UEFA Playoffs: Initial Coverage

Today, 4 pairs of European teams will play the first leg of the aggregate playoffs for the World Cup. The pairs (with the first host listed first and rankings in parentheses) are:

Ireland (34) v. France (9)

Portugal (10) v. Bosnia (42)

Greece (16) v. Ukraine (22)

Russia (12) v. Slovenia (49)

Just a recap as to how the playoffs work: for each pair, each team hosts one of the two games; whoever scores more goals in the two games win; if they score the same number of goals, the team that scored more in their away game wins.

All of these should be very interesting competitions. Perhaps the most interesting will be the Portugal Bosnia match-up; this is Bosnia's first time in the playoffs, and Portugal have been far from at their best recently. Cristiano Ronaldo is injured and can't play either game. Figo has retired, Deco's form has been inconsistent latently, and Manchester United's Nani appears to have given up football to further his career as a clown. In short, it is far from clear that Portugal are capable of scoring against a fairly decent team without Ronaldo. On the other hand, Bosnia are just about the best they have been in years.

I will be making predictions for each game as it comes close to kickoff. Seeing as it is almost 8, I begin with Russia v. Slovenia

This should be a close one, believe it or not. Admittedly Russia is ranked significantly higher, but Slovenia are moving up and Russia didn't look their best during the first stage of qualification, despite being in a generally easier group than Slovenia. Slovenia only conceded 4 goals in qualifying (though Russia also only conceded 6). And the Slovene team showed they were good enough on the road, especially when it counted as seen by their draw away to Poland to open the qualifying process and their win in Slovakia which delayed Slovakia's qualification to the WC and helped ensure Slovenia a spot in the playoffs. Admittedly Russia are stronger than Slovakia, but if they're not at their best...

That's not to say Russia don't have an advantage in this first game: it is at home and they are a better team (though how much better is not clear). But Slovenia also have some advantages: they are a bit of an unknown in terms of strengths: they know more about Russia than Russia know about them. Also, from the coverage of interviews of Russian players, they seem certainly a bit overconfident, which is always a problem, especially against Slovenia who are good at scoring on quick counterattacks.

Final prediction: it will be a very close match. Control of the game could go back and forth. Don't expect either side to win it by more than 1 goal, if anyone wins at all...

The Beginning of the End?

Of a conflict, that is. As mentioned in this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8359582.stm) , Turkey's government has proposed a plan to end the conflict in Turkey's Kurdish-dominated southwest. It seems from the article like a fairly reasonable bill, though I must admit I haven't read the original, my Turkish being a little rusty. Turkey has already started a government run Kurdish-language TV channel, and these new reforms would include free use of the Kurdish language.

That being said, it is far from settled as the PKK (Kurdish guerilla group, considered to be a terrorist group by the US State Department as well as the EU) has said that one precondition for a peace settlement would be amnesty for rebels. This is not part of the plan which the Turkish government has proposed. Still Turkey is trying to make progress, though it should be noted that this is certainly partly a way of reducing the barriers to Turkey joining the EU. More to come as this story develops.

P.S. Sorry for the long sabbatical, if you will. I'm going to try to post with some frequency from now on. Its good to be back.

Champions League Group Stage

The groups have been announced! Earlier today the draw was conducted. In each group of 4, the top 2 teams advance to the knockout stage, and the 3rd team enters the Europa League at its knockout stage. Here are the groups (the numbers in parenthesis are club ranking in Europe).

Group A:

Bayern Munich (8), Juventus (29), Bordeaux (38), Maccabi Haifa (90)

Group B:

Man U (2), CSKA Moscow (26), Wolfsburg (77, though this is somewhat misleading; Wolfsburg just finished their best season in club history, winning the German Bundesliga, but because rankings are based upon record in tournament competition for the last 5 seasons; Wolfsburg are most likely better than Besiktas, so I put Wolfsburg first), Besiktas (61)

Group C:

AC Milan (7), Real Madrid (14), Marseille (25), Zurich (94)

Group D:

Chelsea (3), Porto (18), Atletico (35), APOEL (158)

Group E:

Liverpool (4), Lyon (11), Fiorentina (33), Debrecen (187)

Group F:

Barca (1), Inter Milan (12), Dinamo Kiev (40), Rubin Kazan (128, though similar situation as Wolfsburg: won domestic league last year, but haven't performed well enough in the 5 year period to merit a high ranking; certainly much better than the low ranking would suggest).

Group G:

Sevilla (6), Rangers (20), Stuttgart (44), Unirea Urziceni (124, similar situation as Rubin and Wolfsburg; perhaps stronger than ranking implies).

