Liberals Must Not Forget What the CIA Really Does

After more than a year spent in exile Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum returned to Afghanistan on Sunday to face multiple criminal charges, including rape and murder. The Islamic State greeted him with a suicide bomber who killed at least 14.

What is singular about the frontpage story written by Rod Nordland, "Accused of Rape and Torture, Exiled Afghan Vice President Returns," is the forceful way it lays Dostum on the CIA's doorstep:

Long a protégé of the Central Intelligence Agency, which mentored and armed him, General Dostum has proved a powerful political player in Afghan elections in recent years, able to deliver his small but united Uzbek minority as a four-million-strong bloc, giving him outsize influence. Mr. Ghani took him on as his running mate in 2014, despite previously calling him a “known killer.”

Nordland goes on from there to list one example after another of Dostum's brutal depravity, something liberals should keep in mind when they rush to defend the CIA's integrity on Russiagate:

Several people have come forward to give accounts of General Dostum’s violence and sexual abuse, and diplomats and American Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks have detailed even more.

A former personal chauffeur to General Dostum, Saleh Mohammad Faizi, was interviewed by The New York Times in refugee housing in Austria, where the authorities have granted him asylum because he was under threat from the general, whom he served for 23 years. He gave explicit permission to be identified and photographed as he came forward with his accusations.

He said he fell out with General Dostum when he refused to marry the general’s girlfriend, whom he described as a 15-year-old girl, in order to provide a discreet means for Mr. Dostum to see her. General Dostum already had two wives, who would not consent to his taking a third one, Mr. Faizi said.

Infuriated at Mr. Faizi’s refusal, General Dostum, with the help of his bodyguards, repeatedly raped and tortured Mr. Faizi over a period of several days, he said, eventually chaining him by his lip — the scar is still evident — to the inside wall of a truck container. Mr. Faizi said he was able to escape after a C.I.A. team won his release in 2013; he later fled the country.

Mr. Faizi also accused General Dostum of killing his first wife, Khadija, and of numerous rapes of political opponents as well as underage boys and girls. “I know whom he killed, and when and where he put the bodies,” he said.

While several diplomats and government officials have confirmed Mr. Faizi’s account of how he was treated by General Dostum, there is no independent corroboration of his charges of numerous other rapes and murders.

It is a testament to Ghani's weakness that Dostum is being brought back. Trump's Afghanistan reboot is already being dismissed as a failure. According to Thomas Gibbons-Neff's "Insider Attack in Afghanistan Exposes Risks for Advisers at Center of Trump Strategy":

Even before the July 7 attack, two Defense Department officials said, the brigade was struggling to find its footing — not just because its soldiers had recently arrived, but also because of its new role in areas of Afghanistan that American forces had not been in years. 

Once they settled in, which took months, the advisers worked with little guidance and little understanding of the Afghan forces they were supposed to be training, said the Defense Department officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. 

Jason Dempsey, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said it was unlikely the advisory brigade would have a lasting influence.

“They’re probably just figuring out who’s in the zoo just a few months before they have to leave, and then the next group will have to do this all over again,” Mr. Dempsey said. 

But the next group is not expected to arrive in Afghanistan until three months after Colonel Jackson’s brigade leaves this fall, one of the military officials said. That means many Afghan troops will go without American training until then.

It's all a charade. American airstrikes continue to kill civilians in Kunduz Province. Nothing changes. U.S. policy in Afghanistan achieves nothing but death and destruction, which, in the end, must be the goal: a bloody proving ground for the U.S. military. Not to be left out, Islamic State, now in a pitched battle with the Taliban in Jawzjan and Sar-e-Pul, is in Afghanistan for the same reason.

And in all of this there is barely a peep from U.S. voters or politicians. It's surprising that The New York Times devotes as much space to Afghanistan as it does. If the political climate of today had held during the early- to mid-1970s, the Republic of Vietnam might still be standing in some little rump form.

Obama Feigns Ignorance + Kurds Battered by ISIS + Ghani Inaugurated + Hong Kong Occupied

Waking up this morning to a new chill in the air, it is clear that fall is upon us. Dark mornings are matched by news that promises more of the same dismal prospects we've been wallowing in for many years now.

Obama on "60 Minutes" last night apparently feigned ignorance and a lack of foresight in dealing with the meteoric rise of Islamic State. Invoking the name of the director of national intelligence, Obama threw James Clapper under the bus: “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” I guess with the billion-dollar budgets and super-computers at the myriad spy agencies they don't have time to read the newspaper; because if they did they would have learned all they needed to know about the rapid rise of ISIS over the last year.

No, USG knew exactly what was going on. The administration thought it could control the process; this sporadic bombing of select targets in Iraq and Syria is an attempt to assert that control. But it is not very compelling. ISIS is surging in Syrian Kurdish communities close to the Turkish border. Turkey has closed the border both to refugees wanting to escape the fighting and for Kurds hoping to enter Syria from Turkey to engage the jihadis and defend Kobani. As Karam Shoumali and Anne Barnard report in "Refugees Flood Turkish Border as Islamic State Steps Up Attacks on Syrian Kurds":

MURSITPINAR, Turkey — Shelling intensified Sunday on Kobani, the Syrian town at the center of a region of Kurdish farming villages that has been under a weeklong assault by Islamic State militants, setting fire to buildings and driving a stream of new refugees toward the fence here at the border with Turkey.

The extremist Sunni militants have been closing in on the town from the east and west after moving into villages with tanks and artillery, outgunning Kurdish fighters struggling to defend the area. The Kurds fear a massacre, especially after recent Islamic State attacks on Kurdish civilians in Iraq. More than 150,000 people have fled into Turkey over the past week. 

