"Benazir’s assassins were likely known to the ISI and quietly or actively encouraged"

This idea was alluded to during the extensive SBS coverage of Pakistan's recent history (broadcast on the day of B Bhutto's assassination), which covered mainly from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan through the dissolution of the USSR and up to the present.

One way to connect the dots is to include the story given there of US involvement in fighting a proxy war against the USSR in the '80's. Pakistan handled the Mujihaddin, the US handled Pakistan.

This sort of arrangement has been refined by US intelligence agencies over the years, since prior to WWII, when Winston churchill and then-US President Roosevelt accurately perceived the dire threat of the German National Socialist government. Churchill convinced the leader of a neutral US government to intervene covertly, if, where and whenever possible, and that's what happened, with increasing ivolvement up to the US declaration of war in December of 1941.

Is the US government in control of its covert operations? I doubt it. Is it in control of overt actions by mercenary forces in Baghdad (eg Blackwater)? It seems not. What US government? The Executive? The Judiciary? The Legislature?

Everything I read suggests the US Government is a rudderless ship, sailing across uncharted waters. Meanwhile, the people most in command have embarked on a submarine voyage that just doesn't show up on the wide screens. I would guess they have narrower aims than simply spreading Democracy.

When I connect my dots, these "submariners", whoever they may be, appear to have little to lose from an unstable Pakistan, teetering on the brink of collapse and nuclear madness.

Certainly Kevin-07's team, if they were to mediate, would have to play a more subtle game than Menzies played (and congratulated himself about) during the Suez Crisis.

Bruce Haigh's piece is accurate in analysis and visionary in policy . His policy recommendation for Australia (final paragraphs) makes a lot of sense. But it is a big jump he is proposing. How easy would it be to move from being one of the most aggressive prosecutors of the US-led NATO counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan, to acknowledging it is unwinnable ( Bruce is right on this) and moving to a peacemaking contact group role ?

It was a lot easier in Cambodia in 1991 where we were not one of the parties to the war.

Is Bruce suggesting we start informal contact diplomacy now with China etc, while we continue to fight the Taliban? Or does Bruce think we need to wind down Australia's war in Afghanistan first?
It would be useful to have his further thoughts on this.

Tony Kevin

I agree Australia should attempt what Bruce Haigh suggests, and that Kevin Rudd has a better chance of at least making a credible approach than John Howard. So, now is the time.

However, I have no reason to think it would succeed - so, I'd be recommending "expectation management" as the name of the game. I think we can talk to India. I believe China is delighted with any strife which does not directly damage its interests: so, talk away, but don't expect too much. Iran seems governed by a mindset of hatred for the likes of Australia, and the difference we perceive between Kev and Johnnie would be of no interest to them. And Pakistan: who the hell do we talk to?

So, while I believe diplomacy should be attempted until it's utterly exhausted - and that we should not be hasty in concluding that it's exhausted - I suspect that some of the players are beyond reach of rational, civil, constructive, even imaginative discourse.

Sorry to be a misery guts, but the combined power and savagery of China and fundamentalist Islam make me very pessimistic. This is largely because I agree that the US - the only counterweight I can see, and a klutz at best - is in decline.

I appreciated the article very much. In particular his observation that an absence of US participation will see any void filled by some other power which will most certainly be less desirable.

"He has early points on the board over his positive climate change intervention (together with Penny Wong) at Bali." I was surprised to see just how pervasive the Global Warming Hoax has become as evidenced by being mentioned in this article.

The Mega-Mantra, Bush Lied, has now become irrelevant since Kevin-07's election. I wonder what names will be used for Labor, the media and Al Gore when it becomes undeniable, even for the chicken littles, that human generated CO2 is not the the cause of Global Warming. Who will then pay the political price for the dislocation/misappropriation of trillions of dollars?

It’s completely unpalatable to the hors d’oeuvres tastes of the left-leaning intelligentsia in this country and elsewhere, who are disgusted with U.S. foreign policy, to realize and acknowledge that America is involved in a LONG war with an invisible determined, malicious, and lethal enemy fighting him on many shifting-fronts in a war without borders. Nor does it acknowledge that ONLY America, with all its fault lines, can defeat ultimately this fanatic Islamic threat that has placed a “gestating” nuclear ticking bomb under the foundations of Western civilization. Nor does it perceive that many Western governments and their peoples do not see the holy warriors of Islam as a great threat and consider this to be America’s war--just another page of its imperialistic interests and goals—which makes it hard for the U.S. to find SOLID ALLIES in this war. Moreover, this dearth of solid allies is more prominent with Muslim countries which, although they might feel threatened by al Qaeda and its multiple affiliates in the Muslim world, for religious and political reasons cannot commit themselves fully behind America. Hence, it follows that in Muslim countries there are no HORSES FOR COURSES. As the diplomatic-political course is limited and only one or two horses have a chance to win the race. That is why it’s exceedingly difficult for the U.S. to find and back the winning horse.

Bruce Haigh’s argument clearly implies the latter, although he loathes admitting it openly, otherwise he would have named the winning horses in contrast to the “losing” horses of Musharraf and the deceased Bhutto.

And he displays his bias in his peroration:'The US is floundering, a dangerous dinosaur, blundering half blind through the world's china shops'.

http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

Lots of labels, but little evidence from Themistocles.

Partisans, insurgents, terrorists, cannot come from the shadows indefinitely without substantial support. Even TE Lawrence need a few humble supplies, like cartridges and explosives, and of course the world has gone downhill since then.

Can you imagine Lawrence of Arabia strapping a satellite dish to the back of his second camel?

That's the sort of fantasy I enjoy, as opposed the the vague hogwash about how the left hates America because it's stylish to do so, or the the Taliban hates the US because they're infidels, or how some other lot hates America because they have envious of their success and freedom.
Do you really believe that simple-minded tripe, T?

Like every country, the US makes foreign policy mistakes. The current US administration is no exception.

Consider what happened at the end of World Wars I & II, in postwar Germany. How would you compare what has happened in Iraq, since President Bush declared the war won, in May of 2003? Has life gotten easier or harder, for the average Iraqi?

Perhaps if the US had gone in with enough troops to prevent looting, had stayed with enough troops to enforce martial law, had engaged the Iraqis in rebuilding their country instead of outsourcing the work to foreign contractors, and so on.

I always thought it was a shame to send security guards into Iraq, as well as soldiers. What do you think that looks like to the average, intelligent Iraqi? Maybe a bit like the invading German forces looked, to the average patriotic Frenchman, Pole or or Yugoslav in 1941, when the Gestapo arrived?

Which brings us back to the question - where do these irregular combatants get their mobile phones, satellite dishes, etc?

Any evidence, T?