Group H:

Arsenal (5), Alkmaar (37), Olimpiakos (39), Liege (91)

More detailed analysis coming later as well as full updates on Europa League playoff results.

Ted Kennedy 1932-2009

RIP Teddy. No one can ever truly replace you.

Champions League Playoff

Several of the second legs happen tomorrow.

Maccabi Haifa (Israel) v. Red Bull Salzburg (Austria). The first result was 1-2 in Maccabi's favor in Salzburg.

Zurich (Switzerland) v. Ventspils (Latvia). Zurich won 0-3 in Latvia.

Debrecen (Hungary) v. Levski Sofia (Bulgaria). Debrecen won 1-2 in Sofia.

Anderlecht (Belgium) v. Lyon (France). Lyon thrashed Anderlecht 5-1 in Lyon.

Atletico Madrid (hmm, where are they from?) v. Panathinaikos (Greece). Atletico won 2-3 in Greece.

As for predictions: Well, the Lyon game is irrelevant. Anderlecht simply can't win by 4 goals, let alone win most likely. So Lyon are through.

Atletico have a definite edge of Panathinaikos. Atletico last year in La Liga (Spanish league) had an away goal differential of -1, and Panathinaikos had a home goal differential of 25 (33 scored, 8 conceded). Considering Atletico last year had a home record of 13 wins, 1 draw, 5 losses (goal differential: 24) and Panathinaikos' away record in domestic competition was 7 wins, 6 draws, 2 losses (goal differential: 8), Atletico will probably get the win. I predict Atletico win by 2.

No predictions for the other matches: data harder to get, and the clubs simply aren't as likely to go far in the tournament, so it simply isn't as important if Debrecen advances as opposed to Levski Sofia. Predictions coming tomorrow (if I can manage it) for the games on Wednesday and Thursday.

Afghan Elections and Iranian Cabinets

Well, results don't seem to be in yet. Allegations of fraud and serious irregularities remain common, but to what extent it impacted the election has yet to be seen. Both Karzai and the main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah have claimed victory. A repeat of Iran's mess?

Speaking of which, Ahmadinejad announced his cabinet on the 20th, and sparked some controversy by nominating 3 women, the first time women have ever been nominated for cabinet positions since the Revolution. A very clever ploy. If they are accepted, he comes out seeming much more moderate. If they are rejected, he is seen as being moderate and the Majlis (Parliament) as hardline and really conservative. Either way, he wins. The women, Marzieh Vahid Dastjerdi, Fatemeh Ajorlou and Sousan Keshavarz have been nominated for the health, social welfare, and education ministries respectively.

Commentary on Arsenal v. Celtic

I'm watching the game on CSNBA (channel 40 for me), and I shall give reactions as things happen. All minutes given are approximate.

Minutes 13-15 or so: Celtic applying lots of pressure, with Arsenal forced to simply boot the ball up field when they get it as opposed to controlled build-up. Arsenal get settled afterward.

At the 22nd minute, and Arsenal having some very good passing sequences.

And Arenal definitely aren't happy now. Van Persie is down with a head injury. And the stretchers are coming out. He doesn't need them, but he appears to be walking off the pitch.

23rd minute: play resumes with Celtic possesion, but it is quickly lost as Celtic simply thump the ball up field and hope for some luck. Celtic don't seem to be interested in the more patient passing build-up that Arsenal has used. Whether that is simply their playing style in general or a wariness of overcomitting offensively and conceding on the counterattack remains to be seen.

25th: Celtic enjoying a reasonably long posession. No rush to goo anywhere, but definitely testing the Arsenal defense. Again, Arsenal aren't able to get and maintain posession.

27th: Arsenal free kick as a Celtic pass down the left wing goes too far. Celtic regain posession. Celtic throw.

28th: Celtic cross is too long. Arrsenal through. Commentatorson TV saying it has been over a decade since a Premier League club has won a tournament match at Celtic Park. Still, don't count Arsenal out.

29th: Pass over the top from Fabregas almost reached by Van Persie, but its just a little to close to Celtic keeper Boruc. Celtic posession. Arsneal posession deep in the Celtic half, but the cross is too long. Arsenal retain posession and kick it back to keeper Almunia.

Ah, I guess I should mention the line-ups, shouldn't I?

