More Robot Bombs!

October 11, 2010 at approximately 12:30 P.M. The cable signal to my computer was blocked, again, causing the computer to shut down and requiring me to reboot my system as I was trying to conduct a security scan of my computer. The use of this tactic at irregular intervals is meant to heighten anxiety because it is impossible to tell when this interference with my signal will occur again. This indicates: 1) state government cooperation with illegality, probable law enforcement or former intelligence experience on the part of (I surmise) Cuban-Americans responsible for this strategy; and 2) political protection for the persons engaging in these methods. I will make use of more public computers. I will continue to write. Cuban American National Foundation (CANF)? Senator Menendez? Can you shed any light on these tactics?

October 9, 2010 at 6:14 P.M. The cable signal to my computer was illegally blocked causing my computer to shut down in the midst of a security scan. I will try to run a scan again. Harassing phone calls were received, as usual, and it is likely that numerous essays have been vandalized or altered. I will do my best to continue writing. My political opinions have not changed. I am still not intimidated about expressing those opinions. Insults and threats are irrelevant to my views or writings. ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me'" and "Havana Nights and C.I.A. Tapes.")

October 9, 2010 at 8:46 A.M. Congratulations to Mario Vargas Llosa upon his receipt of the Nobel Prize. Mr. Vargas Llosa is a highly defensible choice by the Nobel Committee. As a person of Latin American ancestry, I am deeply proud and happy for Mr. Vargas Llosa, also for all Peruvians and Latin Americans who feel that they share in this prize with the man from Lima. However, I feel obligated to say that Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, A.S. Byatt, Martin Amis, Ian McEwen and several other novelists in the English-speaking world have an equal claim on this most prestigious and global literary prize. In the case of Mr. Roth, the prize is long overdue and denial of this ultimate literary recognition, it seems to me, has much to do with Mr. Roth's nationality and religion or religious tradition. Finally, it is not accurate to see Mr. Vargas Llosa as a "Conservative." Mr. Vargas Llosa has criticized governments on the Right and Left for human rights abuses (me too) and is usually placed on the center Left of the political spectrum as a Democratic Socialist. Liu Xiaobo is also to be congratulated as the winner of the Nobel Peace prize. ("Freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal.")

Helene Cooper & Eric Schmidt, "U.S. Tries to Calm Pakistan's Anger Over Airstrikes: Apologies Are Offered," in The New York Times, October 7, 2010, at p. A1.
"The Latest Crisis," (Editorial) in The New York Times, October 12, 2010, at p. A30.

For years the U.S. has been firing so-called "drone weapons" or "robot bombs" into Pakistan, a country with which we are not at war, killing many Pakistanis in the effort to destroy the Taliban. Obvious messages from Pakistani authorities -- including intelligence agencies and the military -- communicated through unofficial channels (i.e., the media) warning of consequences from persisting in this affront to Pakistani independence as well as sovereignty have been ignored. By some estimates, 74 innocent civilians have been killed by drone strikes during August/September, 2010. ("The Other Shoe Drops.")

A country's government is responsible, first of all, for protecting the security of its people. Pakistan's government seems incapable of providing even minimal protection to its people, as children and other civilians continue to be killed by an alleged friendly power or "ally," the United States of America. We are not the only nation with security concerns. As Joy Gordon has noted, there are well over one million casualties in the entire region as a result of our efforts to "bring stability and peace" to the area.

Recent developments not discussed in American media include alleged secret deals between Pakistan and the Taliban. The Pakistanis believe -- along with most nations in South Asia and in the global community -- that the U.S. cannot defeat the Taliban or Al Qaeda in this kind of guerilla warfare. As readers of Chariman Mao and Ernesto "Che" Guevara know all-too well, guerilla armies are only as strong as their connection to a people: "The people are the ocean," Chairman Mao said, "the guerilla fighter is the fish."

We are making both entities (Taliban and Al Qaeda) stronger, even as we are perceived as a weaker power because of our inability to defeat the "enemy," decisively, despite our greater technology and weapons. One reason for this inability is the multidimensional aspect of this struggle and America's mysterious decision to wage a one-dimensional war against the "enemies of civilization." We are not making our case directly to the people of Pakistan as others are defining us to the people we need to win over. ("Civilization and Terrorism.")

