Can someone explain Haqqani network logic to me?

Some stuff in this world just blows my mind.

Okay, so let me get this straight:

"Hey, we're holding one of your Soldiers hostage, but if you designate us as Terrorists, then we'll kill him"??

And that's supposed to make you somehow...what?  Less Terroristy?

Seriously??

Senior members of the Haqqani network said that the United States' designation of the militant group as terrorists could endanger the life of an American soldier thought to be in their custody and jeopardize peace talks.

"The Obama administration and U.S. military commanders know that their soldier Bowe Bergdahl is in our possession," a Haqqani commander told NBC News in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location on Friday. "He is in our custody, but his government failed to make any sincere effort for his release, and now this new development could add to his woes."

The Haqqanis, a Pashtun tribe with strongholds in southeastern Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan, have been blamed for an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and other high-profile assaults in Afghanistan. The group is also believed to be holding U.S. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured in 2009 in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, bordering Pakistan’s South Waziristan.

Rock Center: Inside The Situation Room Special on the killing of Bin Laden (VIDEO)

In case, like my Dad, you missed it we have the whole special here:

Part 1:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 2:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 3:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 4:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 5:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The post where I introduce you to Imran Khan, and tell Pakistan to bite me.

There's a Politican named Imran Khan. He's attracting big crowds, getting a lot of attention, and he may be bad news.

First off, it seems he may be getting financial support from the ISI, but more importantly:

The real key to Khan's popularity lies in his public stance against U.S. foreign policy, and what he describes as Washington's interference in Pakistan's internal affairs. He has consistently condemned drone strikes against militants in Pakistan's tribal belt, and argued that Pakistan's alliance with the United States is the main reason why the country is now facing a Taliban insurgency. Khan was careful on Sunday to indicate that he would be open to continued ties with the United States if he came to office, but only on Pakistan's terms. This is a heartening message for millions of Pakistanis who are still reeling from the audacity of the unilateral U.S. raid against Osama bin Laden's compound in May, which many saw as a brash violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty and an act of betrayal by a so-called ally. If this tactic succeeds, Khan will not be the first Pakistani politician to convert anti-Americanism into votes.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Also, reeling from the audacity of the unilateral U.S. raid against Osama bin Laden's compound in May, which many saw as a brash violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty and an act of betrayal by a so-called ally? Bite me, Pakistan.  Your Military and Intelligence command hid target number one and refused to cooperate in his capture, so we went in and got him.  @#$% you.

One would think Mr. Khan also knows how to add, and will get into office, look at the amount of funding we're giving him and make his actual decision from there.

It's very possible that he'll still dial back the Pakistani-American relationship. Then again, we seem to be anxious to dial it back ourselves.

I hope Mr. Khan understands that should there be another High Value Target in his country, alliance or no, we're still taking him out, and there's incredibly little Pakistan can do about it, except maybe get off a lucky shot.  (Remember Pakistan scrambled fighters to intercept our Raid Team's Choppers, but by the time we got there, they were already outta there, and UBL was dead.

Yes, Pakistan has nukes...but so does another country that's veeeery close to them...and we like them better.

The President's Interview on 60 Minutes, on Osama Bin Laden (VIDEO)

"We don't need to spike the football..." (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE: 4:30pm Pacific:

Never mind, here's the actual interview bit from 60 Minutes:



Needless to say, I'll be putting up the 60 Minutes story when its posted next Monday.

TPM: Remembering McCain and Clinton, slamming then Senator Obama over trying to kill OBL... (VIDEO)

Hell, somebody got it right. Any guesses as to who?



I guess he meant what he said.

Then again, one of the people that should be labeled as "wrong" in this video is, errr...ummm...the current Secretary of State. She'd be the one gasping in that famous photo.

Apparently, Christiane Amanpour pretty much nailed OBL's location back in 2008 (VIDEO)

Maximum credit where credit's due.

Watch Jon get lied to, TWICE in his interview with Pervez Musharraf (VIDEO)

From before the days this Blog existed. Interesting, given the context of the times.

"Do you know where he is?  We'll follow you."

Well, apparently that's what happened.


Part 1:

The Daily Show - Pervez Musharraf Pt. 1
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Hmm.  Watch the where Musharraf emphasizes over and over again that Pakistan eliminated Al-Qaeda from their cities.