Arsenal: 4-3-3.
Keeper: Almunia
Defense: Clichy (left), Vermaelen and Gallas (center), Sagna (right)
Midfield: Denilson (left), Song (center), Fabregas (right)
Forwards: Arshavin (left), Bendtner (center), Van Persie (right)

Celtic: 4-5-1.
Keeper: Boruc
Defense: Fox (left), Loovens and Caldwell (center), Hinkel (right)
Midfield: Maloney, Donati, N'Guemo, Brown, and McGeady
Forward: Samaras.

39th minute: both sides enjoying decent posession. Few clear scoring opportunities. Still, both sides getting into rythym a little more.

41st: Arshavin gets a shot on goal, but it it is partially blocked, which takes all the venom out of it and it is easily saved.

And now Celtic have a god chance. Cut-back from the right hit away by the Arsenal defence and the follow up from Brown is saved reasonably comfortably by Almunia.

Arsenal go down the other end quickly, and Fabregas is fouled. Free kick Arsenal from 28 meters.

And its a goal!!! Fabregas takes the free kick, and Gallas hits it with his head, perhaps unintentionally, and hits it to the far post when Boruc had the near post covered. Celtic lost at home in the previous round to Dinamo Moscow 0-1, but won by 2 goals in Moscow. Will Celtic lose for a second consecutive time in Champions League competition?

And that is half time. 0-1 in favor of Arsenal. Half-time stats (courtesy of uefa.com)

Shots on target: Celtic: 1 Arsenal: 2
Shots wide: Celtic: 1 Arsenal: 0
Blocked shots: Celtic: 0 Arsenal: 1
Fouls committed: Celtic: 8 Arsenal: 6
Offsides: Celtic: 3 Arsenal: 1
Corners: Celtic: 2 Arsenal: 0
Ball Possession: Celtic: 48% Arsenal: 52%.

So fairly even, but Arsenal have the lead. Other games at this point:

Sheriff v. Olimpiakos: 0-0
Copenhagen (Denmark) v. APOEL: 0-0
Timisoara (Romania) v. Stuttgart (Germany): 0-2
Sporting Portugal (hmm, I wonder what country they're from?) v. Fiorentina (Italy): 0-1.

And we're back!

50th-Celtic pressuring a little with some good possession, but Arsenal get it, although it is quickly lost.

51st: Celtic have a free kick from the left wing. Celtic claim the Arsenal defense handled the ball (that's a no-no), but the referee says no. Oh, and on the replay there is a bit of hand, though inadvertent. Arsenal come up the other end, but Celtic regain posession.

53rd: Pass over the top for Samaras, but it is too long. Arsenal have posession at the top of the box, but Van Persie has the ball stripped. Celtic at midfield.

54th: Van Persie has a shot, but it is wide though Boruc loked a little lost.

55th: Arsenal get it to midfield and a sloppy pass hands Celtic the ball. Their cross from the right wing is headed away.

56th: Some Celtic substitutions. Donati and Samras are out. Celtic have posession around the Arsenal box on the left side. Ball is taken, and Arsenal are moving up to the center circle. Oh, and its a yellow card of N'guemo, for a bad, late challenge. This means he is suspended for the next match, for receiving a yellow in 2 consecutive games.

59th: Celtic kick. Headed out for Arsenal throw.

60th: Arsenal dominating possession lately. Arsenal has a corner. Near post header goes straight up, and Celtic gain possession. Celtic foul on the attack, and Arsenal thump the ball upfield. Relaxed passing in the midfield, but the ball is lost and Celtic counterattack, but the cross from the right is a bad one.

Well, at this point I feel like simply watching the game and not mentioning every thing. Anything BIG that happens will be mentioned. Otherwise, I will write a general reaction after the game.

70th: Oh dear. A cross from the left from Arsenal. Caldwell tries to hit it away, and instead hits it back into his own net. Its an own goal by Celtic, and now Arsenal lead 2-0 away. Celtic really are in trouble now.

90th: Celtic hasn't had any clear chances. It seems as though if the score will chance, it will be in Arsenal's favor.

Stoppage time has begun, with 2 minutes added on.

And that is it! Arsenal won 0-2. Celtic with a bit of an edge in possession, but Arsenal had more total shots (9-2).

Other results:
Sheriff 0-2 Olimpiakos
Kopenhagen 1-0 APOEL
Timisoara 0-2 Stuttgart
Sporting Portugal 2-2 Fiorentina



3oth: Celtic are offside. Arsenal kick.

Champions League Playoff Round Day 1

Games commence in around 10 minutes. As in the previous rounds, the round is composed of aggregate series. Today's games and some interesting things to note.

Olimpiakos (Greece) at Sheriff Tiraspol (Moldova). Last year in domestic competition, Olimpiakos won 9 away games, drew 5, and lost 2, for a total goal differential of 11 (17 goals scored, 6 conceded). By comparison Olimpiakos' home record was 13 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss with 33 goals scored and 8 conceded, for a goal differential of 25. Sheriff's home record last season in domestic competitions was 13 wins, 2 draws, and 1 loss with a goal differential of 24. No doubt Olimpiakos is the bettter club, but Sheriff have managed some upsets, so Olimpiakos shouldn't get overconfident. Sheriff have need to do well at home considering Olimpiakos' home record. Sheriff in theory have the advantage at home, but I'd predict Olimpiakos win today by 1 or 2 goals (soccer is hard to predict, so more specific predictions will not be made; and don't be surprised if I'm wrong).

The biggest matchup is Arsenal (England) at Celtic (Scotland). Last year Arsenal's away record was 9 wins, 7 draws, and 3 losses; they scored 37 goals and conceded 21. Their home record was almost identical in terms of goal differential (15 at home, and 16 away), but at home they managed 11 wins, 5 draws, and 3 losses. Celtic's home record last season was 14 wins, 4 draws, and 1 loss; they scored 48 goals, and conceded 13. Their road record was 10 wins, 6 draws, and 3 losses; they scored 32 road goals and conceded 20. Injuries could be very important in this first match, especially for Arsenal. Arsenal for sure will not have Djouru, Nasri, Rosicky, or Walcott, and could be missing at least one of Fabregas, Sagna, and Denilson. Celtic have the advantage for this game, due to their incredible home record. However, Arsenal did open their Premier League season with a 6-1 away thrashing of Everton. I expect this will be a close game. Prediction: a draw or decided by 1 goal in either side's favor, though more likely that Celtic will get the win.

I would do more predictions, but games have started by now. I will write reaction to games afterwards, and some posts on the early stages of domestic leagues in Europe and some political posts shall follow as well.

Europa League Part 1

Most of the 3rd qualifying round for the Europa League is going on today. I am watching the Galatasaray (Turkey) v. Maccabi Netanya (Israel) match on my computer. Some of the results so far.

Vaslui (Romania) wrapped up their 3-1 aggregate win over Omonia (Cyprus).

Qarabağ (Azerbaijan) stunned Finnish club Honka with a second 1-0 victory, winning 2-0 on aggregate. Qarabağ also managed an upset victory over Rosenborg (Norway) in the previous round.

PSV Eindhoven (Netherlands) won both matches 1-0 against Cherno More (Bulgaria).

Champions League Part 2

The 3rd qualifying round has completely finished today, with some interesting results. Here is a run through of the most interesting matches and aggregate totals. For your reference, the country in parenthesis is where the club originates from.

Maccabi Haifa (Israel) 4-3 against Aktobe (Kazakhstan). The first match ended scoreless in Kazakhstan, and the match in Israel was a defense's worst nightmare, with an astonishing seven goals scored in a 54 minute stretch of the 90 minute game. Maccabi are perhaps somewhat dissapointed, having dismantled Northern Irish club Glentoran 10-0 on aggregate in the previous round. Still, a win is a win, and the advantages of advancing are not minor, as I shall explain in a different post focused on the importance of the CL.

Celtic (Scotland) 2-1 against Dynamo Moscow (Russia, obviously). Dynamo managed a 1-0 win at Celtic, but Celtic managed a 2-0 win in Moscow. This came as a bit of a shock seeing as Celtic hadn't won in European club competitions outside of Scotland in 6 years. In fact, it took an almost last minute goal by Georgios Samaras to hand Celtic the aggregate win. Still, Celtic are no doubt thrilled.

Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine), last year's winners of the Euefa Cup (which has been restructured and renamed the Europa League) lost due to the away goals rule against Timișoara (Romania). The second match ended scoreless in Romania after the 2-2 draw in Ukraine. Still, Shakthar's consolation (like all the other losing clubs from this round) is that they get to play in the Europa League Group Stage, which include 12 groups of 4 teams each, with the top 2 in each group advancing.

Honorable mention must be given to Slovene club Maribor, who stunned Zurich (Switzerland) 3-2 in Zurich; unfortunately (and oddly) for them, everything fell for them at home, where they lost 3-0, enabling Zurich to continue in the CL.

The Champions League, Part 1 (of many

Well, I apologize for the long break in posts. I have been busy and lazy, and never quite got in the habit of completely regular posts, but I shall try. I shall resume, with one regarding football!

