• Today: Slightly Invasive
• Tomorrow: An Afternoon Air Raid
• This Week: Scattered Showers
• Next Week: Endless Front Approaching

Pakistan’s civilian government is already charting a markedly different course from Musharraf. For one thing, they’re making moves to start talking with the Taliban:

Yousuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister, on Saturday urged the armed groups to renounce violence and offered to hold talks with those who give up arms and join the new democratic era.

The response?

Pakistan’s Taliban movement has welcomed an offer by the country’s prime minister to hold talks with them and has urged Islamabad to abandon the US-led “war on terror,” a spokesman for the movement has said.

Maulvi Omar said the announcement by the federal government to hold talks with the Tehrik-e-Taliban would improve law and order.

There have been a growing number of suicide bombings in the past couple of months.

Omar told reporters at a public rally in Bajaur tribal district: “The talks announcement by government will have extremely positive impact. The federal government should immediately stop the war for US interests.”

So far at least, not the end of the world. Who knows whether it will work - but then again, the strategy up to the present has been a great way for everyone to beat their heads against a wall, so in a sense they can only go up from here.

Also, DHinMI points out that Pakistan’s new civilian government might actually try and catch Bin Laden. Why? Because unlike Musharraf, their aid from Washington won’t depend on not winning the “War on Terror.” They could catch the guy and still get the loot.

That’s assuming, of course, that the old cave-dweller isn’t dead.

How would you feel if the Pakistani secret intelligence, the ISI, ran a secret base in America and had struck a secret deal with George Bush allowing them to blow up your car if they thought you were a terrorist? Well, the CIA has been doing exactly that in Pakistan.

Some folks might not be up for reading the entirety of my post on Pakistan’s elections, so I wanted to make sure no one missed this (free registration required):

American officials reached a quiet understanding with Pakistan’s leader last month to intensify secret strikes against suspected terrorists by pilotless aircraft launched in Pakistan, senior officials in both governments say. But the prospect of changes in Pakistan’s government has the Bush administration worried that the new operations could be curtailed.

Among other things, the new arrangements allowed an increase in the number and scope of patrols and strikes by armed Predator surveillance aircraft launched from a secret base in Pakistan — a far more aggressive strategy to attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban than had existed before.

But since opposition parties emerged victorious from the parliamentary election early this week, American officials are worried that the new, more permissive arrangement could be choked off in its infancy.

In the weeks before Monday’s election, a series of meetings among President Bush’s national security advisers resulted in a significant relaxation of the rules under which American forces could aim attacks at suspected Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the tribal areas near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

The change, described by senior American and Pakistani officials who would not speak for attribution because of the classified nature of the program, allows American military commanders greater leeway to choose from what one official who took part in the debate called “a Chinese menu” of strike options.

Instead of having to confirm the identity of a suspected militant leader before attacking, this shift allowed American operators to strike convoys of vehicles that bear the characteristics of Qaeda or Taliban leaders on the run, for instance, so long as the risk of civilian casualties is judged to be low.

The new, looser rules of engagement may have their biggest impact at a secret Central Intelligence Agency base in Pakistan whose existence was described by American and Pakistani officials who had previously kept it secret to avoid embarrassing President Pervez Musharraf politically. Mr. Musharraf, whose party lost in this week’s election by margins that surprised American officials, has been accused by political rivals of being too close to the United States.

The base in Pakistan is home to a handful of Predators — unmanned aircraft that are controlled from the United States. Two Hellfire missiles from one of those Predators are believed to have killed a senior Qaeda commander, Abu Laith al-Libi, in northwest Pakistan last month, though a senior Pakistani official said his government had still not confirmed that Mr. Libi was among the dead. A C.I.A. spokesman declined on Thursday to comment on any operations in Pakistan.

The new agreements with Pakistan came after a trip to the country on Jan. 9 by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director. The American officials met with Mr. Musharraf as well as with the new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and offered a range of increased covert operations aimed at thwarting intensifying efforts by Al Qaeda and the Taliban to destabilize the Pakistani government.