You know...little bit of a problem there...

Methinks Jon got upset...at the wrong lie.

Part 2:

The Daily Show - Pervez Musharraf Pt. 2
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"What more proof do you need? Abject cruelty to children??" (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
To Kill a Mockingturd - Pakistani Intelligence
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
To Kill a Mockingturd - Pervez Musharraf Lies About Osama bin Laden
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

John Brennan's Security Briefing...at least a good chunk of it (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama announcing Osama Bin Laden's death (VIDEO)

UBL's Compound...ABC News Video

There will of course, be more, much more, on this as the day progresses, but first, the lay of the land, courtesy ABC News:

The biggest problem in fixing America may be the American people.

Brent McGoldrick is a Senior Vice President with FD, a communications strategy consulting firm. He released a story on Pollster.com, which shows what he believes the electorate is looking for should the GOP take over the Congress.

We find that voters generally believe:

1. A GOP majority in the House will improve overall economic conditions;

2. A GOP House would do a better job than past GOP-controlled Congresses (i.e., the party has learned their lesson);

3. But, voters want a GOP Congress to work with President Obama and Democrats, as opposed to pursuing their own agenda.

Oh my God.

America, are you high??!?

Let me say it slower this time: Are...you...high?

Number three is the one that gets on my nerves the most. After watching the nonsense the Republican minority has put us through that the American people would expect the GOP to set aside their own agenda and pursue compromise with the Democrats?

Stupider still is the fact that the President actually pursued Bipartisanship with the GOP when he came in with overwhelming majorities, and was rewarded with exactly jack-squat by these same American people. And the fruits of any bipartisan compromise are not only spat upon by members of his own coalition, but by the American people as a whole.

It's something I've said before. The biggest problem in fixing America may be the American people.

Right now there is a tremendous appetite, on both sides of the aisle for radical solutions. If you're not going to the extreme of something, hardcore Teabaggers or hardcore Liberals don't want to hear from you.

And voices of moderation and compromise, the things American say they want, are crushed in the polls.

And the worst part of it all is the American people don't understand what's happening to them. Yeah, sure some of its the media's part, but there's no ignorance like willful ignorance. And people not only don't understand what's been happening to them, they don't want to know what's happening to them. They have a rock-solid idea of what should happen, and you explain the ifs, the whys and the hows of the way things actually work, they don't care. It should go the way it should go in their heads. Period.

Bill Maher (promoting the return of Real Time with Bill Maher this friday) made a couple media apperances, and made a couple of the same points (I hope Youtube leaves the stuff on here for a while):

Bill Maher interview with Larry King, Part 1:



Bill Maher interview with Larry King, Part 2:



Bill Maher interview with Larry King, Part 3:



Bill Maher on Jay Leno the day before:

U.S. allowed to arrest Taliban No. 2?!?

Okay, the U.S. recently arrested Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second in command of the Taliban. On any other day, this should be (in the Vice President's words) a big f@#$%in deal.

But how we were allowed to arrest Mullah Baradar has come into question. And yes, you read that right, we were allowed to arrest him.

It seems that the Pakistani Government allowed the United States to arrest the Taliban's Number two because:

"We picked up Baradar and the others because they were trying to make a deal without us," said a Pakistani security official, who, like numerous people interviewed about the operation, spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. “We protect the Taliban. They are dependent on us. We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians."

Okay, did we get that?

The Pakistanis sold out Taliban Soul-Brother No. 2 out to us because Soul-Brother No. 2 had the temerity to make a deal without them.

Are you @#$%ing kidding me?!?!?

We're in a war where we can't trust our enemies (Taliban-duh!), can't trust our allies (Pakistan) because they're dealing with our enemies (Taliban), and are willing to sell them out in a moment's notice.

We're screwed.

Ambinder: All about Afghanistan...

Ambiner says the President was "ratfucked".

Literally.

And wouldn't you know it was Bob Woodward who did the...well, deed.

As he made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, President Obama made one thing clear when asked about whether he'd send more troops to Afghanistan: the question was moot because Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top commander in Afghanistan, hadn't yet asked requested any more troops.

