International Political Will

Why would Afghan elders “tip off the Taliban” that U.S. soldiers were in their village?

On Monday night, NBC Nightly News had the perfect opportunity to answer this question that is at the root of our military failures in Afghanistan. They had the chance to produce a piece of journalism that could have helped shape U.S. policy, informed the voting public, or, at a minimum, expose misguided strategies.

But along the way they forgot they were journalists.

Instead, Richard Engel’s report from the front lines was a well-executed propaganda piece – pure violence, guns, and entertainment disguised as “news.”

Despite NBC’s attempt to describe it as an “incredible story,” there really was no story. It was four minutes of guns, guns, and more guns, presented in a stylish video game format, with the sole aim of entertaining viewers.

Brian Williams – whose voice inflections can make a Ladies Club tea party sound like a Martian invasion - introduced the story:

“If you have never been in a live fire situation…or around guns fired in anger…Richard Engel might just bring you as close as you can possibly get…”

“What you’re about to see is violent, but put it this way, if you have a kid in this war, this is what your kid’s been up to.”

Apparently this is no longer a war where people kill other human beings. Now it’s merely “a live fire situation” where “guns are fired in anger.” Strange. I thought the only reason machine guns were invented in the first place was to fire them in anger.

Stranger still was Williams’ flippant quip about “kids at war.” Were we supposed to feel good about the fact that our kid is “shooting guns in anger” in a “live fire situation?” As opposed to the kids who just shoot responsibly while duck hunting?

The story follows a platoon of American troops marching to a village, worried that “local elders have tipped off the Taliban.”

NBC selectively edits screenshots to make the village appear completely empty of people, families, and children (except for, we are left to assume, only those elders that snitched to the Taliban…).

Yet when the soldiers first arrive at a crumbling old house to dig in before the battle begins, the village is clearly visible in the immediate foreground. But empty villages make for convenient war zones: eliminates that nasty problem of collateral damage.

Then the embedded reporter, Richard Engel, tells us what is obviously the highlight of his story: one of the soldiers is wearing a camera on his helmet.

Because what better way to make war look like Nintendo first-person shooter video games then with a helmet cam.

Now all those kiddies at home that aren’t yet old enough to fire a real gun in anger can feel more like they are killing people when they pop in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare or Grand Theft Auto.

The split-screens that NBC uses to show us “multiple, simultaneous angles inside a firefight” feel more like a macabre Brady Bunch intro than a war where people are dying.

But I guess that’s entertainment. Or news. Or whatever-the-fuck NBC claims to be.

In a post-production narrative, Engel tells us they are under fire from “10 or so” Taliban fighters that are “close.” Apparently not close enough to see with the helmet cam. During the action, Engel says they are taking fire “from at least two positions.” After the firefight, the soldiers “think they killed 3 or 4 Taliban fighters.” If they were so close (and with all those cameras), why are they guessing about numbers of fighters, positions, and casualties? So many unknowns are a recipe for collateral damage.

After all, Engel says the soldiers used so many bullets they were running low on ammo, used rockets and grenades (one helmet cam shot shows a soldier blindly launching a grenade over a wall)…

…“more than 40 mortars” (fired up into the air and allegedly so precise they only landed on the “10 or so” Taliban fighters in “at least two positions” somewhere in the hills)…

…and even called in air strikes (which made for some nice smoke, but again, no one’s sure what was hit).

By not showing viewers a single enemy, NBC effectively removed the human equation, creating a sanitized – yet sensationalized – depiction of war. The enemy becomes a faceless concoction of our imagination, based only on our stereotypes of a deranged Taliban Muslim who wants to cut everyone’s head off.

By prefacing the battle with an “empty” village, NBC insinuates that innocent civilians were not harmed. There could be no collateral damage if there were no villagers.

And by telling viewers at the beginning of the story that the platoon leader was worried because “local elders tipped off the Taliban,” viewers may draw the conclusion that this is an “enemy” village, and any villagers remaining are informers and snitches. A village of Taliban sympathizers aren’t innocent. Thus, they can’t be considered collateral damage, and are either legitimate targets or deserving of any stray bullets, grenades, mortars, or air strikes.

