Sunday, October 28, 2007

Olmert makes lame apology to Turkey

Olmert made an apology to Turkey over the incursion of Israeli bombers into Turkish airspace last month. Well, not quite. Actually, it was a rather qualified apology. IF we entered your airspace, we didn't do it to hurt your feelings. We don't apologise for actually doing it, only for upsetting you when we did it. If we actually did it in the first place, of course. And we just might do it again, just so you know and don't go getting yourself all worked up. We respect your sovereignty, but we'll violate it whenever we want. No hard feelings, okay?

What kind of apology is it when you don't even admit to doing what you are apologising for? A lame one.

full story
Olmert to Turks: Sorry if We Hurt You

(IsraelNN.com) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the cabinet Sunday that he had apologized to his Turkish counterpart, Tayyip Erdogan, and before the Turkish people, for any distress that may have been caused by the entry of Israeli warplanes into Turkish airspace on September 6.

According to reports in the press, the planes were on their way to attack a suspected nuclear site in Syria.

"If planes did indeed enter Turkish airspace there was no intention to hurt or somehow challenge Turkish sovereignty, which we respect," he said.
---------------------------------------------

IAEA Chief: Israel 'Took Law into its Own Hands'

(IsraelNN.com) The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad el-Baradei, was quoted Sunday as saying that Israel "had taken the law into its own hands" when it carried out the alleged attack on a Syrian nuclear facility last month.

El-Baradei said it was "disgusting" that Israel has given the IAEA "zilch information" about the alleged nature of the facility attacked.

"Search and Avoid" in Iraq

full story from IPS

US-IRAQ: Ill-Equipped Soldiers Opt for "Search and Avoid"
By Dahr Jamail

WATERTOWN, New York, Oct 24 (IPS) - Iraq war veterans now stationed at a base here say that morale among U.S. soldiers in the country is so poor, many are simply parking their Humvees and pretending to be on patrol, a practice dubbed "search and avoid" missions.

Phil Aliff is an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division stationed at Fort Drum in upstate New York. He served nearly one year in Iraq from August 2005 to July 2006, in the areas of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, both west of Baghdad.

"Morale was incredibly low," said Aliff, adding that he joined the military because he was raised in a poor family by a single mother and had few other prospects. "Most men in my platoon in Iraq were just in from combat tours in Afghanistan."

According to Aliff, their mission was to help the Iraqi Army "stand up" in the Abu Ghraib area of western Baghdad, but in fact his platoon was doing all the fighting without support from the Iraqis they were supposedly preparing to take control of the security situation.

"I never heard of an Iraqi unit that was able to operate on their own," said Aliff, who is now a member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). "The only reason we were replaced by an Iraqi Army unit was for publicity."

Aliff said he participated in roughly 300 patrols. "We were hit by so many roadside bombs we became incredibly demoralised, so we decided the only way we wouldn't be blown up was to avoid driving around all the time."

"So we would go find an open field and park, and call our base every hour to tell them we were searching for weapons caches in the fields and doing weapons patrols and everything was going fine," he said, adding, "All our enlisted people became very disenchanted with our chain of command."

Aliff, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), refused to return to Iraq with his unit, which arrived in Kirkuk two weeks ago. "They've already lost a guy, and they are now fostering the sectarian violence by arming the Sunnis while supporting the Shia politically ... classic divide and conquer."

Aliff told IPS he is set to be discharged by the military next month because they claim his PTSD "is untreatable by their doctors".

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment for PTSD increased nearly 70 percent in the 12 months ending on Jun. 30.

The nearly 50,000 VA-documented PTSD cases greatly exceed the 30,000 military personnel that the Pentagon officially classifies as wounded in both occupations.


VA records show that mental health has become the second-largest area of illness for which veterans of the ongoing occupations are seeking treatment at VA hospitals and clinics. The total number of mental health cases among war veterans increased by 58 percent; from 63,767 on Jun. 30, 2006, to 100,580 on Jun. 30, 2007, according to the VA.

Other active duty Iraq veterans tell similar stories of disobeying orders so as not to be attacked so frequently.

"We'd go to the end of our patrol route and set up on top of a bridge and use it as an over-watch position," Eli Wright, also an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division, told IPS. "We would just sit with our binoculars and observe rather than sweep. We'd call in radio checks every hour and say we were doing sweeps."

Wright added, "It was a common tactic, a lot of people did that. We'd just hang out, listen to music, smoke cigarettes, and pretend."

The 26-year-old medic complained that his unit did not have any armoured Humvees during his time in Iraq, where he was stationed in Ramadi, capital of the volatile Al Anbar province.

"We put sandbags on the floors of our vehicles, which had canvas doors," said Wright, who was in Iraq from September 2003 until September 2004. "By the end of our tour, we were bolting any metal we could find to our Humvees. Everyone was doing this, and we didn't get armoured Humvees in country until after we left."

Other veterans, like 25-year-old Nathan Lewis, who was in Iraq for the invasion of March 2003 until June of that year while serving in the 214th field artillery brigade, complained of lack of training for what they were ordered to do, in addition to not having armoured Humvees for their travels.

"We never got training for a lot of the work we did," he explained. "We had a white phosphorous mortar round that cooked off in the back of one of our trucks, because we loaded that with some other ammo, and we weren't trained how to do it the right way." The "search and avoid" missions appear to have been commonplace around much of Iraq for years now.

Geoff Millard served nine years in the New York Army National Guard, and was in Iraq from October 2004 until October 2005 working for a general at a Tactical Operation Centre.

Millard, also a member of IVAW, said that part of his duties included reporting "significant actions", or SIGACTS, which is how the U.S. military describes an attack on their forces.

"We had units that never called in SIGACTS," Millard, who monitored highly volatile areas like Baquba, Tikrit and Samarra, told IPS. "When I was there two years ago, there were at least five companies that never had SIGACTS. I think 'search and avoids' have been going on there for a long time."

Millard told IPS "search and avoid" missions continue today across Iraq.

"One of my buddies is in Baghdad right now and we email all the time," he explained, "He just told me that nearly each day they pull into a parking lot, drink soda, and shoot at the cans. They pay Iraqi kids to bring them things and spread the word that they are not doing anything and to please just leave them alone."

