My Favorite Warlord has a web site, plus some links

Many years ago, very shortly after BTC News burst upon the blogosphere like a firefly at high noon, we began an occasional feature called My Favorite Warlord. Readers were invited to play along; all that’s required is to choose one among the host of what are commonly referred to as warlords in Afghanistan, and do an occasional search for appearances of his name in the press.

My favorite has always been General Abdul Rashid Dostum. I don’t remember why I picked him, but I began following his exploits soon after the start of the US assault on Afghanistan in 2001 and ever since then, I have found that a search for content containing his name almost invariably yields a story about something going wrong in his country.

The last time I played the game, it turned out that many people in Western diplomatic circles, which often means the US and the UK, were protesting Dostum’s reappointment to the position of chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the Afghan army because of his warlordship and status as an alleged war criminal. Western diplomatic circles were happy to have him on their side when they were overthrowing the Taliban, but not so much anymore.

Sometimes the My Favorite Warlord posts drew a fair number of comments from readers, back when I had a lot of readers, but the last episode drew just the one brief and somewhat disconcerting response. It said “Shout out” and was linked to General Dostum’s brand spanking new web site, a well-produced affair that provides the real Dostum story and dispels all those nasty myths.

I say “disconcerting” because it’s easy enough to say mean things about an influential and dangerous person when there’s no reason to think he’ll ever hear of it or care about it, but when someone affiliated with his web site drops by to give a shoutout, well, that’s a whole different story and I have to admit it gave me momentary pause. But I’m better now.

The General addresses head on the question of his reputation in general and specific allegations in particular. On the latter front, he dismisses the accusation that he had some guy tied to the tracks of one of his tanks and then had the tank driven around for a while, and the one where he packed a couple of thousand Taliban prisoners into unventilated trailers for transport, and a bunch of them died on the way.

With respect to the latter incident, he says that “I would like to offer a detailed timeline on the events described by many as the “Convoy of Death”, an alleged massacre by my men and U.S. Special Forces members during the December 2001 surrender,” but so far as I can tell he doesn’t actually do so. He does offer a general description of his role as a player in the country. Any emphasis is mine, and offered without comment.

I am often referred to in the media as “a brutal warlord.” The term brutal and warlord are not intended to be complimentary, but disparaging. I have always operated either at the behest of my constituency or with the agreement of whatever form of Afghan government existed the time. I think that in Afghanistan’s long violent history, my role of the largest single military entity has resulted in violence but my use of the military has resulted in peaceful resolution of disputes that would have continued. I will expand on these in the coming weeks to better communicate how power comes from political support not from force. I have always used political negotiations as my first line of attack, backed up with the full impact of an armed response if needed. Democratic, constitutional power will always replace the gun.

So there you have it. I recommend the site, not just for the window onto Dostum’s world but because it has some good links to other resources. We’ll be playing My Favorite Warlord again soon.

Meanwhile, a few links to other, less personally disturbing goings-on. Disturbing, yes, but not “oh, shit, I’ve drawn the attention of a brutal warlord.”

First, finally, a sensible story about why trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court really is a stupid idea, just not for all the scaredy-cat reasons advanced by hysterical Republicans. From unlikely sources in Foreign Policy magazine:

The president and the attorney general have confidently predicted the death penalty for Mohammed, while simultaneously insisting that he will receive a “fair trial.” But what does this mean? A fair trial presumes that the state will respect the outcome. While the possibility of acquittal might seem remote, Mohammed’s lawyers have significant legal grounds to challenge the evidence against him and its means of extraction. The administration is therefore obliged to make plans for this outcome.

What then are the administration’s options in the case of an acquittal? Preordained permanent incarceration and death cannot be the only possible outcomes, without respect to the jury’s decision. That would be wholly at odds with the very idea of a fair trial. Yet the risks to U.S. national security of Mohammed’s release are so compelling as to suggest that it would be inconceivable to let him go. We certainly hope it is inconceivable.

If Mohammed is not to be imprisoned indefinitely in a secure U.S. facility, he would have to be similarly incarcerated abroad. This simply revives the whole question of the United States using “offshore” jurisdictions, such as Guantánamo Bay, to avoid giving constitutional protections to prisoners. Thus, subjecting Mohammed to a civilian criminal trial suggests a cynical calculation by the attorney general that the odds of conviction are high enough that the trial will look fair after the fact. Really, the jury will have done nothing more than provide political cover for Mohammed’s execution. The question of whether Mohammed will ever be a free man has already been decided.

Indeed.

A few weeks ago, or something like that, I mentioned that I was thinking about doing a Sarah Palin/Scott Brown 2012 web site, and I just noticed that someone in the comments has already done so. It isn’t up and running yet, but you might want to bookmark ScottAndSarah2012.com and see what pops up, as it were, down the road.

And last, and speaking of Scott and Sarah, a cartoon from Mr. Fish on the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and the modern Republican party.