But in McChrystal's confidential assessment, which was leaked to the Washington Post this weekend, the general makes clear his intention: "Broadly speaking, we require more Civilian and military resources, more ANSF, and more ISR and other enablers."

In plain language, that sounds like a request for more troops.

And so now, the president has been taken hostage, thanks to the leaker -- and it must have been an experienced leaker, because the timing was exquisite. So long as there is deniability -- so long as the White House exercised control over the framing of the report -- the president retained some measure of control over the political balance. Whoever leaked the document decided that the Commander in Chief did not deserve the latitude that he had claimed. The colloquial term for this in Washington is, and you'll pardon me, that the president was ratfucked.

An administration official pointed to several sentences in the review that prioritize fleshing out of a new strategy, including this line from the executive summary: "Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate." But Obama bears some responsibility for the predicament he is in. During the presidential campaign, he called Afghanistan the "good war." He repeatedly promised to give "commanders on the ground" the utmost consideration. In March, he announced what he called a "new strategy," one that called on NATO to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. "That's the goal that must be achieved."

Leaving aside the real constraints of domestic politics -- a skeptical Democratic Congress and a war-weary public, the heart of the internal administration conflict is whether a plausible Afghanistan strategy exists in universe. Simply put, the White House -- principally Vice President Biden and Gen. James Jones -- don't want to commit more troops to the region unless they can prevent the Taliban from taking over the government, now and in the future. Biden, in particular, argued against a "counterinsurgency for counterterrorism" strategy as overambitious and unsustainable. The deeply flawed election in Afghanistan, which, most importantly, was seen as deeply flawed by the Afghans, seems to have been the breaking point: the central government was not only corrupt, not only weak, and not only barely legitimate outside of Kabul; it was so weak and so corruptible that it would not even be able to sustain the standing army that NATO troops were desperately trying to train. Who was the U.S. fighting for? A weak, inept, ineffectual and ultimately disposable government? Implicit in this argument is that a strategy predicated on there being an alternative to the Taliban is like a hamster spinning on a wheel. In that case, removing the incentives for the Taliban to be radicalized and destroying the leadership of Al Qaeda -- basically, bribing people and killing people, and doing so indefinitely, but with irregular and special operations forces -- is the alternative. The Biden alternative focuses on the intricate connections between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Briefly put, Pakistan facilitates the Taliban and various insurgencies in Afghanistan because it preserves the option of living space to the north -- part of the grand goal of turning Pakistan into a haven for Islam. Kashmir's fate is crucial to this dynamic. But India won't talk about Kashmir; Pakistan won't -- can't -- truly cut off ties with the Taliban until Kashmir is dealt with -- and the U.S seems to have no leverage whatsoever.

What are the alternatives? An intense, low-level war of attrition between NATO forces and the Taliban forever? Or a concerted effort by the US, Russia, Iran and China to essentially force India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmiri dispute, combined with massive amounts of direct aid to Pakistan, combined with a massive influx of intelligence assets into the region, combined with the bribing of willing and bribable Taliban commanders? Basically, instead of focusing on Afghan civillians, this strategy would make it as expensive as possible for a Taliban leader to decide not to ally with the United States. In other words -- counterterrorism as counterinsurgency, and not the other way around.

As Washington synthesizes the new report and tries to gauge its effect on the administration, speculation naturally redounds to the source of the leaker. Various theories have been put forth; let's put aside Occam's razor and assume that McChrystal and his staff didn't just give the document to Woodward. Theory one: Woodward traveled with Gen. Jim Jones recently, so Jones gave him the report. Probably not: the trip was in July, before the review was finished. Admiral Mike Mullen's staff, anxious about White House dithering, leaked the report with Mullen's blessing. Probably not: Mullen shares Jones's concerns about mission drift and is counseling caution. The more probable communities of suspects: senior Pentagon civilian holdovers, lifers, who've cooperated with Woodward before and who have a stake in McChrystal's counterinsurgency doctrine; war planners at Centcom, or the large cadre of defense consultants with clearance.

This leak [is] not, in other words, a shot in an ongoing conflict between the military and civilians. It's between those who are invested in the success of McChrystal's endeavor and those who harbor growing concerns about over-investing in a strategy that might not work.