Yes, the 2009-2010 UEFA Champions League has started, or rather the qualification matches have. For those unfamiliar with Champions League, it is the most important tournament for football (soccer) club teams (as opposed to national teams) in Europe, including the geographically non-European nations of Kazakhstan and Israel. It is a highly prestigious tournament, and as I shall cover in an additional coming post, highly important both in terms of the prestige it can bring to a club as well as the hard cash. Anyway, so far no club which has any serious chance of winning it has had to play, as clubs which play this early in qualification are (generally) not top clubs. For more information, please check it out here on Wikipedia (yes, it is accurate; I know this having further inspected the official site for the Champions League).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_UEFA_Champions_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round

And here's a link for info on the tournament in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_UEFA_Champions_League

All in all, not too much to say regarding action to date in the CL (as I shall call it). No important matches so far, and few surprises, the only notable surprise being Estonian club Levadia defeating Poland's Wisla Krakow. Not entirely sure how they managed it, but...

One important thing I should tell you regarding the CL and the Europa League (another tournament for European clubs, although less prestigious and important than the CL; weaker clubs end up in the Europa League; an extensive post on them shall follow this one) is that many rounds are decided on aggregate. What this means is that teams are divided into pairs. Each pair plays two games, one at the stadium of each team (meaning each team has to play one home and one away game). Whichever club scores more goals total in those two games goes on to the next round. If they score an equal number of goals, then it is decided by scores scored in away match.

To clarify that last bit. Let us say Club A plays Club B. The aggregate score (the total score after both games) is 3-3. But the game hosted by A ended up 1-1, and the game hosted by B ended up 2-2. Because A scored more goals on the road than B did, club A would advance.

Enough of the Champions League for now. A post on the Europa League is next (meaning in the next few hours) as is one on this summer's soccer trades.

Confederations Cup

Well, it has been a while, hasn't it. Work and laziness helped keep me away from blogging, but no more. I shall resume with a post on the ongoing Confederations Cup, which has had some very interesting results.

First, it has come as a harsh reminder to the US that they are no power house, and that they have serious work to do. The US is pretty much eliminated, having lost to Italy 3-1 and Brazil 3-0, and suffering the humiliation of a player sent off in each match. I'll admit, I didn't see either of the games. But I saw significant replays, and they were humiliating. The US was cut to shreds: Brazil scored a goal after the US turned over the ball on a US corner kick (pathetic)! None of the US players seriously challenged the ball, a failure which seems to have occurred repeatedly throughout the tournament for the technically challenged US side.

With its last game against Egypt, whose morale is sky high after narrowly losing to Brazil in a close game and beating Italy, all the US can hope to do is get a point out of the game. But I wouldn't bet on it. The US done poorly in terms of possession, averaging a meager 41.5% per game so far. The US has on on average taken 13 fewer total shots than its opponents, including an average of 8 on goal (meaning on target). The US has gotten just 4 corners in 2 games, as opposed to 15 for its opponents. When one looks at FIFA's handy ball possession heat map (showing where each team had the ball most of the time), it quickly becomes obvious that whenever the US has had the ball, it has been pinned pretty far back in its own half, while the opposing team has been able to attack with ease. One thing I noticed from the replays was that the US failed to challenge the ball, so the Brazilians (and Italians) were able to go where they wanted at whatever pace they wanted. All this combined with the US's knack for getting players ejected makes me think the US is not likely to win against Egypt.

This is especially because Egypt has performed very well so far. When they played Brazil, they actually had a slight edge in terms of possession (52%), and lost due to a controversial penalty. Stats for the two teams were very even. Unfazed by the loss, Egypt went and beat Italy. Yes, it was 1-0, but Egypt played better. They had some very fine coordinated passing sequences and some brilliant runs down the flank which were rarely challenged well, but often the crosses were a bit lacking. On defense, they pressured Italy intensely and forced Italy to the side, giving the Italians few open shots, and Italy's crosses or passes from the side were poor as they were forced to be running away the goal, leaving them off balanced when they tried to cross into the middle of the field. Italy may have won in terms of possession and shots, but it in the end, it is the quality of possession and shots which matters, and in that respect, Egypt won easily. Their keeper was also fantastic; when Italy finally managed to get some decent shots of, every time the keeper was there to deny them. I will predict and Egyptian win, most likely by 1 or 2 goals, partly depending upon Egypt's injury issues.

As for Italy v. Brazil, I'd have to go with Brazil. Admittedly I want Brazil to win, but I simply was unimpressed with Italy in their game against Egypt. On the attack they were often uninspiring and not too well coordinated. They had to come back against the US, conceding a first half penalty, and their last goal came in the 4th minute of second half stoppage time. Leaving it late is risky business against Brazil, who has looked pretty strong.