Let me underscore the insanity of this: Musharraf agreed to let us blow up any car that we thought had a terrorist inside.

And we worry about the Taliban destabilizing Pakistan? What do we think is going to happen if US drones murder people who may or may not be completely innocent?

The War on Terror has stripped away so many protections on human life that none remain. The CIA is basically acting as detective and executioner all in one fell swoop (forget about “proof” or “trials” or “rights”) in Pakistan, making an absurdity of Pakistani sovereignty or any notion of human rights. Even more scary, these shenanigans represent yet another step down the road toward having US troops on the ground in Pakistan to “fight terror.” Robert Gates has been quietly pushing for that for months.

Let me get even more blunt: these moves are moronic. We need to leave Pakistan alone, especially in this moment of transition. The election results, many have pointed out, were a rejection not only of Musharraf but also of Bush and the US. How much worse will we make matters by hauling off and killing people before we can even prove that they’ve committed crimes?

So if the new government “chokes the program off in its infancy,” I say that’s good news. We need to be accountable and pragmatic, and stop treating Pakistan like a fantasy world where we can do whatever we please.

First of all, I’m glad to admit that I was wrong in my predictions that Pakistan’s parliamentary elections, held last Monday, would lead to an escalation in violence. That’s the great thing about being pessimistic: if you’re wrong, that means things actually worked out alright.

Nicholas Schmidle at Slate felt the same:

Heading into Monday’s parliamentary elections, Pakistan desperately needed good news. Bombs, protests, and President Pervez Musharraf’s authoritarian impulses have made almost daily headlines and created the impression of a country spiraling toward chaos. Last year, Islamic militants detonated, on average, one suicide bomb per week in Pakistan, including the attack that killed more than 140 people at Benazir Bhutto’s homecoming in October and the one that assassinated her in December. As the pro-Taliban insurgency gathered strength this winter, a bloody Election Day seemed inevitable. But Monday’s poll results, while consistent with Pakistan’s recent history in their pure unpredictability, finally gave people a taste of good news. Besides being largely free of violence (two dozen died in isolated skirmishes, but suicide bombers stayed away), voters rejected the two players in Pakistani politics that scare—and confuse—Americans most: Musharraf and the Islamists.

But some difficult questions remain, both about what the elections mean and about Pakistan’s future. Sorting out what happened in the elections carries real importance, because in discussing US foreign policy it’s vital that we understand cause and effect. That’s not so simple as it sounds: many architects of US foreign policy since World War II have essentially lived in a fantasy world, with disastrous consequences for our country and others.

Breaking news on CNN right now is the riots in Serbia protesting Kosovo’s newfound independence. It did seem a little too easy, didn’t it? Apparently the British embassy was also targeted by mobs. Oh, pictures.

Apparently constant messianic rhetoric is one of President Ahmadinejad’s favorite tools (news to me, anyway), as he insists on preparing for the return of the 12th Imam. He must really be crazy about it if an Iranian cleric is criticizing him for it. I think I’ll have to reread Dune side-by-side with some Shi’a theology, since I do love me some messianic prophecy.

Medvedev is so assured of his future position as Russian President that he’s not even spending money or going on TV. A pity that all that campaign money he collected is going to just have to be scattered among his associates. Man, I wish I was in Russian politics.

On the positive side, seems that Pakistan is doing well after their recent elections. It’s going to be interesting to see how Musharraf responds to a united opposition.

With parliamentary elections now only two days away, the picture in Pakistan still looks bleak.

Today, the last day of general campaigning, has been marred by several suicide attacks, including a large one on supporters of Bhutto’s PPP.

The Interior Ministry said 37 people were killed and more than 90 wounded in the blast.

In another suspected suicide attack in the northwest, two civilians were killed and four soldiers wounded in the Swat valley, a military official said.

The northwest has been hit by a surge of violence since July, but attacks have taken place in major cities across Pakistan and there are fears of more.

Police in the southern city of Hyderabad said they had arrested three suspected suicide bombers believed to be planning attacks on polling stations and seized 10 kg (22 lb) of explosives and a suicide bomb jacket.

