Good news and bad from Pakistan. A new poll shows that 81 percent of Pakistanis now believe that the Taliban and "Islamist militants" (what we call al Qaeda) pose a "critical threat" to Pakistan. This is up from only 34 percent in September 2007. And it means that the Pakistani government could have more leeway to deal with the Taliban and al Qaeda militants within its borders. But there's a but. A large majority of Pakistanis--69 percent--have an unfavorable view of the United States, even after the election of Barack Obama.

From WorldPublicOpinion.org, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland:

"A sea change has occurred in Pakistani public opinion. The tactics and undemocratic bent of militant groups--in tribal areas as well as Swat--have brought widespread revulsion and turned Pakistanis against them," comments Clay Ramsay, research director. However, he adds: "It's crucial to understand that the US is resented just as much as before, despite the US having a new president."

So if the Pakistani government moves boldly against the Taliban and other militants, it could have the support of a majority of Pakistanis behind it. Yet if the Pakistani government is seen to be doing the bidding of the United States, those actions could upset many, if not most, Pakistanis:

Eighty-eight percent think it is a US goal to weaken and divide the Islamic world (78% definitely a goal). The US Predator drone attacks aimed at militant camps within the Pakistani border are rejected by 82 percent as unjustified. On the war in Afghanistan, 72 percent disapprove of the NATO mission and 79 percent want it ended now; 86 percent think most Afghans want the mission ended as well.

According to this poll, they still really don't like us, and there's been no "Obama effect." The bottom line is a pretty obvious one: getting Pakistan right is a tough task for the Obama administration. The same, of course, is true for Afghanistan--especially now that President Hamid Karzai's campaign reelection is based partly on his criticisms of the US presence in Afghanistan. (He recently accused US forces of protecting security guards who killed several Afghan security officers during a gun battle.)

But this poll does show that in Pakistan there is potential for developing pubic support for government actions that would be in sync with US aims for AfPak-land. Let's hope that Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke and others are pondering how best to take advantage of this shift in public attitudes.

How's this for not building confidence?

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama met with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprise appearance at the daily White House briefing to discuss the trilateral talks under way. Consider this one exchange:

Q Madam Secretary, senior administration officials in recent weeks have swung between fairly sharp criticism and praise of the Afghan and Pakistani governments. You, yourself, said that the Pakistani government was at risk of abdicating to the Taliban. First, do you still believe that is the case? And do you see a risk of sending a mixed message to these partners at a time when both their cooperation are needed in combating the resurgent Taliban?

Talk about Kabuki theater.

On Wednesday afternoon, President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and President Asif Ali Zardari. No doubt, there will be plenty of smiles for the cameras.

And Obama will vow support for the "democratically-elected" governments of both nations. But it was less than three months ago that Obama said during a press conference that Karzai's government "seems very detached from what's going on in the surrounding community."

This was first posted at MotherJones.com....

During the White House press conference Wednesday night marking the hundredth day of his historic presidency, Barack Obama was asked not one question about the Afghanistan war or the multiple-trillion-dollar federal bailout of the financial system. He managed to tout his many achievements--passing the $800 billion stimulus package, winning congressional approval of budget that devotes record amounts to health care and clean energy, initiating the withdrawal of troops in Iraq, signing legislation to boost the number of children covered by health insurance, banning the use of torture--without having to explain or justify perhaps the two most controversial (and perhaps problematic) big-ticket items of his high-wire presidency. Was that just good luck?

These one hundred days have been something a blur--or, at least a policy blur. There is too much to keep track off, too much to juggle.

The questions put to Obama covered a wide range of substantial matters. (Nothing on the Air Force One fly-over of New York or the dog, though Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times did ask what about the presidency has "enchanted" Obama.)

Dealing with a crashed computer today. See you soon....

The other day, The Washington Post reported that President-elect Barack Obama was considering tapping Richard Holbrooke, one of the many runners-up in the secretary of state sweepstakes, to be a special envoy for South Asia, focusing on thorny matters involving India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Whether Holbrooke is the ideal candidate for the post or not, this is a good idea. For years now, the United States has not had any high-level official with immediate White House access in charge of the Afghanistan mess. And though the portfolio for this post would extend beyond the war, tapping Holbrooke or some other diplomatic bigfoot as such an envoy would bring much-needed policy leadership to the Afghanistan war.

Two years ago, I wrote a piece noting that the largely forgotten war had been forgotten by the Bush White House:

George Bush has no senior-level official responsible for policies and actions in Afghanistan. "The situation is worsening," notes former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. "We have to have someone in government responsible for the whole picture--military, economic assistance and political. There's a nexus between each. But there's not one person in the government designated to be in charge of that nexus. It could be the ambassador. It could be someone else--if they have resources and clout and accountability. But this Administration has not been keen on accountability."

Since then, there have been no signs of much change on this front. Can you name any top Bush administration official overseeing Afghanistan issues? Let's hope Holbrooke--or some other runner-up--wins this consolation prize.

From George W. Bush's second inaugural address:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world....

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

From Sunday's New York Times story on the Bush administration's response to General Musharraf's crackdown in Pakistan (which includes suspending the country's Constitution, dismissing the chief justice, and calling out the national police):

"We were clear that we did not support it," Ms. Rice said, speaking to reporters aboard a flight from Istanbul to Israel [on Saturday], where she is traveling for regional talks. "We were clear that we didn't support it because it would take Pakistan away from the path of democratic rule."

But even as she criticized General Musharraf's power grab, Ms. Rice stopped short of outright condemnation of General Musharraf himself, even going so far as to credit him for doing "a lot"--in the past--toward preparing Pakistan for what she called a “path to democratic rule."

