|
9331. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 6:47:24 PM Yes, but the two have recognized that by strategic collaboration they can acheive upside synergistice effeciencies that can only be countered by aggressive application of .... ok, I'll stop with the Dilbert speak, I'm not sure why I found that so funny.
But seriously, the two things are different, but in some cases they are collaborating and cross-polinating. 9332. Wombat - 3/27/2009 9:39:51 PM The scary thing is that I actually understood what you wrote...
That strategic collaboration existed in the years leading up to 2001. It no longer exists in that form. 9333. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 9:53:40 PM Really? I'm curious for more details on the statement that such strategic collaboration does not exist post-2001. 9334. Wombat - 3/28/2009 4:06:43 AM Afghanistan under the Taliban regime was what amounted to a state sanctuary for Al Qaeda. In return for the ability to operate undisturbed in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda helped Taliban stay in power. The killing of Massoud, for example, had the hallmark of an Al Qaeda operation. That came to an end after 9/11.
Taliban and Al Qaeda are now in a similar position: operating covertly in regions that while somewhat hospitable, do not lend themselves to the ease and openness of movement and logistics that existed in Taliban-run Afghanistan. Whatever strategic collaboration that still exists between Taliban and Al Qaeda, is--I suspect--devoted more to fighting to retake Afghanistan, rather than furthering Al Qaeda's larger goals. 9335. vonKreedon - 3/28/2009 5:10:19 AM I would argue that retaking Afghanistan, and taking Pakistan or at least the FATA, is a strategic goal of Al Qaeda. 9336. wabbit - 4/1/2009 1:12:43 AM This looks like a promising series to follow.
Postcard from Pipelineistan
By Pepe Escobar
What happens on the immense battlefield for the control of Eurasia will provide the ultimate plot line in the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order, also known as the New Great Game.
Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "Global War on Terror," which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War," sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin -- a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan…
And now I need to make myself a crib sheet of the new acronyms.
9337. alistairconnor - 4/1/2009 10:04:27 AM I would argue that retaking Afghanistan, and taking Pakistan or at least the FATA, is a strategic goal of Al Qaeda.
This is formally true, in that their political goal is the re-creation of the Emirate. But they know that this is currently out of reach. In practice, the creation, or exploitation, of failed states in which they can operate freely, is surely their operational goal. Iraq a couple of years ago was the epitome of this. Afghanistan is not all that much use to them as a failed state, because it's not very connected with the rest of the world. Their paramount goal at the moment is surely the failure of the republic of Pakistan. Hence the current spate of terror commando attacks (the Sri Lanka cricket team, and the police academy). 9338. alistairconnor - 4/1/2009 1:01:52 PM Your sources are excellent, Wabbit...
I've been saying for a couple of years now, that the new Great Game is over, and Russia won. The grotesque Georgian war was the final nail in the coffin of the US strategy, a fitting legacy for the Bush years.
But nothing is ever really over... the big news this year is that the Chinese, who are redeploying the surpluses they used to buy US Treasuries with, are going to provide the bulk of the capital for the development of the East Siberian oil and gas fields (Russia being suddenly short of cash because of oil prices). The West Siberian fields have pipelines pointing west, but they are in decline. It's now firmly established that the infrastructure for the East Siberian fields, where all the potential for growth is, will be pointing south and east. The Japanese can get some of it, if they play smart; but the bulk of it will go to China.
In the Central Asian game, the best card America has left may turn out to be Iran... 9339. robertjayb - 4/2/2009 5:39:01 AM Lookie..the Queen carries a purse in her own house...
Probably has a 9mm in there.
(via kissmybigbluebutt.com) 9340. alistairconnor - 4/2/2009 11:07:07 AM Just think of all the things she hasn't got in hers... no car keys, no house keys, no credit cards or cheque books... 9341. vonKreedon - 4/2/2009 4:31:35 PM She's got to put that iPod somewhere. 9342. alistairconnor - 4/2/2009 5:04:48 PM I note that Carla Sarkozy didn't show at the G20... her story is that she prefers to meet Michelle O one on one, on her own turf... the truth is more complicated, and relates to events at Davos, as will be related in the fiction thread... 9343. vonKreedon - 4/2/2009 6:32:32 PM Afghanistan is not all that much use to them as a failed state, because it's not very connected with the rest of the world. Their paramount goal at the moment is surely the failure of the republic of Pakistan.