Australia warns of economic "tsunami"

With Howard facing an already tough election campaign, he now announces that the economic picture is due to take a downturn. The economy has been his strong suit; his only suit, really. With Blair gone, Howard has filled the vacancy as chief foreign parrot for the Bush Administration, openly admitting that he takes his cues on foreign policy from Republican talking points. The man almost seems to have no opinions of his own, yet it is not the nasal-anal interface with Bush that is dragging Howard down, but rather domestic policy ineptitude.

Here in the U.S, news of the "subprime meltdown" has been muted, with the White House putting its characteristic smiley-face on the crisis. However, the crux of the issue at hand is China, which has been buying vast amounts of U.S. securities (t-bills), allowing Bush to finance the Iraq occupation "off the books" without raising taxes. In effect, China has loaned Bush the money to make Iraq possible, and stands to make vast sums off the interest as the debt is denominated in dollars. Bush has committed our country to financing the world's largest communist regime and greatest economic rival in order to keep his disastrous Iraq 'plans' fiscally viable. If this anticipated "slowdown" hurts China's economy, that Chinese credit card will quickly become maxed out. The next president will likely face the worst of it, however. Substantial tax increases will become necessary to pay the interest to our Chinese creditors, and the "put it on my tab" mentality of the Bush Administration will give way to the harsh reality that we can no longer afford to be in Iraq any longer. The money that we will need to deal with a workforce that is rapidly approaching retirement, infrastructure that has crumbled during the rose-coloured presidency, disabled troops' medical care and payments, and any number of other issues will have to be paid for as we go.

Even more dangerous is the possibility of the dollar being replaced as the default currency in favour of the Euro. Since so much of the world's currency exchange takes place in the petroleum industry, it is crucial that oil payments be denominated in dollars. If the dollar sinks significantly, the Euro will look even more attractive than it already does, and oil-exporting nations will be sorely tempted to move from the dollar. With such large amounts at stake, even a small decline in the dollar could cost these countries millions overnight. Russia and Venezuela are the most likely candidates to make the switch, with the possibilities of Iran and Libya following suit. Depending how Britian goes with adoption of the Euro, Nigeria could also be a good candidate to bail on the dollar. Ironically, with China holding so much U.S. debt, they would naturally become one of the strongest defenders of the dollar.

Australia faces economic turbulence from U.S. meltdown

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia, one of the best-performing advanced economies, faced looming economic turbulence from the subprime lending meltdown in the United States, Prime Minister John Howard warned on Sunday.
On Friday, Australian Treasurer Peter Costello had warned of an approaching international financial "tsunami", with China at its epicentre.
"We are entering a more difficult time of economic management. There are storm clouds on the international economic horizon," Howard told Channel 9 television on Sunday.
He was speaking on the campaign trail for Australia's federal election on November 24, which the coalition government is fighting largely on its economic credentials.
Battling poor opinion polls, Howard faces the prospect of an official interest rate increase by the Reserve Bank on November 6, during the election campaign.
"I don't think its panicking anybody to say that the subprime meltdown in the United States, which has already had an impact on market interest rates, because of the globalised nature of our economy, is going to have an effect," Howard said.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday, Costello said global financial markets faced a "huge tsunami".
The U.S. economy would weaken in the wake of its subprime mortgage meltdown, and the breakneck pace of Chinese growth also could not continue, Costello said.
At some stage, likely to coincide with a move to a floating of the Chinese currency, China would unleash greater instability on global markets than the United States had, he said.
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1719472007

Saturday, October 27, 2007

European FMs shill for Bush policy in Lebanon

The U.S. has increased its military aid to the Lebanese government to $270 million - a fivefold increase over just last year. Of course, this is purely military aid, not economic or humanitarian. That would be too much like dealing with the crisis. Bush's concern for Lebanon begins and ends with Hizbollah. If they weren't there, Lebanon could fester in civil war for eternity and Bush wouldn't be able to point out the country on a map.

Far from the noble objective of allowing the Lebanese government to stand on its own, the intention is instead to create an American client state that will support Israel and serve as a base from which to attack Syria.

After Spain and Italy withdrew from Iraq, the Bush Administration gave them the usual scowl. Spain and Italy are now under Bush pressure to increase not only their troop levels in Afghanistan, but to extend their role to a combat mission. Both Spain and Italy are among those countries that seem to never be able to do enough to satisfy the Decider. France seems to be getting a free pass on Afghanistan due to it's support for an air war against Iran.

Even as Bush derides the U.N. and expects it to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, he tries to bypass it on the Iranian invasion issue. He tried to get the EU to support military strikes against Iran. No dice. He tried to get NATO to go along with his schemes. Sorry, no sale. Meanwhile, it is the U.N. that is carrying out the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon at the same time that Bush is setting the country up as a proxy in the next Middle East regional war. Will the U.N. get the tab to clean up that mess as well? Will Lebanese "sovereignty" end up defined in the same manner as Iraqi "sovereignty"? You are sovereign to the extent that you agree with Bush, that is.

story from Haartez

Last update - 18:53 20/10/2007
Spanish, Italian, French FMs visit UNIFIL, pledge support for troops
By The Associated Press

The foreign ministers of France, Italy and Spain - on a symbolic visit to southern Lebanon - pledged continued support for UN peacekeepers whose mandate is to oversee a truce along the Lebanese-Israeli border but who are increasingly threatened by al-Qaida-inspired militants and political instability in Beirut.

The visit by Bernard Kouchner of France, Massimo D'Alema of Italy and Miguel Angel Moratinos of Spain comes at a difficult political time for Lebanon. The three ministers are hoping to help mediate among the feuding Lebanese factions because the deep political crisis in Beirut could have serious implications on the UN mission in southern Lebanon.

Already, the UN peacekeeping force of 13,530 from some 28 countries have come under attack in southern Lebanon. In June, a car bombing killed six peacekeepers from the Spanish contingent. Other bombings recently have been thwarted by authorities.

No group has claimed responsibility for the June attack or another one that followed in July. But in a July videotape, Al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri blessed the first attack, fueling speculation that it was carried out by Al-Qaida-linked militants.

Further political instability in Beirut and resulting deterioration of security could reflect negatively on the peacekeeping force's ability to implement its mission of securing the border.

The three top diplomats flew by UN helicopter from Beirut to the headquarters of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, in the fishing border town of Naqoura on the Mediterranean Sea for a briefing from Force Commander Maj. Gen. Claudio Graziano of Italy.

