Simplistic Answers to Nuanced Problems

We have heard a lot lately from candidates trying to speak to a voting public that has only simplistic ideas of the deep error of getting involved in wars in the Middle East. It's the sort of knowledge that can only be gained by intelligent and open-minded study, over a long period of time.

Sadly, in order to get elected, the candidates have to make statements that the public can understand. Those candidates have to express things in those simplistic terms, convey that they are in control of the information, and that they can act intelligently. 'Stay the Course". "Cut and Run". "Victory". For U.S. interests, this simplistic handling of events has created disaster so far.

I have a source I've used several times, Barnett Rubin at InformedComment, where a longtime student of the Middle East gives complicated and nuanced information which usually conflicts with what we hear from the candidates and the press. Today's report about the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan is an example of that.

The war in Afghanistan is often depicted as a battle between jihadi groups and the U.S. or the west. But Afghanistan is also a theater for the struggle between India and Pakistan and for the domestic struggles of Pakistan. This is the second major terrorist attack on an Indian target since the election of a civilian government in Pakistan. Nine synchronized bombs killed 63 people in the Indian city of Jaipur on May 13, just before the first high-level diplomatic meeting between India and Pakistan after the elections. Part of the context of this attack is also the Afghan official, public charges that the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, organized the attempted assassination of President Karzai in Kabul in April. These attacks seem designed to sabotage any improvement of relations between Pakistan and either of its two neighbors, India and Afghanistan, to assure that Pakistan has no alternative but to continue to support militant organizations as part of its foreign policy.

I might add that there is also a consistent pattern of attacks on Indian road construction teams in southwest Afghanistan.
(snip)
Juan Cole on Informed Comment links the bombing to the attack yesterday in Islamabad and posits:

Since the neo-Taliban want to pull down the Karzai government, trying to scare the Indians into leaving would be a way of removing one foreign pillar of support from the edifice of state.
(snip)
UPDATE: Now I heard on NPR that the "Taliban" have denied responsibility. Let me stick my neck out here: I don't believe that the Kandahari Taliban leadership would mount an attack like this against the Indian embassy. The idea of such an attack came from some combination of all or some of the following: the Haqqani group (as part of a campaign for Pakistani support), Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaida, and the Pakistani security agencies, or private entities under their supervision.

It is past time for voters to accept that in order to act wisely, this government has to depend on reality-based information from proven sources. We can't settle for believing in a poseur who insists his/her own judgment invariably can meet an international standard. We are in scary territory because of that kind of approach.

In order to evaluate what is going on in episodes such as bombings in Kabul, the press needs to rely on real information. Cutbacks in international press presence has left very few sources that can be relied on. Statements from politically or financially interested parties are hardly a good source of information in any event.

Following proven, reliable blogs has become the only way I know to be sure I'm not poorly informed, and don't make wrong-headed decisions. The internets are serving a vital service. We need to keep it up, and make sure our voices always can be counted on for the best information, and best viewpoint, we can provide.

Increasingly, the internets are the only source of actual information.