The Pakistani government is concerned, primarily, to receive financial assistance -- money from America -- that might be stolen by those at the top of the ruling establishment. Theft of foreign assistance funds is something which is even more certain if General Musharaff returns to power, assuming that Musharaff ever really left power, which I doubt. Pakistan is the New Jersey of Asia.

Pakistani officials do not wish to antagonize, unnecessarily, forces with whom an accomodation must be reached once the U.S. leaves the area. America's departure is something which is certain to happen soon since the U.S. is perceived as "lacking the stomach" for a protracted military struggle so far from home.

This perception is not necessarily accurate. Much will depend in any conflict with U.S. forces on the degree of commitment to the struggle on the part of the American people. Americans are beginning to question the association between our current military efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the attack on 9/11. What exactly are we trying to accomplish in the area? What constitutes "winning"? No one has spoken to these concerns in a clear and persuasive manner, not even Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama does not wish to preside over the catastrophic defeat of U.S. efforts in the area. The longer we remain in this conflict the more young Americans will be killed or wounded. Please bring the troops home, Mr. Obama.

Over the past month, America's frustrations with Pakistan's half-hearted efforts against the Taliban have caused an intensification of the nefarious "robot bomb" campaign. This has further alienated the Pakistani government from its own people. This distancing is especially true of the professional classes struggling for reforms and fundamentalist Islamic forces already within the Pakistani government that are supportive of Taliban fighters while being extremely hostile to the United States.

European media have provided better and much more intelligent coverage than the U.S. media during this conflict. American media's complicity with power, both corporate and political-legal power, undermines claims to "independence" in the so-called fifth estate. Journalists have become spear carriers for the U.S. government. Maybe this explains the silence concerning my struggle that is generating media attention outside U.S. media circles.

"The Obama administration scrambled to halt a sharp deterioration in its troubled relationship with Pakistan on Wednesday, offering Pakistan officials multiple apologies for a helicopter strike on a border post that killed three Pakistani soldiers last week."

Pakistan closed U.S. supply lines into Afghanistan, military gunmen (aided by Pakistani special forces, probably, who are often fighting with the Taliban "out of uniform") attacked NATO oil tankers preventing these oil tankers from entering Afghanistan on Wednesday. Without Pakistani cooperation we may not be able to supply troops adequately or to protect existing supply lines for future efforts.

Continuing to pressure Pakistan's government and further use of drone weapons may result in the collapse of that government to fundamentalist-friendly factions in the army and security agencies. Fundamentalists would then have access to 100 nuclear weapons with a take-over of Pakistan's government. Iran and North Korea become only minor annoyances if that happens -- that is, a nuclear armed Taliban.

American frustrations reveal a schizoid policy: 1) On the one hand, some officials in American power circles wish to increase pressure on Pakistan to get results in the military struggle against the Taliban in the entire region; 2) on the other hand, results obtained on the battlefield or from bombing with heavy "collateral damage" will be offset by political defeats -- the "War Against Terror" is mostly a political battle -- against Taliban propaganda that is now capitalizing on Pakistan's "puppet status." This "puppet status" is evidenced, every day, by the unpunished American murders of civilians, including Pakistani soldiers. This is probably when the Right-wing Cubanoids should insert an "error" in this essay.

The quagmire in the military fight against the Taliban has allowed Al Qaeda to shape-shift and morph throughout the area and globally, notably by establishing a presence in Africa and Latin America, also by forging a "working relationship" with anti-U.S. factions in India. Amazingly, Muslims are cooperating with Indian radicals because they are unified by antiamericanism more than they are divided by mutual hatreds.

Mr. Obama, we do not have a coherent policy concerning tactics and goals in this diverse and complex "front" against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We should either depart from the area, quickly, or devise some more comprehensive strategy that escalates the conflict into a wider war. To do nothing is the worst option. I suggest that we get out of there, quickly.