero-sum game," she told reporters flying with her to the Kazakh capital. U.S. gains need not mean Russian losses, she said.

"First of all, Kazakhstan is an independent country. It can have friendships with whomever it wishes," she said. "That's perfectly acceptable in the 21st century, so we don't see and don't accept any notion of a special sphere of influence" for Russia in this region.

Later at a joint news conference with her Kazakh counterpart, Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin, Rice said no one should question Kazakhstan's desire to have good relations with all countries in its region.

"This is not some kind of contest for the affection of Kazakhstan," Rice said.

Tazhin described his country's relations with the United States as "stable," and Kazakh relations with Russia as "excellent" and "politically correct." Asked by a reporter whether he considered his country to be in a Russian "sphere of influence," Tazhin said no, adding that he believed such a question was of interest mainly to academics and to journalists.

Rice was meeting later with President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Prime Minister Karim Masimov.

In the interview en route to Astana, Rice disclosed that Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Iraq this weekend on an unannounced visit to talk to the Iraqi government about planning for the transition period ahead as more U.S. forces withdraw and Iraqis take on more responsibilities.

She said Negroponte also would discuss with Iraqi leaders the remaining obstacles to completing a security agreement that would govern the U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond December, when the current legal authorities expire. Rice said the negotiations "are going along" and are close to being finished.

"We are close, but as you might imagine, because it's an important and difficult agreement when you're trying to work out arrangements that are both going to protect our people and be responsive to Iraqi sovereignty, that just takes time," she said.

Rice said Negroponte is "not doing anything particularly about it" on this visit beyond discussing it with Iraqi leaders. Her characterization of his role did not seem to indicate that he was in Iraq to finalize a deal.

The Bush administration thought it had secured the deal last summer when negotiators submitted a proposed agreement for higher approval; Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki rejected it and assembled a new set of negotiators. A key point of disagreement is Washington's insistence that U.S. troops in Iraq remain under U.S. legal jurisdiction indefinitely; the Iraqis want limited jurisdiction.

On a related matter, Rice was asked in the onboard interview whether the administration has decided to drop plans to establish a diplomatic outpost in Iran, with whom it has not had formal diplomatic relations for nearly 30 years.

"We continue to look at the idea," she said. "We think it's an interesting idea. We are going to take a look at it in light of what it could do for our relationship with the Iranian people. We are still looking at the idea."

Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan's autocratic ruler, has maintained a military alliance and close relations with Russia.

He also has kept a door open to the West and looked to develop new export routes to Europe for Kazakhstan's vast energy resources. But that balancing act has been in doubt since Russia's invasion of Georgia in August, which threatened to close off the corridor for pipelines around Russia.

Since Russian forces pushed close to Georgia's capital before pulling back, the Bush administration has tried to signal its commitment to countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Last month, Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, another important energy exporter in the region.

The administration does not want to be seen as the one "that lost Eurasia and the Caspian region," said Ariel Cohen, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

The United States also has sought to develop military ties with Kazakhstan as a regional power close to U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan's membership in a Russian-led Eurasian security bloc precludes the country from joining NATO. But it retains close contact with and regularly conducts joint military exercises with the Western alliance.



The Somali pirates thing is of interest to the U.S., but this one hits on something far more critical: the fractious nature of Russian-American relations and how it relates to American ties with former satellite countries and Soviet provinces. Kazakhstan, along with the other 'Stans, could become a "hot" region in the future, depending on how things go with Russia. The Kazakhs have been pretty friendly to the U.S., and I have to think Russia doesn't like that. And Kazakhstan has a ton of oil.

BTW, there are items in the article about negotiations with Iraq on a new deal to handle the American military presence in the country, and also on the possibility of the U.S. re-establishing diplomatic ties with Iran.

The Iran part I just don't buy. Not while Bush is in office and with all the hubbub about its crackpot dictator. I'm still disgusted Larry King threw the guy softball questions all interview when he had him on last week. He should have opened with, "Are you crazy?" or "Have you ever considered writing an opera with Kim Jong-Il?"

[Chief Rum]

So, just as a talking point, what do people think the world in general, and the U.S. specifically, should do about Palestine and Israel and Jerusalem?

[st.cronin]

I believe in general we should be supportive of liberal democracies throughout the world, including Israel, as opposed to repulsive regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia. In a perfect world, Palestine would get its own state as well. But I think the argument for a Palestinian state is often a cover argument for increased regional Islamic hegomeny and/or Jewish prejudice.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I believe in general we should be supportive of liberal democracies throughout the world, including Israel, as opposed to repulsive regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia. In a perfect world, Palestine would get its own state as well. But I think the argument for a Palestinian state is often a cover argument for increased regional Islamic hegomeny and/or Jewish prejudice.