I don't know if the President is as boxed into a corner as Ambers says he is. Sounds to me like he's drawing a line in a sand, and demanding a strategy before he commits to anything; but he does want to get the people who hits on 9/11. He repeated as much on Letterman last night.

But, of course, things are coming to a head, and maybe not in the way people expect.

Michael Ware: Pakistan and America, and possibly the Taliban are all "positioning to begin talks to end the conflict."

The whole thing is entertaining, but at the three minute mark things get mega-interesting.

Watch it while you can. The last link was removed by YouTube.


Part 1:

Part 2:

NPR: Predator Drone kills a son of Usama Bin Laden

According to NPR:

U.S. officials believe Saad bin Laden — a son of Osama bin Laden — has been killed by an American missile in Pakistan.

Saad bin Laden reportedly spent years under house arrest in Iran before traveling last year to Pakistan, according to former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

It's believed he was killed by Hellfire missiles fired from a U.S. Predator drone sometime this year.

A senior U.S. counterterrorism official tells NPR that without a body to conduct DNA tests on, it's hard to be completely sure. But he characterized U.S. spy agencies as being "80 to 85 percent" certain that Saad bin Laden is dead.

The U.S. counterterrorism official says Saad bin Laden wasn't important enough to target personally — that he was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

He was active in al-Qaida, but was not a major player, the official said. He was believed to be in his late 20s.

"We make a big deal out of him because of his last name," the official added.

It's not known whether Saad bin Laden was anywhere near his father when he died.

Boy, all kinds of amazing questions come up because of this story.

What was Iran's involvement in this, exactly? Holding him until last year, and letting go into Pakistan?

Why exactly was he being held for all those years in Iran? My understanding is there isn't a lot of love lost been the Iranian Shiites and Al Qaeda.

Was this guy meant to make a beeline for his Father? If that was the plan (and that's wild, wild speculation at this point), who's idea was that??

Does this mean we're inching closer to UBL, or not? Going by what the Officials told NPR, the answer is a clear no. Then again, would you want to admit we're getting closer to one of the world's most dangerous fugitives?

BTW, Saad's bio on Wikipedia (and judge Wikipedia for what it's worth) disagrees somewhat with the "Saad bin Laden wasn't important enough to target personally" line, in that he "occupies a position of preeminence in Al Qaeda," and:

Saad was believed to have been heavily responsible for the bombing of a Tunisian synagogue on April 11, 2002, which killed 19.^[1]

The following year, there were disputed claims of his capture by Pakistan in March,^[2] though these proved false, and he was implicated in the May 12th suicide bombing in Riyadh, and the Morocco bombing four days later.

Saad accompanied his father on his exile to Sudan from 1991-96, and followed him to Afghanistan after that. He is believed to be married to a woman from Yemen. Iran has stated that a number of al-Qaeda leaders and members are in their custody, possibly including the son of Osama bin Laden, Saad bin Laden.^[3][4]

All rampant speculation at this point. This could be something. This could be nothing at all.

The Third Hand...

There’s a concept I’ve been discussing with my Father recently; a concept I’ve given to calling, the “Third Hand”.

When a Political Figure acts against his nature, for whatever reason, there’s usually some other force at work, something we don’t see.

Put a simpler way, you got one hand on Obama pulling him one way, you got another hand pulling him in reverse, and then comes another hand (hint-hint: a Third Hand), which pushes him the way he actually goes.

Think of it like this, if there’s a situation where Obama does something to deliberately anger his base, logic suggests that the alternative, whatever it may be, is far worse.

Thus, we come to the release, or non-release, of those Abu Ghraib Photos, and the President’s reversal on that decision. My fellow Progressives/Liberals are justifiably upset by the decision…or maybe not so justifiably.

Looked at on its own, by itself the decision to withhold those photos is indefensible. Lord knows people I read, admire and respect have been dumping all over it. (Though I will say, David Kurtz in TPM comes very close to the explanation I'm about to give you, and...after all...he's a professional, and got there first, so...kudos.)

But…and I hate to bring the West Wing into anything…but it’s like President Bartlet said in the episode Hartsfield’s Landing (Episode 58, Season 3): “See the whole board…”

What do I mean by that?

Ask yourself, what happened? What made President Obama change his mind, or more to the point, has something changed that would make President Obama change his mind??

I’d say, yes.

Mind you this is just a theory, but at the same time...

Since the last week of April, beginning of May, there has been a considerable uptick in the violence in Pakistan, as the Taliban has moved ever closer to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan (within 60 miles, so it seems). Now, the United States has been using Aerial drones to ice people across the Pakistani Border. The Pakistani Government has been upset about that, but since Pakistani’s Prime Minister is Asif Ali Zardari (aka Benazir Bhutto’s widower) and Islamist Militants were the ones who killed her, I don’t think he’s that upset…you know what I mean?

(In fact, should I mention that the Pakistani Government wants "ownership" over U.S. Drones? God, I hope we told them "hell, no.")

The situation was so bad that General Petraeus said that Pakistan was two weeks from falling, and the President was asked about the security of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal at his last press conference.

But something has happened into the interim. Pakistan’s population has decided that they don’t much like the Taliban, or Taliban rule. In fact now that the Taliban has closed within 40 miles of the Capital, suddenly, we don’t have to bribe the Generals into defending their own country anymore. They’re actually (finally) pulling troops off the Indian border to get into the fight with the extremists. In fact, it’s creating something of a humanitarian crisis as refugees flee the fighting.

So, we are left with a situation where the Pakistani Military has finally gotten off its collective, and ineffective ass to start dealing some payback to the Taliban. There's popular support for the offensive in mainstream Pakistan, and all this is coming off recent American pressure to do so.

...and into this hyper-mega-combustile mix, some folks want to release some 2000 more photographs of Americans torturing Muslims?!?

Can you say…Danish Cartoons?? Times ten??

The President said that these Photographs were "not particularly sensational, particularly when compared to the painful images we remember from Abu Ghraib." Maybe, maybe not. We only have his word on this. I've heard in some quarters, these photos were pretty bad. They were bad enough to have Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman write the President a letter begging him to not to release the photos. (It's too bad they couldn't have gotten a Democrat to sign that letter. I would have been helpful if it was bipartisan.)

With the Pakistani populace finally seeing things our way, why do we want to go and insert into the discussion something that makes the Pakistanis start thinking that the Taliban has a point?!?

Listen, some of the stories I’m seeing are using a specific word: stall and/or delay. I think the Administration is eventually going to release these photos, on their own accord. Either that, or I wonder how far they'll fight the case in court. Either way, they’re not going to release those photos yet, not until Pakistan stabilizes.

Personally, I want the photos released, too, but I'm personally okay with this decision as long as it's only a stall, or a delay...and not an outright cancellation.

At the end of Hartsfield's Landing, Sam Seaborn (in case you don’t remember, played by Rob Lowe), asks President Bartlet (Martin Sheen), a question. The answer is one that is both simple and complicated all at the same time, and is one of the reasons (I trust) we all voted for the President in the first place:

SAM

I don’t know how you... I don’t know the word. I...don’t know how you do it.

BARTLET

You have a lot of help. You listen to everybody and then you call the play.

I think the President might owe us a better explanation than the “safety of American Troops”, which is both true and hollow all at once. But this advice is coming from his Generals (something we all thought Bush didn't do enough of), and its coming from his OLC (who may actually have read a Law Book or two in their careers).

Still, I think the real reasons play across a far wider board...one we all should try to see, but that the President is ultimately responsible for.

Please remember, there was a reason we decided we wanted this man to call the plays.

UPDATE (5:26pm Pacific): For the record, I beat Joe Klein to the punch.

The President Announces his new plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Kaplan: This isn't the 2 Brigades Obama was talking about during the campaign...

From Fred Kaplan's latest:

The president announced on Tuesday that he was sending two more brigades plus their support personnel to Afghanistan—thus boosting the U.S. military presence there by half—for two basic reasons: to keep that country from falling apart before its presidential elections this August and to provide a modicum of security, so that the elections can take place.

The White House is conducting a "strategic review" of Afghanistan, scheduled to be completed in 60 days. (The Pentagon's Joint Staff has already submitted its own review, and Gen. David Petraeus' U.S. Central Command is writing one, too. At least one section of the White House's paper will be a review of those reviews.) After that, Obama will decide how to deal with this war in the long term. But if he'd waited for the review before deciding whether to send the two brigades, they wouldn't have arrived in time for the elections.