Of course, Spain are still favorites to win the whole thing. They currently have a 35 game unbeaten streak, including 15 consecutive victories. Can they be stopped? We shall see, but I don't think it will come at this tournament.

Ahmadinejad Faces Serious Re-election Troubles

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/world/middleeast/26iran.html?ref=middleeast

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-foreign31-2009may31,0,972854.story

Looks potentially dangerous for Ahmadinejad. Of course, there are polls floating around which indicate Ahmadinejad is leading by a massive margin; some show him with support of 55% or more of voters. Now there's just one problem with these polls. They weren't conducted by some independent polling agency, but rather by news agencies which are very much supporters of the current administration. Their polls are inherently flawed because they want to show Ahmadinejad with a massive lead. Of course, polls showing opponents such as Mousavi leading are similarly flawed because they were conducted only in the major cities, where Ahmadinejad is weakest (the agencies conducting such polls are pro-"reformist," a term which is very vague and can be misleading). So who will win? We don't know. Unless independent, impartial polling agencies can come to Iran and do their stuff, it is hard to know who will win. I would not put any money on Ahmadinejad winning: the economy is not doing so well, and he faces fierce opposition from the Iranian right (who disagree with his implementation of policy) as well as the Iranian left (who hate his policies as a whole). Just to be clear, don't think of the right or left wing in Iran as being the same in the US. They aren't. There really aren't many similarities at all. More on that later.

New Housing for Disabled in Afghanistan

Pretty interesting development. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8073447.stm

Makes me wonder why the US hasn't thought of some basic infrastructure building in secure areas of Afghanistan coupled with promises to extend such aid to areas where the local population cooperates in throwing out the Taliban. I mean, when you look at the cost of this project, if all they had built were houses, it would've been an average of $20,000 per house. In the US, the average home size is roughly 2330 square feet. Given that the average cost per square foot to build a house in the US is $95-150. If you accept 95 as the best estimate, the total building cost for an average home comes out to around $220,000. That's right: it costs 10 times as much to build an average home in the US as to build 200 homes in Afghanistan, and these homes in Afghanistan are likely much better than average considering the miserable poverty which afflicts Afghanistan. More details on my views regarding Afghanistan and what I think would be the ideal US policy will come later.

US Pledges Emergency Aid to Pakistan

Good. Yes, that is my reaction. This aid is fortunately to help with the humanitarian crises in the northwest as opposed to military aid. That is what the US needs to be doing in order to gain the trust of Pakistanis and boost its reputation so as to gain more support for the fight against the Taliban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8058252.stm

In case you doubt that the crisis is vast, the BBC (and many other news sources) have reported that the refugees from the latest fighting number as many as around 1.5 million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8056453.stm

BBC Releases Map Highlighting Strength of Taliban

I just thought it would be interesting to post this considering I've started out talking about Pakistan and the Taliban a fair amount. So here are two links to articles on the map and some BBC analysis. I'm not too surprised by their estimates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8046577.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8047504.stm

Pakistan Part 2

At this point I have a few more points to explain my the reasoning behind my conclusion that the Taliban doesn't pose an existential threat to Pakistan. But first, I think I should clarify exactly where I stand.

I don't doubt that the Taliban are dangerous. They have proven the capability to strike throughout much of Pakistan, using suicide bombs and even gunmen (as seen in the attack of the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore). But, they only are an important permanent force in the mountainous, Pashtun-dominated northwest. So I believe that the likely hood that the Taliban will actually be able to directly overthrow the Pakistani government is minimal at the most, and quite likely is effectively zero. However, the Taliban have succeeded in making large parts of the northwest areas not really under the control of the Pakistani government, and their control over these areas has helped destabilize Afghanistan. The Taliban's strength in the northwest cannot be tolerated, but their strength has been widely exaggerated. However, government policy regarding the Taliban could make or break the government (or any future administration), so in that sense, the Taliban can contribute to the fall of the government (or rather the transition to a new administration).

Here are my last points to support my reasoning. An important weakness for the Taliban is their idea of law. Contrary to popular belief, Taliban law is not derived entirely from Shariah (Islamic law, which in reality is no monolithic set of beliefs; there are many interpretations of Islamic law, and in this case Islamic doesn't necessarily mean fundamentalist), but also upon Pashtunwali (Pashtun tribal law/code). The Punjabis and Sindhis (who are a combined 58% of the country), don't follow Pashtunwali (a bit obvious, I know, but still worth pointing out). Therefore a law system which is partially derived from a tribal law not recognized by other groups such as Punjabis or Sindhis will therefore lack legitimacy among these groups.