Interesting response. I'll try to address the first part later when I have more time (trying to get my BBCF export ready, and then my FOOL export).

But I wanted to focus on that last part. In the case of that cover argument, who is making that argument? Just Muslims and anti-Semites? Or do you attribute that to most anyone making the argument for a Palestinian state?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Or do you attribute that to most anyone making the argument for a Palestinian state?

Definitely not anyone. There is a good argument to be made for a Palestinian state.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Definitely not anyone. There is a good argument to be made for a Palestinian state.

So then you would say that applies to mostly the global Muslim community? I wouldn't be shocked they were arguing for the advancement of Muslim power, especially with respect to their third holiest spot on Earth (after Mecca and Medina).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So then you would say that applies to mostly the global Muslim community? I wouldn't be shocked they were arguing for the advancement of Muslim power, especially with respect to their third holiest spot on Earth (after Mecca and Medina).

Yes, exactly. As you say, its not shocking, but I do think its an aspect of the problem that gets overlooked.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But how far do you take the participation? Free economic trade and humanitarian aid are hallmarks of a libertarianistic philosophy but military aggressiveness and nation-building are not. What I don't know, though, is a WW2-like response to help the Allies. I guess I may be neutral on that.

Really? I've looked at the Libertarian Party's platform and the only references under international relationship is an opposition to America's role as the world's policeman. However, Bob Barr's platform contains this language:

Moreover, foreign aid has proved to be a drain on the U.S. economy while doing little good for the recipients. Aid is routinely used by corrupt foreign governments to oppress their people and enrich powerful elites. Foreign aid almost always discourages economic and political reform, while subsidizing nations which often work against U.S. interests.

Not trying to threadjack ... I just think there is a difference your brand of libertarianism and the libertarianism practiced by many of today's "Libertarian" politicians who seem to just be disaffected Republicans looking to channel their frustrations in a different direction.

I'm still trying to figure out how the guy who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act ended up as the nominee of the Libertarian Party ...

[Chief Rum]

I don't consider it a threadjack if it touches on U.S. foreign policy. And certainly the platform of one of the major "third" parties is worth discussion.

I certainly consider myself a somewhat disaffected Republican, although I am still Republican. I merely subscribe to a number of ideas that the Libertarian Party has at the center of its ideology, but as I noted above, I have many ideas that don't mesh with (i.e. go opposite from) the Libertarian Party line (and some of them don't really hold to the Republican Party line either).

[Buccaneer]

kcchief, two quick responses. First, free economic trade and humanitarian aid are not the same thing as "foreign aid". Second, Bob Barr is a simply a disaffected Republican, which is why I am not, nor ever have been, a big "L" liberatarian.

[Abe Sargent]

America has not once, been the world's policeman. We interfere only when our own interests are in play, and we have for centuries.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

America has not once, been the world's policeman. We interfere only when our own interests are in play, and we have for centuries.

Not entirely true. Although countering the Communist threat was certainly in our own interest from an ideological standpoint, and in so much that the Soviet Union had a general plan for world domination which would have run askance of our own desire to continue ruling ourselves as we see fit, we were still essentially thrust into that role by our assumption of the leader role of the "free world". Did we turn it down, or shie away from it? Certainly not.

But most major world issues during the Cold War period had at their heart the struggle between Communism and the more liberally free and democratic nations (or at least the countries that did not subscribe to some extreme form of socialism, if not democratic). And as a result, any major issue was either pro-Communism or anti-Communism. And we were always called on to lead Free World policy with respect to that issue, and often it was our troops and our diplomats and our assets which were used to counter the threat. So in that way we became a sort of world policeman, where Communism was the "criminal."

The part where it gets shady is the seemingly American need to morally justify what we do, which I can't stand, but it is what it is. Call it propaganda on the part of the government or an ethnocentric fourth estate, but people wanted to believe that we were "in the right". Policemen (ideally) defend law and justice and that which is good. So someone along the way equated our position in the world to that analogy, and it has stuck with us, even after the collapse of the Soviet threat (for the worse of us, IMO).

So we are "the world's policeman", essentially, at least as we have been labelled. And now that there is no obvious criminal (even terrorism is rather fleeting in this respect), it stands out more to the common person of the world how much we support our own interests. That hasn't even really changed. What has changed is the world focus on it, and their attempts to "criticize" us back into the world policeman role they want us to be in.

I say we abandon any attempt to follow that role and fully support our own interests fully and exclusively.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I say we abandon any attempt to follow that role and fully support our own interests fully and exclusively.

I would contend that our interests significantly overlap with what is "good" for the world. Being the world's policeman, for the US, is not particularly different than acting out of Imperial necessity.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would contend that our interests significantly overlap with what is "good" for the world. Being the world's policeman, for the US, is not particularly different than acting out of Imperial necessity.

Ah, but as I know you know from your quotes around the word, what is good for the world is subject to the ones for whom that good is most beneficial. I think during the Cold War, our interests and that of most of the Free World were by and large similar, or at least overridden in our mutual interest in countering the Communist threat. Now that that threat is no longer there, our interests are no longer so convergent with the rest of the Free World.

You and I might think that American interests have a serious overlap with the positive interests of the world. But clearly France might not agree (stick your own favorite Free World country in there, if you like).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Ah, but as I know you know from your quotes around the word, what is good for the world is subject to the ones for whom that good is most beneficial. I think during the Cold War, our interests and that of most of the Free World were by and large similar, or at least overridden in our mutual interest in countering the Communist threat. Now that that threat is no longer there, our interests are no longer so convergent with the rest of the Free World.

You and I might think that American interests have a serious overlap with the positive interests of the world. But clearly France might not agree (stick your own favorite Free World country in there, if you like).

Actually the quotes simply indicated that good /= perfect. And I am not thinking just of the Free World, I am thinking of the entire world. If the world were remade entirely in America's image, that would be a "good" thing, no?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Actually the quotes simply indicated that good /= perfect. And I am not thinking just of the Free World, I am thinking of the entire world. If the world were remade entirely in America's image, that would be a "good" thing, no?

I think so. But I'm American. I am supposed to think so.

Clearly the Communists didn't (or don't) think so. And certainly Islamic fundamentalists don't think so, either.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Clearly the Communists didn't (or don't) think so. And certainly Islamic fundamentalists don't think so, either.

Immigration patterns suggest otherwise.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Immigration patterns suggest otherwise.

I'm not saying that the American system is not perhaps more inherently constructive than other economic and political systems. Obviously, the American system provides for much more opportunity and well being to a higher percentage of its population than most, or maybe any, other system. As such, the people of other countries have shown a desire to emigrate to America to take advantage of a system not present in their own homelands.

But far more people stay in those homelands than come to America, and they aren't universally thrilled with the U.S. and its foreign policy, you might have noticed.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But far more people stay in those homelands than come to America, and they aren't universally thrilled with the U.S. and its foreign policy, you might have noticed.

Do you think that the average Russian, given the choice in 1985, to live in Russia or the US, all other things being equal, would choose Russia? Do you think the average Egyptian today, given the choice to live in Egypt or the US, all other things held equal, would choose Egypt?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Do you think that the average Russian, given the choice in 1985, to live in Russia or the US, all other things being equal, would choose Russia? Do you think the average Egyptian today, given the choice to live in Egypt or the US, all other things held equal, would choose Egypt?

With Russia we can't know, because the Russian people were not free to leave their country. Egypt, though, it seems the vast majority are staying in Egypt and not leaving for any other country, much less the U.S.

And in fact, the majority of that population seems to trend more towards hardline Islamic fundamentalism, and it is only by the effort of an American-supported moderate dictatorship that that country does not go to a more fundamentalist theocratic state.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So, just as a talking point, what do people think the world in general, and the U.S. specifically, should do about Palestine and Israel and Jerusalem?

Honestly I don't think 70% of America knows why we should even care about Israel. And honestly whenever I hear a politician say they "are a friend of Israel" they are just trying to get the Jewish vote.

[ISiddiqui]

It is similar to Cuba. Florida, being such an important electoral state, means the Cuban vote is something NOT to be cast aside. One would think that by now, if you didn't have such a refugee Cuban population, they would have normalized relations, as the US has done with China and Vietnam.

[Chief Rum]

Sources: Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN.

King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia hosted meetings between the Afghan government and the Taliban, a source says.

The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, has been involved in four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, says the source.

The talks -- the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan -- mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies.

They also mark a sidestepping of key "war on terror" ally Pakistan, frequently accused of not doing enough to tackle militants sheltering on its territory, which has previously been a conduit for talks between the Saudis and Afghanistan.

According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar -- high on the U.S. military's most-wanted list -- was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda.

Details of the Taliban leader's split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.

The current round of talks, said to have been taken two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to come to fruition, is anticipated to be the first step in a long process to secure a negotiated end to the conflict.

But U.S.- and Europe-friendly Saudi Arabia's involvement has been propelled by a mounting death toll among coalition troops amid a worsening violence that has also claimed many civilian casualties.

A Saudi source familiar with the talks confirmed that they happened and said the Saudis take seriously their role in facilitating discussions between parties to the conflict.

A second round of talks is scheduled to take place in two months, the Saudi source said.

The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can't win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.

The involvement of the Saudis is also seen as an expression of fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.

Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul. Learn more about King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia »

The Afghan sources wish to remain anonymous due to their political roles.

Coalition commanders regularly accuse Iran of arming the Taliban, and Western diplomats privately suggest that Iran is working against U.S. interests in Afghanistan, making it harder to bring peace.

Saudi sources say perceived Iranian expansionism is one of Saudi Arabia's biggest concerns.

The talks in Mecca took place between September 24 and 27 and involved 11 Taliban delegates, two Afghan government officials, a representative of former mujahadeen commander and U.S. foe Gulbadin Hekmatyar, and three others.

King Abdullah broke fast during the Eid al-Fitr holiday with the 17-member Afghan delegation -- an act intended to show his commitment to ending the conflict. Eid al-Fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting. Learn more about Ramadan »

Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban leadership during its rule over Afghanistan in the 1990s, but that relationship was severed over Mullah Omar's refusal to hand over bin Laden.


During the talks, described as an ice breaker, all parties agreed that the only solution to Afghanistan's conflict is through dialogue, not fighting.

Further talks are expected in Saudi Arabia involving this core group and others.

Sir Fozzie started his own thread with this one (I think intending it to be political), but it's actually a very suitable story to include here.

This story is interesting on many levels. Saudi Arabia's involvement is #1. They are certainly in a position to help, but their country is one of the harshest Islamic states in the world, and there is a sharp difference between a hardline Islamic populace and uber-rich royalty which maintains friendly relations with the West because of all the money the West pumps directly into the king's coffers.

So they usually have to toe a careful line, balancing their relationship with the West with their relationship with other Arab countries that don't enjoy quite as much of an "equal-footing" relationship with that same West.

In the minds of hardline Islamists, they believe the Saudis should be helping the Taliban fight the coalition (along with all other Muslims, particularly Sunnis). It's interesting that Saudi Arabia is so worried about Iran that they would get involved in settling this Afghanistan dispute to allow for more concentration on the Iran issue. Iran, of course, is by far the most powerful Shia'a state in the world, and Shia'a and Sunni hate each other almost as much as they hate "infidels." Everyone talks about the danger of a nuclear Iran to Israel, but they're pretty dangerous to Saudi Arabia, too. And as long as the coalition is involved in an endless battle with the Taliban, they can't help keep Iran in line.

As for the break of the Taliban with al Qaeda, I guess I'll believe that when I see it. If they become an active and supportive part of a democratic government of Afghanistan, and lead the U.S. to al Qaeda, then I might buy it. Until then, forget about it.

I would like to see peace in Afghanistan, so we don't have to dedicate so much resources to it anymore. But there's no way we can ever trust the Taliban.

[BishopMVP]

Russia/Germany/The Future of NATO - The German Question | Stratfor

Good article on the shift in German position to tacit acknowledgment to Moscow that Moscow has a free hand in the old Soviet sphere in Germany's eyes.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Egypt, though, it seems the vast majority are staying in Egypt and not leaving for any other country, much less the U.S.

And in fact, the majority of that population seems to trend more towards hardline Islamic fundamentalism, and it is only by the effort of an American-supported moderate dictatorship that that country does not go to a more fundamentalist theocratic state.

Part 1, that's as much due to US immigration policy as Egyptians feelings. There certainly is a higher percentage of Egyptians that would emigrate to the US if offered a Visa/Green Card than those wishing to go the other way.

Paragraph 2, I would hesitate to call the Islamic Brotherhood and similar groups hardline Islamists, or their broad support indicative of Egyptians feelings. They have huge support because they are the only alternative to Mubarak and his regime, and would probably quickly splinter into many ideologies/parties if they ever did win an election and were allowed to take power.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Russia/Germany/The Future of NATO - The German Question | Stratfor

Good article on the shift in German position to tacit acknowledgment to Moscow that Moscow has a free hand in the old Soviet sphere in Germany's eyes.

