Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

What's really happening in Kurdistan?

The Inside Iraq blog is particularly worth a read today.

Baghdad Correspondent Deborah Haynes is in Kurdistan and posting from PKK rebel bases. Fascinating stuff.

Alice Fishburn

Where is al-Qaeda now?

The global war on terror is set to get, well, even more global. Why? Well, the evidence is that al-Qaeda is trying to spread its bases much further than the caves and deserts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bruce Riedel, writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, surveys the spread of al-Qaeda and finds patterns in where it succeeds and fails.

According to Riedel’s analysis, al-Qaeda has established bases in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan with the aim of overthrowing the governments there. Other emerging targets are Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Bangladesh and Somalia.

Meanwhile attempts to bring down dictatorships governments in other Muslim countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (hardly bastions of secular or “moderate” Islam) have failed. In some cases, al-Qaeda has been largely destroyed in those countries.

So what’s the difference between a Somalia and a Jordan?

In Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, the governments have strengthened the secret police and given them carte blanche to strike al-Qaeda and its sympathisers. The United States and its allies in Europe have also provided additional counterterrorism assistance to the targeted regimes and stepped up cooperation with their security forces.

The lesson is clear: al-Qaeda is still too weak to overthrow established governments equipped with effective security services; it needs failed states to thrive

This might seem like an argument for nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Riedel prescribes different pills for either nation. For Afghanistan:

A critical first step toward decapitating al-Qaeda is for Washington to enhance its commitment in Afghanistan. President Bush promised to do so last February, but more needs to be done. Defeating the resurgent Taliban will require a significant increase in NATO forces, and that will require U.S. leadership. The United States should urgently divert more troops from Iraq to Afghanistan as a way to encourage U.S. allies in Afghanistan to help supply the additional troops and equipment needed. NATO should also encourage its partners in the Mediterranean Dialogue -- especially Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia -- to contribute to the stabilization of Afghanistan. It should also create a contact group led by a senior NATO diplomat to engage with all of Afghanistan's neighbours to secure the country's borders, especially the 1,500-mile one with Pakistan. This group should include Iran, which has generally been a helpful player in Afghanistan in the last few years. NATO should reach out to India as well: New Delhi has already provided half a billion dollars in aid for Afghanistan, and, having long been a target of Islamist terrorism, India has a national interest in defeating it

But for Iraq:

Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al-Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al-Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al-Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

The piece is well worth reading in full.

Murad Ahmed

Getting things in perspective

We have Jade Goody.

Iranian television has this.

The strange reaction to Saddam's hanging

The Press Gazette records that only 25 people complained to Ofcom about the television footage of Saddam's execution, while 1,000 complained about the eviction procedure on Big Brother.

Whether or not you quite agree with this ranking of priority, do you share my view that there has been something strange about the reaction to the hanging?

Politicians and commentators seem to be furious that someone shouted "Boooooo, down with dictators" or whatever, while ignoring the fact that Saddam was hanged. Now, Saddam and I don't have quite the same way of looking at things, but I am pretty certain that if I were in the same position as he, I'd be more hacked off at being executed than I would at being heckled while it was happening. Then again, perhaps that's just me.

Both John Prescott and David Cameron excused themselves from commenting on the execution, because that was a matter for the Iraqis, before condemning the booing, which apparently is open to foreign criticism.

I'm obviously missing something.

Woodward on Iraq

Almost everything written by Bob Woodward is worth reading. His latest book returns to the Bush policy on Iraq. All you need to know is that it is called State of Denial.

And excerpts are now being posted on the Washington Post website.

Berri droll

Filing from Beirut on tour with Mr Blair has not robbed Nick Robinson of his sense of humour:

One who will not be greeting the Prime Minister is Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. His explanation that he was "out of town ....on private business" turns out to be a little less than the full story. He is, in fact, in Iran. I suppose it could be worse for Tony Blair. He could be meeting Gordon Brown - just to pass on a gift for the baby, of course.