The violence in what has been one of the country’s bloodiest election campaigns has unnerved politicians and voters, and turnout on Monday could be low despite the deployment of more than 80,000 troops.

Rumors of vote-rigging are flying. And neighboring countries like India and Afghanistan, as well as Britain and the US, are deeply concerned about the outcome. With violence, bitterness, and division mounting, it appears more likely that we’ll need to brace ourselves for the worst come next week.

In less than five days, Pakistan will hold long-delayed parliamentary elections. But violence has already begun:

At least two people have been killed and three injured after a roadside bomb attack on an election campaign convoy in Pakistan’s northwestern Swat valley. The blast is the latest in a string of deadly attacks in the region in the run up to the general election next week.

[snip]
The latest deaths will increase fears of security in the run-up to the election on February 18 for which tens of thousands of extra military troops will be deployed nationwide.

Two suicide bomb attacks on election rallies in different parts of northwest Pakistan have killed at least 22 people and wounded more than 30 in the past week alone.

Add to that BBC polls indicating that support for Musharraf is bottoming out, and you have a recipe for real problems.

Almost half the respondents said they thought his controversial re-election last November was not valid.

[snip]

The results of the latest poll found a particularly low approval rating for his performance. Only 15% of people asked said they approved of the job he was doing, while 72% disapproved. That compared with an approval rate of 30% at the end of last year. Three-quarters of the people asked said they would like him to resign. That number too has increased. His overall popularity rating had also declined (by 12 points) since the last survey.

Of course, Condoleezza is “concerned. She should be. In the election that is supposed to “complete a transition to civilian rule in Pakistan,” Bhutto’s PPP party is already raising fears of fraud. If the country explodes into post-election violence, it could make what’s happening in Kenya seem tame in comparison.

Things are changing in Pakistan. The army, under its new commander Kayani, is withdrawing its personnel from civilian offices in a reversal of old Musharraf policy - and a possible attempt to distance itself from him. Tribal areas remain dicey, and not fully under government control (to say the least). And, to add to everyone’s comfort level, the government is testing short-range nuclear-capable missiles.

Predictions are a fool’s game. But I’ll hazard a guess that next week will be bad. Fraud seems inevitable, and that will provoke a vehemently angry response from the opposition parties and the population as a whole. Violence will likely escalate. Then the ball will be in Musharraf’s court, which has historically not been pretty. After that, anyone’s guess - but hopes for stability seem slim.

Years of misguided strategy in Afghanistan may soon put us back at square one. As our NATO allies balk at the idea of increasing - or even maintaining - their current troop numbers, the Taliban are stepping up their attacks and inching closer to Kabul.

In Afghanistan, the Taleban now claim to have influence across most of the country and have extended their area of control from their traditional heartland in the south. They are able to operate freely even in Wardak Province, neighbouring the capital Kabul, as a BBC camera crew who filmed them recently found. One of their commanders in Wardak, Mullah Hakmatullah, said they do not control the roads nor the towns, but they hold the countryside and have increasing support because of the corruption of the administration.

The US is pushing for greater troop commitments from European nations, but failing to obtain them. When Gates sent a “strongly worded letter” to Germany asking for more men, he received a “blunt response”: no. At the same time, Canada has stated that unless other NATO members come through with more troops, they will withdraw their forces by the end of 2008. Given that Germany has 3,200 troops in Afghanistan, and Canada 2,500, the US’ recent “mini-surge” of 3,200 marines looks like it isn’t a surge at all, but rather a half-hearted attempt to reassure skeptical allies - and perhaps a way just to maintain, not increase, troop levels when our allies pull out.

Rising Taliban aggression will put even greater strain on the NATO alliance. With no end in sight to the mission, we are “winning battles, but losing Afghanistan.” Without a fundamental change in strategy, NATO may soon find itself battling the Taliban in the streets of Kabul, or clinging to urban centers while rural areas - the vast majority of the country - slip further and further out of NATO control. At the same time, misguided US desires to intervene in Pakistan, if pursued, may ratchet the level of instability in the region up to a whole new level, making current conflicts seem tame in comparison.