Historically, imperial powers have over-estimated the willingness of the public to endure collateral damage in counter-insurgency wars. Given this context, and after watching the massive amount of munitions and artillery that was used in an “empty village,” it seems a responsible journalist would have tried to answer the obvious and relevant question:

Why would local elders tip off the Taliban?

If we are to ever understand why our troops in Afghanistan have bogged down, why the insurgency continues to gain support, or why the Taliban are able to recruit new fighters, that’s the story that needs to be told.

That’s what real journalists would do.

But that would require public examination of U.S. policies that use collateral damage, civilian deaths, and force of arms to win Afghan “hearts and minds.”

That would mean eschewing the helmet cam and video-game presentation in favor of reality, something that puts education before profit or entertainment.

Unfortunately, our media is too busy fawning over a mutilated, pedophilic has-been to worry about real news that actually affects our lives, our future, and our world.

Tags: journalism, Nintendo, guns, violence, collateral damage

I stood outside of the stone-walled compound in rural northern Afghanistan passing time with a couple of UN drivers.

A young boy on a donkey ambled up and joined us, curious about the foreigner. Smiling, he began asking me questions, which were then translated by one of the drivers. Where are you from? What is your name? Do you like it here?

I replied with similar questions. His name was Hakim. He was 12 years old. His father lived in the house up the road. He was supposed to be hauling food from down the hill, but now, it seemed, was distracted and had forgotten his task.

After a few minutes, the young man settled down, still perched on his donkey. He listened in on our conversation, giggled when the men told a joke, occasionally threw in a comment or two, and showed us how his stubborn donkey could be cajoled into obeying.

I was going to ask to take a photo with him, but then a foreign woman came out of the compound. She was one of the UN observers (from Finland I think), there to document aid projects.

The middle-aged woman walked straight out of the doorway, over to our group, pulled out her camera, and aimed for a close-up of the boy on the donkey.

Without asking. Without even acknowledging the boy. As if he was a sunset or a flower, there purely for her amusement.

Before she could snap the photo, the young man – who only moments before was smiling and enjoying himself – stared back at her camera lens with an empty gaze, almost scowling.

It didn’t bother the Finnish woman. She took a few photos anyway, and then moved on to another part of the compound to intrude on someone else’s life.

My photo would have shown a smiling young man. A boy with a name. Someone with a life and a personality. A hopeful young man who was proud, good-natured, and eager to interact with strangers. But I never got that photo.

Instead, the Finnish woman’s photo – one that she would take back to Finland (and to the UN) – shows a solemn, unhappy boy. Someone she doesn’t know and couldn’t describe other than as “a poor kid in northern Afghanistan.” And the boy’s facial expression would support the stereotypes, images, and ideas that the West already has about Afghans – that even their children are oppressed, unhappy, and already learning to be unfriendly.

Unfortunately, I see this all too often. Tourists seem to think that even the people of foreign countries are inanimate objects there for their amusement and that they have the right to snap photos without permission (or even without interacting as humans). Traveling – an activity that should nurture human relationships between different cultures – too often becomes an exercise in promoting stereotypes or images that don’t tell the whole story.

Tourists want to bring back something from their trip for their friends and family to see. Something to record their experience. But in their effort to document, they forget to actually experience anything and end up just seeing the world through an LED screen. Human relationships are not transmitted through a lens.

It’s not just a Western thing, either.

Japanese are notorious for their over-indulgence in photographing anything and everything with little regard for reality. We’ve all see the tour bus pull up to Yosemite Falls, the hoards of Japanese tourists (for some reason wearing white gloves) all file out, snap a few photos, and pile back into the bus to move on. They do the same thing in places like Cambodia, Thailand, India, and China. They take photos of the local people as if they were the ancient brick ruins of Angkor Wat: a thing simply there for documentation, not interaction.

Even Indians do it. I watched a bunch of Bengali tourists in rural Northeast India crowd around a young boy and his little brother sitting on a log on the side of the road. The cell phones came out, and the tourists from Calcutta snapped away at the “cute little boys living in poverty” (even though the boys weren’t living in poverty – at least not like they do in Calcutta, Mumbai, or Delhi). It looked to me like the boys were just enjoying the morning Himalayan sunshine, but once the cameras appeared, the tourists got their photo of boys with blank stares.

There was no interaction. No one asked what the boys’ names were. No one asked if they could take their photo. The boys looked at their photographers like they were strangers who had just walked into their home – empty, wary, distrustful. So each Bengali tourist went home with a grainy photo in their cell phone to show their friends of some pitiful looking boys that fit the stereotype of “rural India.”

“…look how sad he is…he must be starving…he’s lost all hope…Oh! And here’s a photo of me in our hotel room drinking tea. What a great view, huh?…”

Indians like to take photos of foreigners, too. On a wildlife safari in Northern India, a jeep of Indians pulled up next to my wife and me and whipped out their cameras. No asking, nothing. Like we were the monkeys they had come to see.

The Indians that do ask fail to understand that a conversation is usually considered a polite segue to taking a photo. Ask my name. Ask where I’m from. Ask what I’m doing here. Engage me. Don’t just come up and ask “Can I take my photo with you?” What the hell are they going to do with that photo – other than show it to their friends?

“…here’s me at the Taj Mahal, here’s me riding an elephant, here’s me with some white guy…”

With the popularity of digital cameras, taking photos – especially of children – has taken on new meaning. The kids know that you have that instant LED screen, and if you actually engage them first and talk to them (I dunno, treat them like people), they are excited to gather around and see their photo on the back of your camera.

When we travel to distant lands with foreign cultures and see people that are different from us, it’s only natural to want to document it. To remember. To share with others back home.

But just because we have taken a photo doesn’t mean it actually represents reality. Without interacting as people, photos of other human beings are a false image that can distort our views, build on stereotypes, and even piss off the locals.

And kids – kids love to have their photo taken. They may be poor. They may be living in poverty. But in general, if approached like people instead of historical landmarks, they are eager to have you take their picture. It’s a rare chance for many of them to document that they are real, that they exist, and that they will be remembered.

We just need to make sure to document their existence on their terms, not ours. After all, what good is a memory if it wasn’t a happy one?

Tags: photos, travel, kids, foreigners, camera

Watching, reading, listening, and even trying to actually decipher the media’s coverage of Iran’s elections is becoming an exercise in blissful ignorance, simplistic dichotomies, and pure unadulterated stupidity.

One might be led to believe that Ahmedinejad is a long-entrenched, all-powerful dictator with a history of rigging elections, in the mold of Mugabe or Mubarak (oops, Mubarak isn’t a dictator…he’s a “moderate” and an ally).

Except that Ahmedinejad was only elected four years ago, and Iran’s presidents have never been more than a public face that does the clerical leadership’s bidding. Real power in Iran rests in the hands of the clerics – it always has. The clerics could care less who gets elected (of course, they choose all the candidates to begin with). Whether a reformer, moderate, or even liberal, the president doesn’t so much as spit without permission.

A consumer of western media could also rightfully assume that the challenger – Mir Hossein Mousavi – would radically “reform” Iran’s nuclear policy, opening up a new era of peace and subservience to American nuclear hegemony.

But that ignores Mousavi himself, when he explicitly and publicly states that he would continue nuclear development and that Iran will “not abandon our right to nuclear technology.” More to the point, we haven’t actually heard anything about what Mousavi stands for – only what his opponent, Ahmedinejad, stands against. (If Ahmedinejad = bad, then by virtue of simplistic dichotomy, Mousavi = good.)

The media repeatedly refers to Mousavi as a “reformer,” but analysts who have actually spent more than 10 days in Iran (which was the length of visas given to foreign correspondents covering the elections), say Mousavi is simply a “moderate.” “Moderate,” in the parlance of Washington D.C. politicians and lobbyists, means “free market” (read: will open up Iran’s oil to private, foreign investment).