My final reason, which is closely tied to the previous point, is that the Pashtun are still divided into tribes. They aren't unified. This was seen in the Soviet-Afghan war, when Pashtuns fore the most part failed to united with other ethnic groups (such as Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara, etc.) let alone other tribes of Pashtuns. The Taliban in Afghanistan were always dominated by one of the main tribes, the Durrani. In fact, their leadership (and even military force) was dominated by Durranis specifically from Kandahar. I have NEVER read any article which has indicated the Taliban and other related groups in Pakistan have allied across tribal lines. These tribal divisions do naturally make it extraordinarily difficult for the Pakistanis to achieve a convincing victory: they might manage to defeat one group, but many others would still remain. But, it also makes the idea of the militants succeeding in actually militarily defeating the Pakistani army, let alone completely toppling the government absurd.

But, just to make sure I have been clear. I am extremely worried by the resiliency of the militants, and the potential of Pakistan's northwest becoming a safe haven and training ground for global terrorism the way much of Afghanistan was in the 90's. But I am not worried about the actual safety of the Pakistani government, and the exaggerated fear of people as influential as Hillary Clinton seriously worries me. I hope that this administration will base its actions and policies based off of what is clearly real, as opposed to wild fears based off gut reaction.

Failed Georgian Negotiations

After a month of protests, a number of opposition members met with PM Mikhail Saakashvili to try to ease tension. Today, BBC reported that the talks have stalled and no progress has been made. 

Georgia seems to be facing a number of problems, a number of which aren't new. Saakashvili has been criticized for failing to seriously combat institutionalized corruption, despite his earlier promises. His predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze was much the same. During the 70's and 80's he campaigned vigorously against corruption within the Communist Party. But during his presidency, he protected individuals involved in massive corruption, including members of his family. 

Similarly, Saakashvili has been accused of being dictatorial. Both his predecessors (Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Shevardnadze) were frequently accused of dictatorial tactics. Gamsakhurdia was accused of violations of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of press among others. Shevardnadze rigged the 2003 elections,  sparking the Rose Revolution. 

The gist of what I am getting at is that one should not conclude that Saakashvili has been a major step backward for Georgia; at times members of the opposition have tried to make this fallacy appear true. It may not have improved dramatically, but corruption has been lessened in Georgia. Its rating on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index has improved from 1.8 when Saakashvili came to power in 2003, to  to 3.9 as of 2008, with the scale running from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). Fairly small improvement, but progress nonetheless. As far as corruption goes, part of the problem seems to be that the opposition has unrealistic aspirations, and thinks corruption can be eliminated overnight, and Saakashvili's failure to do so proves he is a bad leader. 

However, their allegations of bullying/unfair treatment of opposition members might well be valid. Certainly his provocation of Russia was stupid at best. Honestly, what was he thinking? In this matter, I have several hypotheses. The first is that he believed the US or NATO would intervene in Georgia's behalf. If this is the case, he is reckless and foolish. Taking such a high risk over two regions with a current (there has been ethnic cleansing resulting in hundreds of thousands of ethnic Georgians leaving Abkhazia and South Ossetia, most of it in the 90's) population of 500,000 (a high estimate). My other hypothesis is that he thought he would lose, but the Russians wouldn't devastate the country. He had been losing support domestically prior to the war, so perhaps he thought the war would appeal to the nationalistic fervor of the Georgians. If that is the case, then I'm not sure he can be described in words.

Back to the talks. They have failed, as have a month of protests and the demands of parts of the opposition that Saakashvili resign. What is going to happen? To be frank, I don't know. Saakashvili seems to be stubborn, as does the opposition. However, Georgian presidents are limited to 2 terms, and Saakashvili is current in his second term. Its possible that protests will continue (unsuccessfully), and by 2013, either Saakashvili will step down, or he will prove the opposition right and try to hold on to power. Of course, all sorts of things can happen in between now and then, so the future is very uncertain. However, I think we can safely guess the government and opposition won't agree on a deal any time soon.

The End of Pakistan?

Hardly. For those who are confused, some have claimed that the fighting in the northwest of Pakistan, especially in the Swat Valley and nearby areas such as Buner indicate that the Taliban and other similar militant groups pose a serious existential threat to Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8013677.stm

Sad to say, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is among these prophets of doom. Now, I'm not just refuting these claims because I don't want to sound pessimistic. In fact, I have often been criticized for being pessimistic. But I don't see these gloomy predictions as being based in fact.