The frustrating thing about Afghanistan is that the policy changes we need to make are fairly clear. We need a sane poppy strategy, we need to talk to Iran, we need to increase our effectiveness at resolving conflict and providing security at the local level, and we need to provide material incentives for ordinary people to support NATO instead of the Taliban. The ideas that could make a difference in Afghanistan are out there - it’s just a question of whether the Bush administration and the NATO commanders in Afghanistan have the creativity and flexibility to employ them, instead of stubbornly “staying the course,” and then wondering why the situation continues to get worse and worse.

I saw a midnight screening of Morgan Spurlock’s Where in the World is Osama bin Laden? The theater was full and Spurlock was engaging, as one would expect. In the film he travels to key countries in the Middle East and asks people where they think OBL is, what they think about him, and what they think about the United States. Presented are a few thoughts about the documentary — I will do a longer review piece around the time the film is released in theaters.

• First, no, Spurlock does not find Osama bin Laden, and truth be told, he doesn’t really try that hard to find him. He asks almost everyone he meets, including students in Egypt, women in a shopping mall in Saudi Arabia, and vendors in an outdoor market in Pakistan. The film is most interesting when we hear ordinary people in these regions speak.
• As a wry commentary on how Americans view the world, there are a lot of animation sequences — during opening titles and between visits to each country, which place Spurlock in an XBOX-like video game with him battling versions of Osama bin Laden in high-def graphics. They are a visual cue card and also entertaining.
• Spurlock uses his wife’s pregnancy as both the reason for the film (stating that if he really wanted to make the world safer for his baby, then he must get rid of the biggest threat), and as a kind of countdown clock throughout the film, reminding him that he must be home before the baby’s delivery. The first aspect works, though the econd, which he dubs “Operation Special Delivery” seems more forced — as though he needs a contained time-frame because that is what he did in his first movie, Super-Size Me, and it is what he does in his FX series, 30 Days.
• Various terrorists and political leaders are presented on screen as “players” with their likenesses on baseball trading-card style graphics. It is humorous and keeps your attention, though doesn’t really add that much substantively.
• He also goes a little into the history of the US in the region, again using animation to show The Shah through the Iran-Iraq war and US involvement.
• The people in the street responses are interesting. Most state that they don’t like or need bin Laden, and also despise U.S. foreign policy, considering the US to be a big bully. One does say to Spurlock that he wishes for an event where millions of Americans will die — but then says he hopes that Spurlock isn’t there when it happens.
• Spurlock deals fairly with both sides in the Israel-Palestinian debate, seeming to sympathize with the concerns from both sides. One Israeli in the film notes that everyone knows how the story will end in this region — two independent states — but what isn’t known is how many people will die by then. The potential for a solution is being held hostage by extremists on both sides.
• Spurlock told us in Q & A after the film (it ended around 1:30AM and he answered questions for another 20 minutes or so), that he had over 1000 hours of footage and that “The DVD will be awesome.”

Many Americans are understandably worried about the possibility of the Bush administration launching attacks on Iran. But could the threat of escalation in Pakistan be greater? Musharraf looks like he’s getting ready to crack down again, internal conflicts are broiling, and the Bush administration is foolishly thinking about intervening. All the elements are in place for a nightmare scenario to break out.

Musharraf is still offering the West his devil’s bargain of antidemocracy in exchange for anti-terrorism. As his tour of Europe continues, he warns Europeans not to rock the boat.

The focus of Mr Musharraf’s address, which comes on the first day of a three-day visit to Britain, was on the challenges of fighting terrorism.

“We are in the forefront fighting terrorism and extremism, our success is critical. We have to win because if we lose I think it will have an impact on the region and the world, maybe in the streets of Europe.

“So therefore we have to be together and we have to reinforce each other, encourage each other, support each other, instead of criticising and insinuating,” he said.

In what may or may not be a related maneuver, Pakistan has placed its nuclear facilities on alert in response to “threats” from Islamists, despite the fact that no one is actually worried: