Insurgent Hackers - UPDATED

So insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan can hack into our drone video feeds...not because they're all that technologically savvy, but because they can buy a program off the Internet for the bargain price of $29.95.

Which brings up the question, if insurgents can do that, what the hell can the North Koreans, Iranians, Russians, and Chinese do with their computer hackers? Do we even know what they're doing now? And can we even stop them if we do?

For all our superiority on the physical battlefield, I fear we're losing battles we don't even know we're having on the digital battlefield.

UPDATE: Speak of the devil. Pro-regime Iranians hacked Twitter and opposition websites.

Bear Mauls Militants

The war on terror has found a much needed ally: hungry bears. The BBC reports (h/t Jonah Goldberg) that a bear killed two militants and wounded a third in the embattled region of Indian-administered Kashmir. According to the article, "the militants had assault rifles but were taken by surprise - police found the remains of pudding they had made to eat when the bear attacked."

Really? Pudding?

Interestingly, this is not the first time Muslim militants have been killed by animals. Shortly after the Taliban conquered Kabul, a lion killed and ate a Taliban fighter. The militant had jumped into the cage to prove Allah would protect him, but had not considered the fact that the lion had not been fed in weeks because of the civil war. Apparently, God helps those who help themselves - in this case, the starving lion.

The militant's brother sought retribution the next day by throwing a grenade at the lion, leaving the animal blind and lame. The lion, named Marjan, survived several more turbulent years and died shortly after the American invasion. According to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the Afghan zookeepers showed the utmost dedication in trying to care for the lion, despite receiving intermittent pay and often lacking food themselves.

Perhaps the Taliban fighter should have read his Qur'an a little closer:

According to Surah 4:173: "whereupon unto those who attained to faith and did good deeds He will grant their just rewards, and give them yet more out of His bounty; whereas those who felt too proud and gloried in their arrogance He will chastise with grievous suffering: and they shall find none to protect them from God, and none to bring them succour."

And Surah 16:49: "For, before God prostrates itself all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth - every beast that moves, and the angels: [even] these do not bear themselves with false pride"

In other words, God has created everything in the universe, whether it be man, animal or angel. All of God's creations are equal in that sense that all prostrate in submission before God. Therefore, none have cause for pride or arrogance. By jumping into that lion cage, the Taliban fighter showed immense arrogance in believing he deserved God's protection against his own stupidity, and thus God granted him the "grievous suffering" he deserved.

At least, that's my non-expert non-Muslim interpretation.

Burning Holy Books

I previously asked why we are losing the war in Afghanistan. This story sheds some light. On Sunday, a group of Afghans burnt an effigy of President Obama during angry protests in the capital city of Kabul. The inciting incident? Rampant rumors that American forces had desecrated the Qur'an.

Per Laura King of the Los Angeles Times:

"Muslims were disrespected!" said Zabiullah Khalil, an engineering student. "The foreigners shot the Koran, and then they burned it. They should be tried for this."

This was not the first time Afghans have gone to the streets over Qur'an desecration rumors. In 2005, Newsweek reported that American soldiers flushed a Qur'an down the toilet in Guantanamo. Shortly thereafter, the magazine recanted the story as false. The real story, in fact, derived from an incident when an inmate had dropped the holy book in the vicinity of a toilet. No matter. Furious protests in Afghanistan were only abruptly ended when police shot into the crowd, leaving four people dead and one burnt Bush effigy lying in the street.

Nor is this the first time holy book burning has caused a scandal inside Afghanistan. Earlier this year, al-Jazeera acquired exclusive footage of U.S. soldiers purportedly discussing how to proselytize Afghans and distribute native-language Bibles. In response to the ensuing scandal, the U.S. military confiscated the bibles and incinerated them. You can see the raw footage of the meeting here, but this clip below sums up the scandal pretty well.

I wonder what the protesters in Kabul think about American "crusaders" burning their own Bibles - or even if they know about the incident at all. In the end, it doesn't matter whether rumors about burning the Qur'an are true or not, or whether proselytizing Christianity is official U.S. policy. Extremists who want to hate the United States will find their reasons. There is nothing we can do about that.

The troubling thing is that the protesters in Kabul were not the Taliban ideologues. They were students. The question is how do we win their trust? How do we convince them to not so readily consume Taliban propaganda? We can begin by not giving the extremists any excuse to fan the flames. But ultimately, only by improving the facts on the ground, whether through legitimate government or economic opportunity, can we regain the Afghan trust we have squandered over eight years of failed policies and neglect.

Taliban Wants Better Roads

The Taliban have called for a general boycott of the upcoming November 7 Afghan runoff vote between Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise. The Taliban called for a similar boycott during the first round, as well as threatened widespread violence.While the threats proved mostly empty (there were relatively few attacks at polling stations), only 30% of Afghans voted.

Given the massive fraud last round and the deterioriating weather, expect even lower turnout this time around. For that reason, I previously argued why a power-sharing arrangement would better serve both Afghan and American interests.