The ministers later flew to the bases of their respective troop contingents serving with UNIFIL.

In statements at Naquora, the Italian foreign minister said it was the first time that the three foreign ministers of the main Euro-Mediterranean countries, who are the main contributors to UNIFIL, were together in Lebanon.

"I want to stress how important is this message of commitment, engagement and unity. Our presence here is a testimony of our support ... and deep appreciation," D'Alema said.

Kouchner said the troika's visit to UNIFIL was to reinforce our support to the international community forces, and he pledged continued support.

"We are strongly determined to follow till the end. The end is what? Peace, unity, sovereignty of Lebanon and certainly also implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1701," the French foreign minister said.

Moratinos said the three "came to salute our troops, to salute UNIFIL, this UN force that is working to stabilize the situation."

The reinforced UNIFIL deployed after the Second Lebanon War last summer between Israel and Hezbollah, a 34-day conflict that killed up to 1,200 Lebanese, and some 160 Israelis.

Under UN resolution 1701, it assists about 15,000 Lebanese troops maintain a weapons-free zone along the border.

Israeli politician sets up military as scapegoat

Take a close look at this story, because this is what Bush Administration officials will be saying about Iraq in future.

Turbowitz the Toady astonishingly places the blame for the Lebanon debacle entirely on the head of the Israeli military, almost as if Olmert was forced into the mess against his will.

Almost any military, when asked, will say that it is capable of handling a challenge. That's the military mentality, after all. Perhaps that is why civilian political figures are put in charge of making decisions. In the case of the U.S. we have already seen the consequences when the military is pressured into agreeing with the civilian administration. In effect, they are told what to say, and they echo it back. Blaming the parrot for the words they were taught to repeat is foolish.

What is missing from all of this is Cheney's involvement in pressuring Israel into a "slam-dunk" military adventure in Lebanon, when the credibility of Cheney's "analysis" is plain to anyone who can say the word "Iraq". We're the good guys, and the good guys always prevail in Cheney's mind.

Just as in Iraq, it was abject failure of civilian administration planning that made the military's job impossible. How can the military possibly guarantee civilian preparedness against an unknown scenario?

This should be an object lesson to the IDF when faced with whatever crazy new schemes the voices in Cheney's head compel him to dictate to his Israeli political minions.


Turbowitz: IDF Told Us We Could Handle War

(IsraelNN.com) Defending his boss, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's chief of staff Yoram Turbowitz told the Winograd Committee that contrary to the public perception, it was the military establishment, not the political, that was behind the country's lack of preparedness during the Second Lebanon War. The testimony was published Thursday.

According to Turbowitz, the IDF told Olmert that, "the home front was ready for the consequences of Hizbullah firing missiles on northern Israel, as well as for the possibility they may hit south of Haifa."

"There was a definite feel that we were launching a military campaign, the IDF chief of staff told us, under no uncertain terms, that the army can handle it," said Turbowitz.

World opinion takes shape on Iran attack

While the British and American media always seem to focus on the threats from Iran to defend itself, in order to bolster the "Crazy Iranian Menace" angle, less is devoted to the reactions of the rest of the world.
Russia and China, both Security Council members, seem firmly opposed to military action in Iran. So far only France and Israel have expressed strong support, with Germany being more reserved. Britain has said it will participate if its forces are attacked, which considering that British troops are currently involved in cross-border raids to intercept arms smugglers, is a pretext waiting to be applied at will. There the question is more if Britain wants a piece of a third simultaneous military action than if it is willing to follow Bush.

Since this is to be primarily an air war, there is less of a need to cajole and bully smaller nations into sending troops, though they will probably be browbeaten into pledging cash.

There is little doubt that the U.S. (and whatever allies it can muster) can bomb Iran successfully. The bigger issue is what happens after the bombs fall. Without regime change in Iran, the endeavour would be pointless. But pointless is what Bush does best. The "point", such as it is, is that Bush is strong. Do what we say or else. While a lot of what the Iranian regime does is unpopular with its people, the nuclear programme is one thing that has strong suppport. Like 9/11 did here in the U.S, the action is likely to rally the public around the Iranian government. I have little doubt that Bush Administration lackeys are pitching a rosy scenario in which the Iranian people overthrow their oppressors and welcome us with flowers and chocolates, but this is their stock-in-trade, after all.

The reality is that such action is likely to stir up sympathy for Iran afterward. While Gulf Arab governments (undemocratic and in the pocket of the U.S.) would welcome Iran's chastening, the Islamic world is already seething with resentment over America's arrogant efforts to impose Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East. Other governments would see this as an easy opportunity to distance themselves from Bush's foreign policy by condemning the assault. India has made their opposition to a military strike public, and it is only the incredible pressure exerted by the U.S. on (the increasingly isolated) Musharraf that is responsible for his reluctant and limited words of support. Russia has already been busy lining up the Caspian states to forbid the use of their territories for such an attack. Turkey's antipathy to U.S. foreign policy is fast becoming open and public loathing. Other EU states, such as Spain and the Netherlands, are already embroiled in Bush-inspired fiascoes in Afghanistan, with increasing public opposition. Austria has clearly said the entire thing is a bad idea. Bush's bully approach to the rest of the world is building up resentment in quarters that would normally cheer us on. Rice's tactic seems to be, at best, to insult and shame nations into going along with Bush, on this and every other issue.

The big dogs in the kennel are, of course, China and Russia. China does not take kindly to foreign criticism of its policies, so Burns' "advice" is likely to do more harm than good. Russia is simply looking for an opportunity show that it is a world player, and one that is not in Bush's pocket. The more that Bush criticises them, the better they feel about their position. And every nation realises that Bush will be gone in a little over a year, so the desire for a pat on the head from the Decider is greatly diminished.

Sadly, the only parties that Bush is interested in pleasing are his 24% base and the Israelis. As such, it would seem that the die is cast and America will have to endure the fallout from world opinion as best it can.

story from the Daily Telegraph

Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks


By Matthew Moore
Last Updated: 5:46pm BST 26/10/2007

Iran has threatened to hit back with an "even more decisive strike" if the US bombs its nuclear installations, as international tensions rise following Washington's imposition of sanctions against Teheran.

The head of the Revolutionary Guards - the elite Iranian force designated a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" yesterday - dismissed talk of US air strikes but said Iran was ready to defend itself if attacked.