Doing "a lot" in the past? Such as seizing control of previously democratic government? And while Rice was getting nostalgic about Musharraf and the good ol' days, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe called Musharraf's actions--the equivalent of declaring martial law--"very disappointing." The next day, the Bush administration sent Musharraf this message: Don't worry; you'll still going to receive billions of dollars in U.S. aid, even as you detain human rights advocates and leaders of the opposition.

Look how the big sentiments of Bush's grand speech give way to such small words and weasely action when his administration is put to the test. Certainly, Bush and his aides cannot be expected to handle the thorny issue of Pakistan with sophistication or competence. But his administration's response to events in Pakistan show that Bush was more hat than cattle when he claimed at the start of his second term to be freedom's champion. That speech was mainly an attempt to dress up his mess in Iraq. Now those easily delivered words ring out as a reminder of Bush's proclivity for placing rhetoric above reality.

THIS IS WHAT WATERBOARDING STILL LOOKS LIKE. A year ago I obtained pictures of a once-operational waterboarding device and posted them on my blog. The Drudge Report and other sites linked to them, and my blog was besieged with so much traffic the server shut down. Why? Because at that point, there were few, if any, public photographs of this torture device, then a subject of much public debate. With Michael Mukasey's pending nomination as attorney general scheduled to be voted upon by the Senate judiciary committee, waterboarding has again become a topic of political discourse. (It's hard to believe I just wrote the words "waterboarding" and "topic of political discourse" in the same sentence.)

Mukasey's nomination hit trouble after he declined to pronounce this interrogation technique illegal and he endorsed the Bush administration's view that the president, as commander in chief, can interpret the Constitution to place himself above laws passed by Congress. But that trouble passed on Friday when two Democrats on the committee, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, declared they would vote for Mukasey on Tuesday (and did so minutes after Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic committee chairman, announced his opposition to Mukasey). This assured the Mukasey nomination would be approved by the judiciary committee.

Now that Schumer and DiFi have angered fellow Democrats, it seems an appropriate time to repost that waterboarding item from a year ago. Here it is:

******
As Congress has debated legislation that would set up military tribunals and govern the questioning of suspected terrorists (whom the Bush administration would like to be able to detain indefinitely), at issue has been what interrogation techniques can be employed and whether information obtained during torture can be used against those deemed unlawful enemy combatants. One interrogation practice central to this debate is waterboarding. It's usually described in the media in a matter-of-fact manner. The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?

Below are photographs taken by Jonah Blank last month at Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The prison is now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities. Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God and Mullahs on the Mainframe. He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations.

His photos show one of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge. Here's the first:

Here's another view:

How were they used? Here's a painting by a former prisoner that shows the waterboard in action:

In an email to me, Blank explained the significance of the photos. He wrote:

The crux of the issue before Congress can be boiled down to a simple question: Is waterboarding torture? Anybody who considers this practice to be "torture lite" or merely a "tough technique" might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing "lite" about their methods. Incidentally, the waterboard in these photo wasn't merely one among many torture devices highlighted at the prison museum. It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting (the other was another form of water-torture--a tank that could be filled with water or other liquids; I have photos of that too.) There was an outdoor device as well, one the Khymer Rouge didn't have to construct: chin-up bars. (The prison where the museum is located had been a school before the Khymer Rouge took over). These bars were used for "stress positions"-- another practice employed under current US guidelines. At the Khymer Rouge prison, there is a tank of water next to the bars. It was used to revive prisoners for more torture when they passed out after being placed in stress positions.

These photos are important because most of us have never seen an actual, real-life waterboard. The press typically describes it in the most anodyne ways: a device meant to "simulate drowning" or to "make the prisoner believe he might drown." But the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They-- like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.

The legislation backed by Bush and congressional Republicans would explicitly permit the use of evidence obtained through waterboarding and other forms of torture. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other top al Qaeda leaders have reportedly been subjected to this technique. They would certainly note--or try to note--that at any trial. But with this legislation, the White House is seeking to declare the use of waterboarding (at least in the past) as a legitimate practice of the US government.

The House of Representatives voted for Bush's bill on Thursday, 253 to 168 (with 34 Democrats siding with the president and only seven Republicans breaking with their party's leader). The Senate is expected to vote on the bill today. Its members should consider Blank's photos and arguments before they, too, go off the deep end.
******

Well, it's too late for that in the case of Schumer and DiFi.

And let me add that it was unfortunate that the Mukasey debate became so defined by the waterboarding issue. The larger issue at hand is the Bush administration's (and Mukasey's) view of executive power. By accepting Mukasey, these Democratic senators are tacitly accepting that view.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.... To determine policy in the Bush White House. But here's an all-too relevant passage from Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors, by my friend James Reston Jr.:

When the rack did not produce the desired result, the churchmen turned to the water torture. In this hideous remedy, the prisoner was tied to a ladder that was sloped downward, so that the head was lower than the feet. The head was held fast in position by a metal band, twigs were placed in the nostrils, and ropes winched tightly around his appendages. The mouth was forced open with a metal piece and a cloth placed over the mouth. Then a pitcher of water was brought, and water poured over the cloth. With each swallow, the cloth was drawn deeper into the throat, until in gagging and choking the victim nearly asphyxiated. The terror of suffocation was extreme, and the process was repeated endlessly, bloating the body grotesquely until the victim was ready to confess. If the suspect was still uncooperative, his body was turned over, causing unimaginable pain in the heart and lungs. From the inquisitor's standpoint---for he was there to record every detail---the treatment was easy to administer and left no telltale signs.

First the rack, then waterboarding? Unlike the inquisitors, the Bush administration seems to want to cut right to the chase. How's that for progress?