This past month has been a public relations bonanaza for the Taliban. In an article on the Taliban official English website (yes, they do use computers), they boast, "it is now clear as broad day light that the August 20 elections in Afghanistan was readily ludicrous and preposterous which caused more shame and disgrace to the surrogate regime in Kabul." They cite specifically "fraud, ballot stuffing and corruption," as well as how long it took the Afghan government to sort through the results.

Nothing too radical yet, except the usage of "surrogate" which implies they believe it's only a matter of time before the Taliban retakes control. But the Taliban being the Taliban, they can't resist themselves and go into crazy jihad mode. Claiming that the Americans don't want to help the Afghans, they contend, "The roads, which have been asphalted, is only for the facility of the invaders military logistic who want to reach their destinations on time and to prevent road side bombs. Still they have not asphalted the roads according to the international standard of road tarmac."

If only the Taliban followed the international conventions of warfare as closely as the all-important Global Tarmac Protocols! And who exactly is responsible for those roadside bombs again?

But they're not done yet. They continue, "as to other rehabilitation and reconstruction work, they raise only empty slogans, which have not been materialized." Thus do they reveal their strategy. Stop reconstruction efforts violently. Blame Americans for not reconstructing fast enough. Fool the Afghan population. Win the population over.

How are we losing this one again?

Runoff in Afghanistan?

According to The New York Times, the Afghan ambassador to Washington, Said Tayeb Jawad, said that a runoff election between Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah appears likely.

This is obviously big news. Until today, no one close to Karzai suggested any possibility of a second round of elections. So when Jawad says a runoff is likely, we should understand they are a near certainty.

But is it good news? That depends on what happens next.

On one hand, Abdullah has previously suggested he may not be able to control his followers if the fraud is not properly corrected, despite attempts to calm emotions. A runoff would prevent likely violent protests in the streets, as feared by Juan Cole. Besides, there is a strong moral argument that Afghans deserve a legitimate election to let their true voices be heard.

But the question is whether a runoff will turn out any better than the first round. There is good cause for doubt. To avoid the harsh Afghan winter, a runoff will have to take place within the next two weeks or so - hardly enough time to make necessary reforms that would prevent another fraud-ridden vote. In addition, it is unlikely Karzai was directly responsible for most of the fraudulent votes in his name. Even if he wants an honest vote, it would be hard for Karzai to effectively crack down on his warlord and drug dealer cronies. In short, the only thing worse than a fraudulent election would be a fraudulent runoff that costs extra money and lives while simultaneously decimating any remaining Afghan hope for justice.

In a second scenario, elections are put off until the spring, allowing time for necessary reforms. While I think getting the runoff right is more important than conducting it quickly, this path would place Afghanistan in constitutional limbo. To bridge the gap, some sort of transitional government would have to be put in place, as suggested by Abdullah. But actually doing so would prove tricky and, if done wrong, the risk of violence would be quite high.

The best outcome would be some sort of power-sharing arrangement between Karzai and Abdullah, as suggested by Fareed Zakaria and others. While Abdullah has emphatically rejected that idea before, he may be more amenable if a runoff is declared. Per the Times article today, some experts believe Abdullah is waiting for the final verdict on fraud, hoping his bargaining position will strengthen after any announcement. If he feels he can gain the upper hand in negotiations with Karzai, then power-sharing might not sound so bad after all.

In sum, a Karzai-Abdullah deal would minimize the risk of violence, provide definitive, immediate closure and confer much needed legitimacy on the Afghan government. Only then will the U.S. have the partner it needs to conduct an effective campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Puppet Dictators for Sale

Despite the weak economy, apparently people have enough money to buy an "Arab puppet dictator kit" for sale on Ebay (h/t Arabist). The kit includes "tools" that will help, among other things, to "give green light to any US agency for regional hegemony," steal natural resources, crush the people's "aspiration for true freedom" with "absolute brutality," and "respond very well to CNN and other tools of imperial propaganda." All for a current bid of $20.50!

Putting President Obama's Nobel prize aside, clearly the United States faces anti-Americanism throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Some of the problem stems from image issues. You and I know the United States isn't out to crush freedom, but unfortunately that's not so obvious to many Arabs and Muslims who often have access to either incomplete, biased and even invented information.

But perceptions are only half the problem. While many Arabs were delighted by Obama's election (it's no coincidence the Ebay site features a picture of President Bush wielding a scimitar laughing), they are also quick to point out that they are waiting for tangible action. Sadly, we don't exactly have the best record when it comes to supporting dictators in the Middle East. Take, for instance, our plot to overthrow a democratically elected leader to install the Shah of Iran.

We must find a way to convince the Arab and Muslim world that - fifty years after that mistake - we're no longer in the nefarious business of CIA coups. Words won't suffice. So what actions can we take? We can begin by consistently supporting democratic reform and human rights rhetorically, diplomatically, technically and financially.

Should democracy be our only concern in the region? No. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting extremism and securing our energy supply all require the cooperation of the region's autocratic leaders for the short-term. But for the long-term, only a democratic Middle East will lead to stability and prosperity. And only a stable, prosperous Middle East can keep America secure.