Afghanistan wasn't any better connected to the rest of the world in the late 90's when alQaeda based their attacks on our east African embassies, the USS Cole, and 9/11 from there. And yes, if they could cause both Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to fail that would be a huge strategic coup on the part of alQaeda and a large step toward their overall goal of restablishing the Caliphate.
From the beginning of our operations in Afghanistan I've said that our number one priority and focus needs to be on the stability of Pakistan, and that is as true now as then. OTOH, I really don't know what the best course is with this focus in mind. I'm hoping and trusting that the Obama administration will be competent in this and hope that the left will give them the political room to do what is needed. 9344. wabbit - 4/8/2009 4:26:59 PM …Piracy has become a multi-million dollar business in Somalia, which has limped along since 1991 without a functioning central government. A captured Ukrainian arms freighter hijacked off Somalia’s coast in 2008, for example, was released in February when its owners paid $3.2 million in cash, dropped by parachute.
Armed with automatic weapons, the pirates often attack the large merchant ships from small speed boats, and then scale the towering ship hulls with hooks and ropes and overpower the merchant crews, which are generally unarmed.
To extend their reach from shore, the pirates have begun operating from floating outposts known as “mother ships” — often captured fishing trawlers which can serve as bases for the smaller speedboats as they lie in wait. The crews are generally not harmed by the pirates…
I suppose as long as there are hostages, the alternative to paying ransom is unacceptable, but can't these ships carry armed personnel?9345. Wombat - 4/8/2009 8:12:06 PM There has been a philosophical dispute among shipowners and flagging states over arming the crew (or putting an armed detatchment on board civilian vessels). Before the Somalia episodes--and perhaps still--most pirate attacks were of the board, steal what isn't tied down, and get the hell off, variety. It was thought that the crew's safety was best served by having them stay out of the way and not resist, since insurance would cover any material losses.
Perhaps a re-think is in order. 9346. vonKreedon - 4/8/2009 8:31:49 PM Don't some, maybe cruise ships in particular, have non-lethal defense systems like focused sound and water cannons? 9347. wabbit - 4/9/2009 12:27:51 AM Wombat, the debate continues. Some want to arm all the ships and others think that will cause more problems than it will solve.
VK, I found an New Scientist from Dec. 2005 about those very tactics, and Salon did a piece a few months ago, but I don't know how well those will work long-term. Wired has also done some decent reporting on Somali piracy.
It seems the US crew has retaken the Maersk Alabama, but has lost their captain who is now a hostage. 9348. Wombat - 4/9/2009 3:29:45 AM The best resource for information on pirate attacks is probably the International Maritime Bureau (IMB). Not only that, but in the 1980s they sponsored a conference at which I gave two presentations, which became chapters in the published proceedings of the conference...! 9349. wabbit - 4/9/2009 1:53:38 PM IMB Piracy Reporting Centre
Their maps are interesting. 9350. alistairconnor - 4/10/2009 11:42:13 AM Interesting standoff :
Andrew Mwangura, the head of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme, said the Alabama had left the scene and was sailing under armed guard towards Mombasa, Kenya - its original destination - where it was expected to dock on Saturday. None of the crew members were hurt in the attack.
"They will release the captain, I think, maybe today or tomorrow, but in exchange for something. Maybe some payment or compensation, and definitely free passage back home," Mwangura told Reuters. [...]
"Our friends are still holding the captain but they cannot move, they are afraid of the warships. We want a ransom and, of course, the captain is our shield. The warships might not destroy the boat as long as he is on board."
The Alabama was the sixth ship to be hijacked off Somalia's Indian Ocean coast in a week, and is believed to be the first American-flagged merchant vessel to be attacked by pirates anywhere since the early 19th century.
The "East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme" sounds like an intriguing outfit... Charity? Trade union? Crime syndicate?
I blame Johnny Depp.
|