You're right, that is a good article. The interesting part to me was the conclusion that NATO is a broken alliance. IMO, it's only a broken alliance if it allows a single member to block its efforts. I think Germany is a key member of NATO, but I don't think there is much doubt that the primary members are the U.S. and U.K., and then France. I would be very curious what Germany would choose to do, if those other countries, either less threatened by distance from Moscow or too scared because of being too close to Moscow (Poland, the Balkans) moved to exclude Germany from the alliance.

Germany needs both Russia and the United States. It seems to me that its best option is actually to work with both to seek a more amenable position between the two, because it is clearly the friction between the U.S. and Russia that is causing Germany so much angst.

Part 1, that's as much due to US immigration policy as Egyptians feelings. There certainly is a higher percentage of Egyptians that would emigrate to the US if offered a Visa/Green Card than those wishing to go the other way.

I am sure that is generally true of most countries. I acknowledged as much to st.cronin (that the direction of immigration would certainly favor the U.S.). But that discussion started when he suggested that what it is good for the U.S. is good for the world, and I argued that was not so clear, and in fact, the vast majority definitely don't see eye to eye with us on our interests and theirs being in any way mutual.

Paragraph 2, I would hesitate to call the Islamic Brotherhood and similar groups hardline Islamists, or their broad support indicative of Egyptians feelings. They have huge support because they are the only alternative to Mubarak and his regime, and would probably quickly splinter into many ideologies/parties if they ever did win an election and were allowed to take power.

The Muslim Brotherhood, based primarily out of Egypt but now pretty much everywhere, has mollified somewhat from its old hardline stances from decades ago, probably because it doesn't think it can force its way on people right now. But the fact is, al Qaeda, Hamas, al Jihad, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc., they all have at their base radical fundamentalism that was and is encouraged by the Muslim Brotherhood, and quite often, members of the Brotherhood are key founders of these terrorist groups.

I agree that they see huge support because of how awful Mubarak's regime is, but the trend toward Islamic fundamentalism can be seen in most Arab countries. The Brotherhood is strongest in Egypt, so it leads the way there. But fundamentalism as a whole will find a way, it seems, at least in the environment present in the Arab world today. I don't think the Brotherhood could actually rule Egypt or any country. But could they take a leading role in a religious nation that has imposed strict Shariah law and thrown out ties to the West? Most certainly.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You're right, that is a good article. The interesting part to me was the conclusion that NATO is a broken alliance. IMO, it's only a broken alliance if it allows a single member to block its efforts. I think Germany is a key member of NATO, but I don't think there is much doubt that the primary members are the U.S. and U.K., and then France. I would be very curious what Germany would choose to do, if those other countries, either less threatened by distance from Moscow or too scared because of being too close to Moscow (Poland, the Balkans) moved to exclude Germany from the alliance.

I would actually say Germany is the 2nd most important member of NATO and Poland above France, if not the UK. The US and UK will always have the common interests and be able to work together on an ad hoc arrangement. But any defense of Eastern Europe (and really, Russia isn't going to be attacking Germany or France militarily anytime the next century) needs to go through the Germans, unless we move our bases from Germany to Poland - which we are actually doing, as the Poles are desperately trying to get as many US forces and hardware in their country as possible (I know they're pulling out of Iraq, but shifting to Afghanistan, and Georgia proved mere military ties aren't enough - you need American boots on the ground apparently.)

NATO obviously is a broken/dying alliance, even if you think that American influence/projectability won't decline with our temporary economic decline. It was propped up partly out of necessity - there was a real threat from the USSR to West Germany/France - and partly because the USSR was our main competitor. This hasn't been unrecognized by the military and politicians, even if the media focuses on NATO as our most important/only military alliance - we've been steadily building ties with Japan/S. Korea/Taiwan/Singapore/Australia/the Phillipines/India - the last even as we've supposedly been forced into friendship with Pakistan more than ever. The pattern that emerges is no coincidence - our long-term strategic interests are not in a Europe that is ever-decreasing in population, military and economic strength, being threatened by a Russia that has no inclination, let alone ability to expand beyond what frankly are mere luxuries from our point of view - Georgia, Eastern Ukraine, the Baltic states (as much as I have argued we should be defending them). Rather, it is in an Asia that is beginning to realize the potential that comes from its massive populations, and which is threatened by China.

So, yes, NATO is irretrievably broken, it has been for years, and while it likely won't be disbanded, this crisis has illuminated that if Article 5 is invoked, it's not an automatic yes anymore. I'm not sure why anyone would ever think a multi-national, multi-linguistic alliance could survive without a common enemy.

I am sure that is generally true of most countries. I acknowledged as much to st.cronin (that the direction of immigration would certainly favor the U.S.). But that discussion started when he suggested that what it is good for the U.S. is good for the world, and I argued that was not so clear, and in fact, the vast majority definitely don't see eye to eye with us on our interests and theirs being in any way mutual.

I think people are more rational than you give them credit for in this - our actions aren't always in their best interest while they remain in their countries, but the vast majority (I mean 90%+) would emigrate to the US tomorrow if they had a green card and a support structure. This indicates to me that if the rest of the world were to adopt US practices in government, economics, human rights, rule of law, education, (relative lack of) corruption etc. it would be a huge leap forward and welcomed by most. This isn't saying the US system would be the best way, but it would be infinitely better in most countries, and most would begrudginly agree once pride was out of the way.

The Muslim Brotherhood, based primarily out of Egypt but now pretty much everywhere, has mollified somewhat from its old hardline stances from decades ago, probably because it doesn't think it can force its way on people right now. But the fact is, al Qaeda, Hamas, al Jihad, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc., they all have at their base radical fundamentalism that was and is encouraged by the Muslim Brotherhood, and quite often, members of the Brotherhood are key founders of these terrorist groups.

It's also mollified because, as other parties were allowed, moderates and a wide range of anti-government people came under the Muslim Brotherhood's tent.

It's also not surprising or notable that almost every Islamic extremist group has had founders from the Muslim Brotherhood - if you're an anti-government Islamist, the Muslim Brotherhood is the "gateway drug" before you truly become radicalized.

I agree that they see huge support because of how awful Mubarak's regime is, but the trend toward Islamic fundamentalism can be seen in most Arab countries. The Brotherhood is strongest in Egypt, so it leads the way there. But fundamentalism as a whole will find a way, it seems, at least in the environment present in the Arab world today. I don't think the Brotherhood could actually rule Egypt or any country. But could they take a leading role in a religious nation that has imposed strict Shariah law and thrown out ties to the West? Most certainly.

The trend toward Islamic fundamentalism can't be seen in most Arab countries - it can only be seen in the autocratic ones that haven't let Islamists rule yet. In Iran (not quite Arab), Iraq, Algeria, Lebanon, support for fundamentalist movements is markedly less than it used to be. In Turkey, there is a contant battle over just how fundamental the ruling party can get, and in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood only achieved its huge electoral gains after moderating its rhetoric and presenting a less-extremist face. Even Hamas in Palestine, supposedly the star because they won an election only won because of how hopelessly corrupt Fatah is (and really, Fatah is a terrorist group as well, so we fucked up huge by not allowing Hamas to try and govern and losing its support and legitimacy real fast. Possibly the biggest mistake the administration made in the Middle East outside Iraq.)

Either way, this aboids my original point - the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, at least judging by recent rhetoric, is not a hardline fundamentalist Islamic group, and more importantly, if they came to power it would the same as Iran - a broad-based coalition where the Islamists would be forced to bloodily purge the ranks and usurp control within the first year or two or else a moderate face would quickly emerge.

[flere-imsaho]

Good analysis on the Taliban article, Chief. It's good to see the Saudis stepping up to take some leadership here.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Obama

we have a moral responsibility to use force to save innocents

And there you have your answer.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And there you have your answer.

To why we're the world's policeman? Or are you going for something else?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

To why we're the world's policeman? Or are you going for something else?

Both. One, that's what is going to be the Obama Doctrine (apparently). Two, where do you draw the line? Everyday there are innocents being killed but according to him, we have a moral responsibility to save them. What if we don't? If so, how do you choose? Are you then right back to where we are now?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Both. One, that's what is going to be the Obama Doctrine (apparently). Two, where do you draw the line? Everyday there are innocents being killed but according to him, we have a moral responsibility to save them. What if we don't? If so, how do you choose? Are you then right back to where we are now?

If that is Obama's doctrine, I believe it is a misguided one. It is, like many of his ideas, far too optimistic, and I would guess he didn't suggest how he would do it, either, did he?

I said earlier in this thread, and still hold to it, that we need to act in our own interests. The whole "world's policeman" bull is a responsibility the world wants to thrust on us, so they won't do anything for themselves.

Basically, the U.S. is the Republican, while the world is filled with Democrats.

[BishopMVP]

Empty words that mean nothing more than the constant invocations of "Never Again" while there are current genocide and ethnic cleansing campaigns ongoing.