The allegations of voter fraud and rigging, along with extraordinary coverage of public protests, might suggest to CNN viewers that Ahmedinejad could not have won by the 2-1 margin he claims.

But the only evidence put forward by critics is that “the results came out so quickly.” Not exactly indisputable proof. Even less is said about the fact that Mousavi’s primary supporters are the middle/upper class and students, which probably – at best – makes up about 30% of the country. That would help explain the 2-1 margin.

There are even those in the mainstream media (albeit, mostly on the right) who are trying to recreate history according to their distorted worldview. Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard said on FOX News Sunday: “Years ago, [Ahmedinejad] was part of the axis of evil.”

Except that in 2002 when Bush made his famous “axis of evil” quote, Ahmedinejad was not president (he wasn’t even a known political figure). The president of Iran in 2002 was Mohammad Khatami (a “reformer”).

Which brings me to my last point. Why does western media refuse to delve into the issue of why Ahmedinejad was elected in the first place? He wasn’t put there by the clerical leadership, he didn’t seize power in a coup – he was put there by the Iranian people.

Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, Iran expressed their solidarity with America. The Ayatollah of Iran declared a “Jihad against this evil phenomenon” of terrorism, a soccer stadium of 60,000 Iranians observed a moment of silence, and thousands in Tehran held a candlelight vigil to honor the victims at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

At the time, Iran had a “reformer” president, and the U.S. had been moving toward a policy of engagement. Sounds like a recipe for reconciliation.

But then Bush lumped Iran together with Iraq and North Korea and declared global war.

And then one year later, Bush and Cheney lied their asses off and initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq. Of course, we already had troops in Afghanistan (and in Kuwait, and Qatar, and floating in the Persian Gulf, etc., etc., etc.).

So now a country that had expressed their solidarity with the U.S. after 9/11 was: 1) labeled as part of an axis of evil, 2) surrounded by hostile military forces, and 3) watched one part of that axis be invaded and torn apart.

In response, Iranians elected a hardliner that was willing to take a stand against the imperialism that was creeping into their midst. Someone who would push back before they became Part 2 of the Neo-cons’ plan to subdue the oil-rich Middle East.

Assuming that the election results this week were valid (not saying they were – but for hypothetical sake, let’s assume), why was Ahmedinejad re-elected?

In 2004, many people asked the same question about the U.S. How could Americans – having seen the mess that Bush and Co. had made – give Dubya another four years?

Perhaps not all Americans were ready to believe that the world could be different. Maybe we needed a little more time and evidence to prove that aggression wasn’t the only option.

Similarly, Iranians might be in the same boat. Perhaps they need a little more time to truly believe Obama when he says a new era is upon us. Maybe not enough Iranians are convinced yet that things will change.

So give them another four years. It’s possible the Iranian elections of 2009 were just the beginning of a larger movement, and Mousavi, like John Kerry in 2004, just wasn’t a strong enough candidate to convince his people that the world can be different.

Ahmedinejad is not a dictator. He’s not even a particularly powerful leader. And Mousavi is not some second-coming of the Shah who is going to return Iran to the orbit of American influence. Power in Iran resides with the clerics, not the president.

In the end, Iran not only needs a leader that can convince the people that a new world is possible, but someone who can also convince the clerics.

That won’t happen in one election, so we can stop acting like this is the revolution we (and some Iranians) have been waiting for.

But it might be the tipping point.

UPDATE: NBC Nightly News on Wednesday evening had a one of its reporters (a dual British-Iranian citizen) on the phone as he interviewed a pro-Mousavi protester.  The young man asked the journalist to “translate” the banner he was holding up because it was in English and he didn’t know what it said…

…Gee, I wonder which intelligence agency with a history of meddling in foreign countries could have been passing out English signs to Iranian students in order to create the appearance of a revolution…

Tags: Ayatollah, war, elections, reformer, ahmedinejad

The embarrassing praise and adoration that the media is pouring on Obama after his “speech to the Muslim world” in Cairo is proof that liberals no longer have a voice in public policy.

Instead, we are left with a pseudo-debate between the right and the center, with spin doctors trying to convince Americans (and even the Arab press) that what Obama said in Cairo was somehow different from what George W. Bush ever said.

Obama made several key points – most notably about the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the notion of an American “War on Islam,” and Iran’s nuclear program.

But there was nothing new. Nothing that the world hasn’t already heard from Bush.

When Bush made his speeches, some of the media – and certainly the rest of the world outside of the U.S. – screamed and hollered about human rights, fascism, imperialism, and hypocrisy.

Why the sudden change of heart with Obama? Is it our president’s skin color? His family’s religious history? His tone? The fact that he hasn’t started any new wars – just continued the old ones?

Or is the free pass because of the hope that a new U.S. president symbolizes in a world being torn apart by polarized ideologies and hatred?

Because Obama’s Cairo speech clearly showed that policy hasn’t changed. Just the messenger.

Consider the comparisons…

• On the “War against Islam”:

OBAMA: …America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security – because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.

BUSH: Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for…we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we’ll prevail.
(November 20, 2002 press conference in Prague, Czech Republic)

• On permanent military bases and withdrawal of troops:

OBAMA: Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan…we seek no military bases there…We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case…

BUSH: We won’t have permanent bases.
(February 10, 2008 interview at Camp David, Maryland with FOX News)

BUSH: And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America…We will not permit Al Qaeda…a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America…We will not turn that country over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk.
(November 30, 2005 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland)

• On U.S.-Israel ties:

OBAMA: America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

BUSH: And the United States will keep its commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

BUSH: …America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world. The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul.
(May 15, 2008 speech to the Israeli Knesset)

• On the situation in Palestine:

OBAMA: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

BUSH: It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

• On a two-state solution:

OBAMA: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

BUSH: My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On the Road Map and responsibilities:

OBAMA: The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

BUSH: [W]e reaffirm the path to peace set out in the road map… The success of these efforts will require that all parties show patience and flexibility and meet their responsibilities.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On Palestinian violence:

OBAMA: Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed.

BUSH: A Palestinian state will never be created by terror — it will be built through reform.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: …the terror and violence preached by Palestinian extremists is the greatest obstacle to a Palestinian state.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On the role of Hamas:

OBAMA: Hamas…have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.

BUSH: And we will continue to deliver a firm message to Hamas…you must reject violence, and recognize Israel’s right to exist, and commit to all previous agreements between the parties.
(July 16, 2007 speech at the White House)

• On Israeli settlements in the West Bank:

OBAMA: The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

BUSH: And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion…
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On threats to Israel’s security:

OBAMA: [T]he continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

BUSH: Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy. A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

• On Arab states’ normalization with Israel:

OBAMA: [T]he Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict…must be a cause for action…to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

BUSH: And as we move toward a peaceful solution, Arab states will be expected to build closer ties of diplomacy and commerce with Israel, leading to full normalization of relations between Israel and the entire Arab world.
(June 24, 2002 speech in the Rose Garden at the White House)

BUSH: Arab states should also reach out to Israel, work toward the normalization of relations and demonstrate in both word and deed that they believe that Israel and its people have a permanent home in the Middle East.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On U.S.-imposed peace:

OBAMA: America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace.

BUSH: America will do everything in our power to support [the Arabs/Israelis] quest for peace, but we cannot achieve it for them.
(November 27, 2007 speech at the Annapolis Conference in Maryland)

• On Iran’s nuclear program:

OBAMA: And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

BUSH: Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions…[however] we have no objection to Iran’s pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.
(September 19, 2006 speech to the U.N. General Assembly)

Meanwhile, despite the rhetoric being exactly the same, some media are attacking Obama as insufficiently supportive of Israel (read: anti-Semitic) by skewing facts and using selective memory. They accuse Obama of “alienating” Israel, of making concessions, or of unfairly blaming one side over another.

Essentially, after repeating almost verbatim what George W. Bush said for eight years, the only criticism of Obama is that he’s not conservative enough.

The lack of a liberal critique in the media – and the complete acceptance of whatever Obama says regardless of content - is an indication of the of malignant conservatism that has taken root in the American foreign policy debate. A true debate – beginning with real journalism – would stimulate discussions about why America is continuing with a foreign policy that has obviously and very publicly failed over the past decade.

It was just a speech – not action – and no doubt it will take more than words to heal the rift between East and West, Christian and Muslim.

But we will never begin the healing as long as the same failed policies and empty rhetoric remain.

Tags: Palestine, war on Islam, Cairo, media, terrorism

After last Friday’s bombing that killed 25 at a Shiite mosque in Zahedan, Iran, Press TV (an Iranian-funded news outlet) ran the headline:

Iran mosque blast bears ‘US, Israel thumbprints’

Of course, the two Iranian officials quoted in the brief story didn’t offer any evidence – merely that the attack was “at the behest of the United States and its allies.”

So I guess one could assume it’s just the Iranians being paranoid and blaming that “Zionist entity” that they claim is responsible for so many of the world’s ills.

Others might write this off as just the latest finger-pointing from the same country whose president denies the Holocaust (as well as the existence of homosexuals within his country).

Surely there are plenty of neoconservatives who will just dismiss this claim as ranting from the second act of the Axis of Evil.

Stories from other respectable media outlets were notably less conspiratorial. Jundallah, a Balochi militant group of Sunni separatists from the southeast of the country, claimed responsibility for the bombing. Within two days, three men (apparently suspects?) were executed for the terrorist act.

Balochistan is a region with a reputation; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (he of the 183 waterboardings fame and alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks) hails from the region, as did Ramzi Yousef, the extremist charged with bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

Jundallah has caused problems for the Shiite regime in the past: in 2006, more than 20 people were killed by suspected Jundallah militants in an attack.

In February 2007, Jundallah admitted bombing a bus and killing at least 11 members of the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Yet in September 2007, then-Senators Obama and Clinton voted to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. I would have thought the perpetrators – not the victims – of a terrorist act would have been designated “terrorists.”

Maybe the future President and Secretary of State were only “creating their own reality,” to use a term coined by the previous administration. After an April, 2007 ABC News story reported on possible CIA-Jundallah links (along with adamant government denials), someone evidently decided a clear definition was needed for the American public as to who was the good guy and who was the bad guy.

A year later, in June 2008, Seymour Hersh wrote extensively about U.S. covert operations to fund, support, and perhaps even arm ethnic-minority insurgent groups inside Iran to weaken the clerical regime. Among Hersh’s sources was former CIA agent Robert Baer, who specifically named Jundallah among three groups allegedly receiving U.S. support.

Strangely enough, Jundallah is not included on the U.S. State Department’s list of “foreign designated terrorist groups.” Probably makes it easier for the CIA to get approval for operations in the behind-the-door meetings with congressional members.

But that’s assuming any support for Jundallah goes through official channels. It’s just as likely that support could be indirect and funneled through Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or other Sunni sympathizers (that, conveniently, are our “allies”).

Is there any truth to Iran’s claims of U.S involvement in the mosque bombing?

One could dismiss Hersh’s story (after all, he was so wrong about that whole My Lai thing…).

Skeptics could question Baer’s credibility, given that he now writes books about the subject that have been turned into Hollywood blockbusters (i.e., Syriana). But the U.S. government never denied supporting the two other insurgent groups Baer also named.

Patriotic Neocons will likely point out that after the initial ABC News story broke, Pakistan publicly denied supporting Jundallah at the behest of the U.S. (of course, at the time Pakistan was run by an unelected, U.S.-supported dictator).

Realists might simply require evidence from the Iranian regime about their claims of U.S. involvement.

Or one could look to the past.

During the 1980s, the U.S. funded Sunni fundamentalists in the region using Pakistan as a surrogate ATM machine. Many of the same elements that form the Taliban and Al Qaeda today were once “allies.” Saudi Arabia was actively encouraged to funnel money to extremist militant groups that the U.S. couldn’t be seen with in public.

Is it really that far-fetched to think that we might be doing the same again?

Tags: cia, mosque bombing, terrorism, War of Misinformation, Zahedan