There were no sounds of jets overhead to indicate to the Kurds that help was coming from the American-led coalition, whose stated mission is to degrade and destroy the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Two airstrikes on the eastern front hit Islamic State armored vehicles on Saturday, but did not appear to halt the advance.

“Where’s Obama?” one Turkish Kurd demanded, watching in anguish near the border fence as the headlights of cars could be seen streaming out of Kobani toward the border, although there was no way to cross it. “Does he care about the Kurds?”

Obama is on television playing the part of the commander-in-chief. Does he care about Kurds? Some Kurds, like those in Iraq where the U.S. has a military base and a strategic interest. But more and more the slow response to deal with the ISIS offensive against Kobani makes it seem as if the rumors are true: The Turks cut a deal with Islamic State to zap the Syrian Kurds who are defended by P.K.K. fighters, a longtime foe of the Turkish state. So far the U.S. appears to be backing the play:

Even as it has accepted tens of thousands of refugees, Turkey has closed seven of nine crossing points in the area. Several times, the authorities have used tear gas to disperse crowds trying to cross, while also preventing Turkish and Syrian Kurds from crossing the border to fight the Islamic State. Kurds accuse Turkey, which has remained vague on how it will assist the American-led coalition, of tacitly supporting the Islamic State to weaken Kurdish efforts to gain more autonomy in northern Syria.

Ralph Nader's buddy Ashraf Ghani was sworn in today as president of Afghanistan, a peaceful transfer of power that is being publicly celebrated as a triumph of democracy, but, as Ahmed Rashid noted in a column on Friday, the power-sharing arrangement between Ghani and Adbullah Abdullah cobbled together by USG to prevent Kabul from collapsing in chaos, "[H]as no basis in Afghanistan’s election law."

Rod Nordland has the story today, "Ashraf Ghani Sworn In as Afghan President," which is noteworthy for its handy summary of events since April's presidential primary when Abdullah Abdullah established himself as the clear front runner:

Mr. Ghani won a June 14 runoff election against Mr. Abdullah, with 55 percent of the vote to Mr. Abdullah’s 45 percent, but Mr. Abdullah and his supporters cried foul. He had won the original April 6 election with 45 percent of the vote to Mr. Ghani’s 31 percent in a crowded field of contenders, and accused his opponent of fraud.

Nearly a million votes were discarded as fraudulent, twice as many for Mr. Ghani, but Mr. Abdullah’s supporters said the true number of fraudulent votes was two or three times higher than that. 

The dispute forced a full audit of the vote, supervised by the United Nations, but Mr. Abdullah’s supporters felt the audit was not fair and boycotted it. After two visits to the Afghan capital, Kabul, by Secretary of State John Kerry, and further negotiations by phone and video link with Mr. Kerry and other American officials, the two sides agreed to a national unity government in which Mr. Abdullah would have substantial powers. 

Under terms of the deal, it was agreed that the election commission would not publicly announce the vote totals until after the inauguration, a highly unusual procedure but one that the election commission agreed to, under United Nations’ pressure. 

Then on Friday, Mr. Ghani’s campaign posted those totals on its official Facebook page, leading Mr. Abdullah to nearly pull out of the inauguration ceremony. That was further aggravated by a scuffle at the presidential palace between Mr. Abdullah’s followers and those of Abdul Rashid Dostum, Mr. Ghani’s first vice president, over who would have offices that Mr. Abdullah had expected to get, according to a Western diplomat. 

Mr. Dostum, an Uzbek warlord whom Mr. Ghani described in 2009 as a “known killer,” brought a substantial block of votes to Mr. Ghani’s campaign. The presence of many of Mr. Dostum’s followers on the streets of Kabul, in civilian clothes but heavily armed, has been a cause of concern for many residents of the capital. The carrying of weapons is theoretically outlawed except by uniformed security forces or those with special licenses. The police, however, have been reluctant to challenge the gunmen.

The ceremony of primary importance for the United States comes tomorrow, the signing of the bilateral security agreement:

Both Mr. Ghani and Mr. Abdullah support the signing of a bilateral security agreement with the United States, which Mr. Karzai had refused to sign. That was expected to happen on Tuesday, when a similar agreement with NATO is to be signed as well. The agreements call for a continued American and coalition military presence in Afghanistan after the end of 2014.

The the next installment of  the color revolution is right on schedule in Hong Kong where police overreacted this past weekend by using too much tear gas against peaceful protesters sitting-in in front of government buildings. This, as it always does, brings more people into the streets. Now the authorities have a dire situation on their hands, possibly Bangkok-type gridlock for months on end. Austin Ramzy and Alan Wong have the story, "Hong Kong Protesters Defy Officials’ Call to Disperse":

The protesters are calling for fully democratic elections for the city’s leader, the chief executive, in 2017. Hong Kong, a former British colony that was returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, had been promised universal suffrage by that date. But under China’s plan for conducting those elections, only candidates vetted by a Beijing-friendly committee would be allowed to run. 

Alison Fung, a magazine editor who said she had been at the Admiralty sit-in since Sunday night, said that she and other demonstrators were angered by what she called the “wordplay” used to present China’s election proposal as a democratic advance. 

“Probably about 10 years ago, Hong Kong was not so concerned about politics,” Ms. Fung said Monday. “But we want a more fair election so we can decide our own future. People feel that our opinions aren’t listened to.” [Me too.]

The Hong Kong Federation of Students, one of the organizations leading the protests, called Sunday night for an indefinite student strike. On Monday, images of students holding gatherings at their schools in lieu of classes, many of them wearing black in support of the protests, could be seen on social media and in local news reports. 

In another indication that the protests could broaden, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union called Sunday for a general strike by teachers in the city. The organization, which has around 90,000 members, called the police “enemies of the people” and said they had used “ruthless force” against unarmed civilians.