The first reason that I doubt the Taliban's ability to pose an existential threat to Pakistan is the fact that there are massive ethnic differences between where the Taliban are popular and the rest of Pakistan. The Taliban are overwhelmingly Pashtun, an ethnic group which inhabits the northwest of Pakistan, and much of Afghanistan. Pashtuns compose around 12% of Pakistan. The only other ethnic group in Pakistan which shares relatively close ethno-linguistic ties is the Baluch, who are a mere 4% or so of Pakistan. The main ethnic group in Pakistan, the Punjabis (around 50%) don't share much in common culturally with the Pashtun. Their language is different, and many Punjabis have some affiliation with Sufi orders, which the Taliban reject.

Furthermore, politics in general in Pakistan tended to be divided (to a considerable extent, though not completely) along ethnic lines. For example, the PPP (led by the Bhutto family) is most dominant in Sindh amongst Sindhis, although it has strenght in parts of the Punjab. Its main rivals, the PLM-N and PML-Q are strong in the Punjab. Both however, have considerably less strength in the northwest, where much of the fighting is. For example, in the legislature of the NWFP, which includes Swat and Buner, the most powerful party (with 38 seats) is the Awami National Party, which is a Pashtun nationalist (secular) party. The PPP has 20 seats, and is followed by Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (a coalition of religious parties which wants Pakistan to be a theocracy opposes ties to the US) with 14 seats. The PML-N has 7 seats, PML-Q has 6, and a party which broke from the PPP has 6. The remaining 33 seats are unaffiliated with any party. By contrast, in the Punjabi legislatue, the PML-N is the leading party with 171 out of 370 seats. They are followed by the PPP (107), PML-Q (83), and the MMA has 2 seats. In Sindh, the leading party is the PPP (93 out of 166), followed by the MQM (which represents mostly the immigrants from India as a result of partition and their descendants) which has 51 seats, PML-Q (9), and the Awami National Party has 2 seats. The MMA has none, and the same goes for the PML-N.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/images/map-ethnic-1.gif

This map demonstrates to some extent where the various ethnic groups in Pakistan are distributed. It quickly becomes evident that politics are very closely tied to ethnic divisions. And the fact is that even in Afghanistan, the Taliban was overhwhelmingly Pashtun, even though Afghanistan is only 42% Pashtun.

Furthermore, there is the military infeasability of Pakistan takeover. The fact is that much of Pakistan's population is in the low-lying, flat provinces of Sindh and Punjab. If the Taliban were to venture into these areas, the Pakistanis could call in their air force. The Taliban have no reliable method of bringing down aircraft. The only reason the use of airstrikes has been unsuccessful is that they are fighting in their native terrain, which is mountainous. Out in a nice, flat plain, they would be sitting ducks, and would be pummeled in a matter of minutes if not seconds.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Pakistan_Topography.png

The link above is to a topo map of Pakistan. In case you aren't familiar with the term, it means that it physically demonstrates the variation in altitude (basically shows how mountainous or level parts of the country are).

I am tired right now, so this article will be continued at a later date. But, I will try to sort of give you a sense for my opinions. Basically, I've shown that the Taliban and other groups don't really pose a existential threat to Pakistan. But, there is no doubt that they can continue to dominate the country's northwest and basically set up an effectively independent nation (or nations, as I will show in part 2), which is undoubtedly a problem, and cannot be allowed to happen (though arguably it has already happened to some extent).

Why I Am Blogging

So I'm guessing you might be wondering, what is the purpose of this blog? Why am I going to be writing? What am I going to be writing. The answer is not simple, but I will do the best I can.

First, the what. I plan to focus mainly on politics and current events, especially relating to the Middle East, Eastern Europe (mainly Balkans), and Central Asia. Other areas will be covered if and when I feel like it, often if something momentous occurs. I will occasionally discus other issues such as reactions to history books I have read, literature reviews, and football (or soccer, though I prefer the term football).

Why? To be blunt, because I love to rant. There are things I feel very strongly about and I think having a blog will enable me to express myself in a way that I can't necessarily otherwise. If people don't read my blog, well at least I'll feel like I have my opinions written down. Not that I mind having an audience, or rather people to discuss with. I don't want this to feel just like a lecture. I want to feel like if people read this, they feel like they can freely respond. So please, if what I say makes you think, feel free to comment. But please, keep comments civil. I retain the right to moderate comments, so anything which is unnecessarily rude or derogatory will not be allowed. Otherwise, please respond to what I say. I hope you enjoy!