From The CSM: ‘U.S. Consulate In Peshawar Attacked By Pakistan Taliban’

Full post here.

“The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. “We accept the attacks on the American consulate. This is revenge for drone attacks,” spokesman Azam Tariq told Agence France-Presse.”

Also, some April links here.

It’s nothing new, but important to point out that the rifts are still there in Afghanistan: deep poverty, a war-torn and geographically divided country, tribal and local entities united by Islam with little support or trust in national entities, extremely low literacy rates.   Corruption is rampant, and security is still key:  provide what the Taliban does in the way of law and order and basic services without the drug money, the warlord’s vengeance, even the potential exploitation of the local people by Al-Qaada pan-nationals for their ideology’s sake…

We have many national security interests at stake. I suspect that any success we may have still hinges largely on Pakistan, India, EU partnership (showing strong and vague bureaucratic support here), and of course the Karzai government as it stands as well…

Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Also: From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”

And:  Philip Bobbitt Discusses His Book ‘Terror And Consent’ On Bloggingheads

From CSIS: ‘How the US Must Expand and Redefine International Cooperation in Fighting Terrorism’

Repost-From Foreign Policy: Fabrice Pothier’s ‘Time For An Afghan Surge’

Add to Technorati Favorites

From The Christian Science Monitor Via A & L Daily: An Interview With Francis Fukuyama

Full interview here.

So to Robert Kagan, Fukuyama might argue:

“…the pessimism about civilization that we had developed as a result of the terrible 20th century, with its genocides, gulags, and world wars, was actually not the whole picture at all. In fact, there were a lot of positive trends going on in the world, including the spread of democracy where there had been dictatorship. Sam Huntington called this “the third wave.”‘

And (particularly with Russia in mind):

“Clearly, that big surge toward democracy went as far as it could. Now there is a backlash against it in some places. But that doesn’t mean the larger trend is not still toward democracy”

Fukuyama also points out on what he bases much of his thinking; extending Samuel Huntington’s framework:

“Huntington’s argument was that democracy, individualism, and human rights are not universal, but reflections of culture rooted in Western Christendom. While that is true historically, these values have grown beyond their origins.”

And what about China?:

“You cannot solve the problem of the “bad emperor” through moral suasion. And China has had some pretty bad emperors over the centuries. Without procedural accountability, you can never establish real accountability.”

You can teach people to be moral in this argument, and instill moral values, but without levers and counter-levers, we’re only a step away from tyranny.

Related On This Site:  Kagan’s new book “The Return Of History And The End Of Dreams” seeks to challenge Fukuyama’s thinking…does it succeed?: Obama’s Decision On Missile Defense And A Quote From Robert Kagan’s: ‘The Return Of History And The End Of Dreams’

Stanley Kurtz suggested Fukuyama’s Hegelian influence is too much to bear:  From The Hoover Institution: Stanley Kurtz On Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington

Also:  From The American Interest Online: Francis Fukuyama On Samuel HuntingtonA Few Thoughts On (Absolute) Idealism, Both Religious And Political/Philosophical

Add to Technorati Favorites