...

Beijing and Moscow have already come out against the sanctions, with President Vladimir Putin of Russia comparing the Bush administration to "mad people wielding razor blades"

The Chinese foreign ministry today said the penalties would "only complicate the issue".

"Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue," it said in a statement.

Announcing the decision yesterday, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice insisted that a "diplomatic solution" to the differences between Iran and the West was still possible but described the actions as part of a decision "to confront the threatening behaviour of the Iranians".

Growing frustration within the Bush administration at the blocking strategy of Moscow and Beijing against any United Nations measures on Iran is becoming increasingly evident.

Nicholas Burns, US assistant secretary of state, suggested that Russia and China are propping up President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime.

"The Russian government should stop selling arms to Iran and the Chinese government should stop investing in Iran," he told the BBC.

Trouble in Basra

As the Sadrists announced a "freeze" on their militia activity, the U.S. military has taken this opportunity to throw al-Sadr's followers into the torture-plagued Iraqi prison system. Like many, I am left wondering just how this action rewards the Sadrists for laying down their arms.

Sadr's strategy is self-serving, of course. By letting other militia groups exhaust themselves and bear the brunt of U.S. air strikes, the Sadrists would tend to emerge as the strongest and most influential force in Iraq. Bush would get to take credit for a decrease in violence for essentially doing nothing, and fewer people would die. It seemed like a good deal for all concerned, so Bush had to kill it.

In contrast to Britain's assurances that the handover of security to Iraqis would go smoothly, it now seems that 200 or more civilians have been killed in Basra in just the last month. Inter-Shia violence has also increased in a big way. Again, I feel compelled to point out that Iraq is more than just the city of Baghdad. While Baghdad has been effectively divided into ethnically-defined walled communities, it doesn't mean that people are getting along; they are only segregated. In Anbar, "progress" means that cars are not allowed in some cities for fear of car bombings. Again, it's not that people are getting along better. They are instead subject to greater opppression than they had under Saddam. With the south of the country headed toward a "gang war" between rival Shia militias and the north of the country facing the threat of Turkish military confrontation, it would hardly seem that we facing a period of relative stability and tranqulity. Yet this is what the neocons are pushing as the case. And, as I've said before, the Bush strategy is that, if the American public wants the troops home, they had better start talking up the "success" in Iraq. That seems to have been taken to heart by the U.S. media.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is not cohering in this alleged "stability". They are, in fact, scoring points domestically by stirring up anti-occupation resentment caused by the Nisoor Square killings. And if Turkey goes ahead with an invasion of Kurdistan, there goes the majority of the Iraqi Army, off to fight for their homeland. The majority of the Iraqi military (and the most effective part) is Kurdish peshmerga. Nobody is talking about the promised provincial elections any more, though this was one of the benchmarks that the surge was supposed to assure.

Also, in an attempt to reduce the number of troops being killed, the U.S. is moving toward the sharply increased use of air strikes against suspected targets. Civilians killed in these strikes are uniformly dubbed "Al-Qaeda" and "insurgents" by virtue of their deaths, and the neocons crow over each and every one as proof that 'victory' in imminent. Instead, it is driving the populace against the occupation, and the Iraqi government is capitalising on that resentment, though it is powerless to do much except ask us to please leave.

So, yes, now seems like the perfect time to force the Mahdi Army into a military confrontation that they don't want. If things go badly, we can always bomb Iran. That will somehow go unnoticed the Iraqi Shia majority.


Iraq Bomber Attacks Sunni Militant Group

BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide bomber blew himself up near the headquarters of a nationalistic Sunni insurgent group that has turned against al-Qaida in Iraq north of Baghdad, killing a woman on her way to the market and wounding four other people, police said.

A spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, called on the Iraqi government to stop violence he said was increasingly plaguing southern Iraq and warned the inaction could further alienate Iraqis from the political process.

Sheik Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalai said 200 people were killed in the past three months in the city of Basra alone, in addition to kidnappings, and he accused the government of failing to hold the attackers accountable or to stop oil smuggling operations.

Al-Karbalai's figures could not be independently verified, but his complaint was a sign of growing frustration over rampant clashes and violence in the mainly Shiite south largely blamed on rival militia factions.

He urged Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other political leaders "to activate the security operation and to hold lawbreakers accountable."

"It is the right of the citizen to enjoy stability and security. If these aspirations are not met, who will guarantee that the citizens will continue supporting the political process," al-Karbalai said.

In another sign of internal Shiite unrest, an aide to al-Sadr warned during his Friday sermon that a freeze on militia activities could be lifted if U.S. and Iraqi forces continue with detention campaigns against the movement.

Sheik Assad al-Nasseri also complained that an agreement to end violence between followers of al-Sadr and rival Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim had failed to yield tangible results.

"The reconciliation between the Sadrist movement and other sides did not have any noticeable effect except in some press statements," al-Nasseri said during Friday prayers in the holy city of Kufa.

Al-Sadr earlier this week renewed his appeal to his followers to uphold the six-month cease-fire announced in August and threatened to expel those who don't.

His office in the holy city of Najaf said the statement was issued in response to questions from supporters about whether the order to stand down still applied, even as U.S. forces appear to have escalated their campaign against what the military calls Iranian-backed breakaway militia factions, and clashes between Shiite groups are on the rise in parts of the mainly Shiite south.

Al-Nasseri acknowledged the raids had caused anger among the ranks and warned the freeze could be lifted.

"It was one decision which could end in one minute and then they will be sorry," he told worshippers in the Kufa mosque.

He blamed the security forces for killing civilians during the operations, singling out recent crackdowns against rival militia fighters in Diwaniyah and the holy city of Karbala.

"The detention campaigns against al-Sadr's people were not conducted according to issued arrest warrants as they claim," he said. "This issue went so far as to assault women and children in front of husbands, brothers and fathers. These are shameful things. ... They are more unjust to us than the Saddamists."


Lantos says Netherlands owes us a favour

While I dislike posts that merely link to other posts, I think that this is a case where the original sums up my thoughts nicely. The issue is recent remarks by Rep. Lantos to Dutch politicians.
During a discussion of Dutch involvement in the Afghan effort, Lantos pulled this well-worn sock out of his bag:

“You have to help us, because if it was not for us you would now be a province of Nazi Germany,” Lantos said, according to the Dutch lawmakers.

Ah, yes, the "you owe us" card that is so often played with such arrogance by American politicians and pundits. Yes, over sixty years ago the U.S. liberated Europe from Nazi Germany. They pretty much had to, in order to reach Germany itself, of course. Despite the fact most Americans and Europeans alive today weren't even born when this took place, this is still trotted out as if it took place just yesterday. It was used to get Europe and the U.N. into the Korean War. The card was played in the Gulf War. And the invasion of Iraq was another chance to guilt-trip Europe into participation, or at least silence. And, apparently, Europe still owes us.

Oddly, however, we don't "owe" the Soviet Union for killing 85% of Hitler's soldiers on the Eastern Front. Suckers.

The mere fact that we have to play this card with Europe is proof that NATO is tiring of dancing to Bush's tune in Afghanistan.

"The comments killed the debate," said Harry van Bommel, a member of the Socialist Party. "It was insulting and counterproductive."

As a Holocaust survivor, Lantos also felt free to guilt-trip Dutch politicians over occupied Netherlands' failure to stop Hitler's campaign against the Jews, as if they really could have stopped it. Of course, Hitler's attentions also fell on communists, homosexuals, and Gypsies, among others. But we really only are reminded of the extermination of the Jews, continuously and at great length. And somehow it's our fault, though it's never really made clear how.

Still, it makes one wonder how Israel, the Eternal Victim State, could be the only nation in the entire world to back the genocidal regimes in Uganda (remember Idi Amin?) and Guatemala.
Yeah, I'm damn tired of Israel playing the "you owe us" card with us over something somebody else did to them before I was born or my parents were even adults. Maybe the $12 million each day that we shovel into Israel as a gift kind of covers my ass for my grandparents' failure to die for some jackass on the other side of the planet's bad idea. Obviously Lantos would disagree.

Krugman on media bias

As we continue to hear the neocons shrill against the "liberal media" I thought that a few brief excerpts of an interview with Paul Krugman were in order. Also, I welcome the chance to refer people to Krugman's blog.

If you aren't aware, Mr. Krugman is an economics professor at Princeton and a columnist for the NYT.

We have a situation right now in which there are several major parts of the news media that are for all practical purposes part of "movement conservatism" -- Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times -- and in which other news organizations are intimidated, at least to some extent. I sometimes talk about what I call "asymmetrical intimidation." If you say a true but unflattering thing about Bush or in fact about any other prominent conservative, oh, boy! People are going to go after you. I mean, I've got people working full-time going after me, right? But if you say a false, unflattering thing about a Democrat or a progressive, no risk ... And that shapes coverage, no question about it. It's better now, but it's still very asymmetric. The other thing we should mention about the media is their addiction to the trivial. We've got the most substantive election coming up, I think, ever. We've got clear differences on policies between parties. And what are we seeing news stories about? John Edwards' hair and Hillary Clinton's laugh ... this is horrifying! And again -- it's asymmetric. I can think of lots of unflattering things to say about any of the Republican candidates -- Mitt Romney's saying his sons are serving the country by helping him get elected! -- but it doesn't get nearly as much play in the media.

-----------------------------------------

The media's bias, a large part of it is in fact right-wing bias, because they are effectively part of the right wing. Fox News ... there's nothing like Fox News on other television networks that you can look at. There is no liberal equivalent of Fox News, there is no network that, if a conservative got the Nobel Peace Prize, would have responded the way Fox News did to Al Gore's Peace Prize, by first saying nothing at all, then when they figured out the line, talking about how fat he is ... So there's no correspondence there.

Beyond that, there's two things at least; first, the hatred of substance -- they really want to talk about all that trivia -- and there's also the fetish of evenhandedness. If one candidate says something that's completely false, and the other something that's true, the media will say, "Some people believe what that guy said was false, and some people say it was true." Way back in the 2000 campaign, I wrote a piece in which I said that if Bush said the earth was flat, the headline would read: "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Planet." I was thinking specifically about what Bush was saying about taxes and Social Security, which were just out and out lies! But no one would say that, and they still won't. It's better now, a little, but they still won't say it, and that tends -- I imagine in some future environment that might work to the advantage of some dishonest candidates on the left -- but the fact of the matter is the Big Lies are all on the right right now. So it works much more to their advantage.

Iraqi political progress stalled

We keep hearing about the "lull in violence" in Iraq, but really it is marginal.

Bodies show up in Baghdad on a daily basis. It does not matter, in terms of stability and security, if it is "only" 200 instead of 300. Bombings take place nearly every day. Iraqi military and police, along with U.S. troops, continue to be killed and maimed on a regular basis. This is not "normalcy". To acheive this 'reduction', the American commanders are increasingly relying on air strikes, with its attendant civilian casualties. We have also allied ourselves with "good" terrorists in our efforts "against terrorism". If Republicans knew in January that Bush's surge would merely result in 100 fewer sectarian deaths each month, would they have so fiercely supported it? Far from Bush's vision of disarming sectarian militias with the surge, instead we have allied ourselves with them.

However, the bottom line is that this alleged "improvement" in the security situation has not brought any progress in the political situation. Progress on the political front is what will allow us to leave Iraq. Bush has consistently put the cart before the horse in stressing security over political stability. When Bush proposed the surge back in January, he expected big things by now. He expected that he would be hailed as a hero and that Iraq would be stable. The year before that we heard optimistic predictions of imminent success and "victory" in an occupation that had already dragged on too long. In September we heard of isolated improvement and questionable figures showing that fewer people were being massacred in the civil war in which we serve as a referee. As Britain withdraws and the Sadrists move toward ending their self-imposed "break", we can expect further opportunities to show how "desperate" the "enemy" is in Iraq.

Air strikes cannot end an insurgency. The "enemy" shifts from month to month. Harsh security measures only serve to give the lie to "normalcy". Refugees continue to pour into the neighbouring countries. And a new war with Iraq will only destabilise the entire region. Our Arab allies know this, and are worried. Nothing Bush promised them has come to pass. Their insecurity has only increased, as has their costs to support masses of Iraqis fleeing "democracy" and "success" in their homeland. Their counsel is routinely rejected by a delusional White House. And the U.N. is getting stuck with the bill to deal with the humanitarian disaster, while the Bush Administration derides it as being ineffective and worthless.


U.S. soldier shot dead in Salahudin north of Baghdad

An American soldier was killed by small arms fire in the Salahudin province north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said on Saturday.

The attack occurred on Thursday during U.S. troops' operations in the province, the military said in a statement.

Earlier, the military said that another soldier was killed and four others were wounded in the day when an armored piercing roadside bomb, or EFP, struck their unit in southern Baghdad.

EFP, first developed during World War II, is a special type of shaped charge designed to penetrate armor effectively.

The names of deceased soldiers are being withheld pending notification of relatives, the statements said.

The latest death brings the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq to more than 3,835 since the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2003, according to media count based on Pentagon figures.

Source: Xinhua
------------------------------------------------------

Four people killed in two bomb explosion in Baghdad

Two roadside bombs detonated coordinately in a parking lot in a southeastern Baghdad suburb on Wednesday, killing at least four people and wounding 25 others, a police and witness sources said.

The two blasts occurred in the morning. into a busy parking lot in the Jesr Diyala suburb, killing at least four people and wounding 25 others, including women and children, a well-informed police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

However, a witness at the scene told Xinhua that he saw up to 11 bodies scattered at the scene and several civilian cars and minibuses were badly charred by the blasts that detonated in a short succession.

Iraqi security forces cordoned off the scene while ambulances were evacuating the victims to nearby hospitals and fire engines were putting out fires of nearby buildings and vehicles, the police source said.

Source: Xinhua
-----------------------------------------


15 civilians killed in U.S. raid northwest of Baghdad

U.S. troops backed by aircraft raided the al-Qaida in Iraq network northwest of Baghdad on Thursday, killing 19 suspected militants and 15 civilians, including nine children, the U.S. military said on Friday.

Actin upon intelligence reports about a meeting for al-Qaida leaders in the region of Tharthar lake, U.S. surveillance confirmed activities match to the intelligence reports, prompting the troops to call in air support and conducted a strike against the target, killing four terrorists, the military said in a statement.

The troops then tracked some of those who headed to an area south of the lake. During the tracking, the troops received small arms fire, and again the troops call in air support, it said.

After securing the area, the ground forces killed 15 terrorists, it added.

However, six women and nine children were also killed in the raid, said the statement.

Two suspects were also wounded and another was detained in the attack, along with wounding a woman and three more children, the military said.

Source:Xinhua
----------------------------------------------

Baghdad

Three bodies were found in Baghdad today in the following neighborhoods (1 body in Ur, 1 body in Bayaa and 1 body in Amil).

Kirkuk

Gunmen killed Fahima Hussein Mohammed, a nurse who works in Hawija central hospital in Hawija town west of Kirkuk. Police said that the gunmen opened fire on the nurse while while she was inside her house. Fahima was injured seriously and she died while moving her to the hospital.

Two policemen were wounded when an IED exploded targeting their patrol on Kirkuk – Mosul street north of Kirkuk around 10,30 am

Ukraine says "no thanks" to NATO

As Russia is making progress in consolidating Caspian nations in opposition to Bush's efforts to invade Iran, Ukraine is now backing away from NATO membership for the time being.

Poland and the Czech Republic are already being pressed into service as front-line cannon fodder for an "unavoidable" military confrontation with Moscow and the SCO. It must be confounding for Bush to realise that Eastern Europe is unwilling to trade one demanding foreign master for another. Aside from the opportunity for involvement in any number of exciting foreign military campaigns that are not in Ukraine's interest, and the chance to have thousands of foreign troops and mercenaries with free reign running around your nation, the Ukrainian people seem unenthuisastic.

story from naharnet
Ukraine Won't Join NATO in the Near Future

Ukraine will not be joining the NATO western military alliance in the immediate future, the country's president Viktor Yushchenko said Saturday, Interfax reported.
The country would not join in the next one or two years, but when it was ready, said Yushchenko during a wreath-laying ceremony at the grave of the Unknown Warrior in Kiev.

The pro-western president, whose rule has been bolstered by the victory of a pro-Western coalition in last month's parliamentary election, has regularly advocated joining the NATO alliance.

On Monday he told a meeting of regional defense ministers in Kiev: "Ukraine confirms its course toward membership of the European Union and NATO."

Most Ukrainians however say they are against their country, which was ruled for centuries from Moscow, joining the Western military alliance.

Russian ambassador Viktor Chernomyrdin told Saturday's edition of the daily Komsomolskaya Pravda that he did not see any reason for Ukraine joining NATO.

"Why should Ukraine join this military bloc that, by the way, possesses the nuclear weapon ? Does any threat exist?" he told the paper.

"If some menace to Ukraine exists, I'm sure that we would be the first to come to the defense of the neighbor and would not even consult anybody about this," he added. (AFP)

Afghan effort stalls

Australia's Howard, the prime Bush toady now that Blair has made his exit, is echoing the White House again. Bush apparently needs more troops in Afghanistan, though all reports and official comment from the Bush Administration somehow indicate that the Afghan effort is going swimmingly. How odd.

There are five nations, along with the Afghans, in combat roles in Afghanistan. The British press has been candid in assessing the Afghan effort and the British role. The British military has been fighting two bloody conflicts and is wearing thin. The Iraq mission, ill-conceived and ridiculously expensive, had to give in order for the Afghan mission to continue. The Afghan mission is the one concerned with terrorism, after all, which is what Britain ostensibly signed up for. Of course, this change in focus bore only contempt and insults from the Pentagon; the only reward for loyalty to the Decider. Public opinion in Canada and the Netherlands has turned against the Afghan effort, even as Bush makes further irritated demands of greater support from these nations. Australia's media has published pieces calling the Afghan situation "going down fast", and Howard is facing a tough election. U.N. reports are also hardly optimistic.

As usual, the Bush line is that apparent failure only proves that the enemy is "desperate". The Afghan people are pretty desperate, too. Unemployment is 40%, the infrastructure is a shambles, reconstruction never got off the ground, and the warlords who control the vast majority of the country refuse to give tax receipts to the puppet government in Kabul. However, girls can now to school, and this is apparently the crowning achievement of the conflict. Desperate Afghan farmers have grown a record crop of poppies, since aid has been slow or non-existent and poppies offer large profits. The military solution has been to destroy these crops, or at least to make ham-fisted attempts to do so, leaving these farmers even worse off than they were before they turned to poppies. The Afghan government barely even controls the capital and is too broke to pay the civil servants. Efforts to train the Afghan military and police are slow. Due to high troop casualties, the Coalition is increasingly turning to air power to combat the Taliban, and civilian casualties have produced outrage from Afghanis across the board, including Karzai.

Given all of this, what nation wouldn't want to get a larger piece of the Decider's 'success', knowing full well that Bush will take all of the credit and none of the blame? Seeing that the allies are now being cast as the scapegoat for the failure of the Afghan effort, how can these nations possibly resist pouring even more troops and cash into their efforts? Aware that our allies face domestic political peril in following Bush even further, surely they will step up to the plate for the mere opportunity to get a pat on the head from the Decider, which has been the kiss of death for other leaders.

Certainly all that is required is a continuation of the bullying attitude, rank condecension, arrogant demands, and unfounded optimism that got us this far. After all, the worse things look, the better they really are in Bush-land.

full story from ireland.com

Bomb kills 4 at US Afghan base

A suicide bomber detonated his explosives at the entrance to a US base in eastern Afghanistan today, killing three Afghan soldiers and one Afghan civilian.

A US spokeswoman said initial reports indicated the bomber walked up to the first security gate outside of Forward Operating Base Bermel in Paktika province.

She said three Afghan soldiers and one civilian were killed and that four Afghans were wounded.

No Americans were wounded in the attack, she said. It wasn't immediately clear if the bomber had been trying to gain entry to the base, which is near the border with Pakistan.

Taliban insurgents have set off more than 100 suicide blasts this year, a record pace, and violence in 2007 has been the deadliest since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. More than 5,200 people have died because of the insurgency this year, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials.

Australia's prime minister, meanwhile, said more NATO powers must directly engage the Taliban to help ease the burden on Australia, the United States, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, which all have troops in the dangerous southern and central parts of Afghanistan.

Germany, Italy, France and Spain have troops in the safer northern sections, and Australian Prime Minister John Howard said those countries need to help ease the burden on the countries in the south.

"Some of the other countries have lots of troops in Afghanistan but they're not in some of the areas that are experiencing the heaviest fighting," he said.

The governments of the Netherlands and Canada in particular are coming under domestic pressure to pull out troops because of heavy casualties.

"I think the Dutch government has been very courageous to date," he said. "It's not for me to comment on Dutch politics but I do observe that the Dutch are making a great contribution and as are of course the Canadians."

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Afghan war pronounced "lost": Ashdown

In Iraq, we blame Iran for the Decider's continuous blunders. All of the ridiculously optimistic scenarios Rumsfeld and Cheney dreamed up would have come to pass If it weren't for Iran's "meddling", or so we are led to believe. In Afghanistan, however, we have no easy scapegoat for failure. What was supposed to be "liberation" followed by a happily-ever-after scene has turned into a quagmire where our puppet is widely ignored and powerless. The answer, of course, for Bush is that our lousy allies failed to step up to the plate.

This flies in the face of Bush's early statements that the U.S. would fight in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, if need be. Bush thumbed his nose at the U.N, world opinion, and pretty much everyone who had brains and moved ahead with his ill-conceived plans. He sold the Afghan mission to NATO as a "reconstruction" effort in a pacified nation, while bullying, bribing, and deceiving other nations to join in the Iraq mission. While most of those countries have since bailed on the Decider's "endless war" strategy in Iraq, the allies have largely stuck with Bush on Afghanistan. The problem is that the allies took Bush at his word and provided troop levels adequate for training the Afghan military and maintaining security for the "reconstruction". No, says, Bush. In for a penny, in for a pound. You were stupid enough to believe me in the first place, the Decider maintains, so send in more money and more troops, otherwise I'll look like I don't have a clue. And smile about it, too.


Afghanistan is lost, says Lord Ashdown


By Tom Coghlan
Last Updated: 3:33am BST 25/10/2007

Nato has "lost in Afghanistan" and its failure to bring stability there could provoke a regional sectarian war "on a grand scale", according to Lord Ashdown.

The former United Nations High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina delivered his dire prediction after being proposed as a new "super envoy" role in Afghanistan.

Lord Ashdown said: "We have lost, I think, and success is now unlikely."

The assessment will be considered extreme by some diplomats but timely by those pressing for more resources for Nato operations.

Lord Ashdown added: "I believe losing in Afghanistan is worse than losing in Iraq. It will mean that Pakistan will fall and it will have serious implications internally for the security of our own countries and will instigate a wider Shiite [Shia], Sunni regional war on a grand scale.

"Some people refer to the First and Second World Wars as European civil wars and I think a similar regional civil war could be initiated by this [failure] to match this magnitude."

Lord Ashdown, 66, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, was speaking in advance of a Nato summit in the Dutch town of Noordwijk yesterday.

Britain and the US are infuriated by the lack of assistance granted by allies to those countries with forces operating in Afghanistan.


Monday, October 15, 2007

EU not going along with Bush on Iran

Aside from Germany and France, the EU isn't going along with Bush's rush to war with Iran. Arab states are reluctant as well, after seeing what a brilliant success Iraq was and how it impacted stability in the region. Britain has stated conditions for its participation, but the obvious question on the minds of European and Arab states regards the plan for what happens after Iran is bombed into bits. None of the American politicians, commanders, or neocons are talking about that little issue. Bush is so busy drumming up a new war, bullying countries into a "united front" against Iran, and trying to persuade the domestic audience that destroying Iran will allow us to "win" in Iraq that he hasn't really outlined that next step.

It is certainly within our ability, especially with aid from a few allies, to wage an air war against Iran. That is not the question, however. After we have bombed the industrial, political, and military infrastructure, killing civilians in the process, do we really believe that Iranians will appreciate the "favour"? If the plan is to impose a puppet government, then an occupation is necessary. If the plan is to cross our fingers and hope that an Israeli-friendly government spontaneously emerges from the rubble, then Bush is sadly deluded. The latter, however, given Bush's record, is probably the case.

A puppet government is fraught with problems, not the least being that this is exactly what the Iranians overthrew in the late '70s. The subsequent occupation would hardly be welcomed, and I think we all can see from the Iraq experience what the reconstruction would be like. We would create yet another failed state in the Middle East, put more domestic pressure on our Arab allies, and give Muslims worldwide yet another reason to hate the West. And this is the good scenario, because Israel may very well be struck itself. In any case, an occupation would leave us seriously overstretched and completely unable to respond to new threats, even with allied help. Britain is at the limit already, Germany is tied up in an increasingly-unpopular Afghan effort, and the French skills at occupation are what got us into Vietnam. We've already seen the force levels that the rest of the EU scrapes up, even under Bush's heavy pressure.

But, as I have said before, with Bush's decision-making process, the best possible outcome is the only likely outcome. It'll work out great, you'll see. They will welcome us with flowers and chocolates and eagerly give us their oil. And it won't cost hardly anything. Best of all, it will be the next president's problem.

At the very least, Turkey, Russia, and the Gulf States should be loudly inquiring what the Plan is, even if the EU is not.

Kouchner fails in bid to secure new sanctions against Tehran

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

European Union nations failed to agree Monday on new sanctions against Iran to get Tehran to halt the part of its nuclear program that European and other nations fear could be used to make atomic weapons. An effort by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to get the 27-nation EU to push ahead with more sanctions - outside of the United Nations - failed to get widespread support, diplomats said.

But after an EU foreign ministers meeting, Kouchner said France might take additional punitive measures against Tehran on its own if the UN Security Council failed to take new measures before the end of the year.

"We could at that moment develop more individual, national sanctions," Kouchner said at a news conference.

It remains unclear if Russia or China will back additional economic or political sanctions at the UN.

Last month, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, France, the United States and Russia - and Germany agreed with the support of the EU to hold off on a new sanctions resolution until November to allow for talks with Iran to continue.

The EU foreign ministers said in a statement that the EU "will consider what additional measures it might take" after that time.

Highlighting the division over how to get Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program, Javier Solana, the EU foreign and security affairs chief, told reporters: "It remains my mandate [from the UN] to continue working on the possibility of further sanctions. We are not thinking of sanctions right now."

The EU foreign ministers warned Iran that more sanctions would be considered if it failed to cooperate. New economic and political sanctions could include investment bans or scrapping export credit guarantees. The approach is being championed by Kouchner, who called on his EU counterparts last week to study new sanctions.

The EU, the US and others are concerned Iran's nuclear program may be geared toward creating fissile material for nuclear warheads. But Iran says its program is strictly for producing fuel for nuclear power plants.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said European trade with Iran had already fallen by about 37 percent in the year to May, signaling that the EU was serious about punishing Iran.

"The EU is playing its part in signaling very clearly to the Iranian regime that they need to abide by the successive UN Security Council resolutions," Miliband told reporters.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Afghan situation is crumbling

Bush has always run the war in Afghanistan as an afterthought. Karzai got elected, the Taliban were defeated, and the rest is "happily ever after" in his fairy tale.

However, the Taliban are making a comeback, Karzai is unpopular and holds sway over only the capital, the US is increasingly turning to air power with the attendant civilian deaths, and the economy is a shambles. Attacks in the capital itself are increasing, and Karzai is running out if money to pay the civil servants and military. When you hand out government jobs to win favour, people generally expect to be paid as part of the deal.

Yes, in another one of Bush's "successes", the electricity is only on for a few hours a day, running water and sewage services are lacking, unemployment is high, and the government is corrupt and impotent. What country does that remind you of?

Bush has done a pretty good job convincing the world that the last thing you want is to be "liberated" by the U.S. What sane nation could possibly look at Iraq and Afghanistan and see a shining beacon of hope and liberty? The nations that are aiding us are involved in an expensive, bloody, and protracted war that Bush has bungled with his characteristic optimism and refusal to plan for or consider anything but the best possible outcome. Bush sold the Afghan mission to NATO as essentially one of rebuilding and providing support for the Afghan military to take over security. The reconstruction never happened, the warlords ignored Karzai, the American commanders ignored the Afghanis, and the Afghan military turned out to be inept, abusive, and corrupt. Now the Canadians and European allies are stuck facing the hard reality rather than Bush's optimistic fantasy.

Leadership is more than planning for the best and shrugging in the face of the worst.

Why Howard continues to have faith in Bush's "leadership" is beyond logic. The NATO allies who tried to win Bush's favour by participating in the mission have gained nothing but a disastrous mess, and now Bush will be out of office and leave them holding the bag.

Make no mistake: a stable and free Afghanistan is a worthy goal, but the Decider has turned the Afghan people against us, hopelessly bungled the effort, and drawn our allies into disaster.


full story from The Australian

Afghanistan 'is going down fast'


THE bloodshed in Afghanistan has reached levels not seen since the 2001 invasion as anger at bungling by an ineffective Government in Kabul and its foreign backers stokes support for the Taliban and other extremist groups.

The death of Trooper David Pearce underlines the rising dangers for Australia's 1000 soldiers in Afghanistan, most of them deployed in the Taliban's southern heartland -- a region some of Canberra's NATO allies consider too dangerous to fight in.

"This place can only go up or down, and it's going down fast, which is something the international community simply will not understand," said a security analyst who has been working in and out of Afghanistan for 30 years.

Almost six years after the hardline Islamist Taliban were ousted, their insurgency is gaining strength, fuelled by resentment at NATO bombing of civilians, billions of dollars of wasted aid, a lack of jobs and record crops of opium, the raw material for heroin.

The fighting is spreading to places once relatively safe, including the capital and the western and northern parts of the country.

"This is a guerilla movement but it does seem to have a real momentum behind it at the moment," said Joanna Nathan, an analyst for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank headed by former foreign minister Gareth Evans.

In Kabul, where suicide bombs have killed almost 50 people in two weeks, foreigners are increasingly ordered into "lockdown" -- barred by employers from leaving their heavily protected compounds, often behind armed guards, razor wire and concrete blast walls.

"It's all now too close -- people are jumpy," said a UN official who has lived in the dusty, chaotic city ringed by mountains for four years.

The revitalised Taliban have switched tactics back to traditional guerilla warfare after attempts to take on foreign troops under separate NATO and US commands in pitched battles last year resulted in heavy casualties.

"They never evaporated into thin air. The Taliban were there, they have been there and they are here now," said government adviser and former minister Hamidullah Tarzi, carrying his trademark silver pistol.

"One reason for their renewed strength is that the people are more or less amenable to what they are doing and maybe some of the (NATO) bombardments have not been very wisely executed.

"That has helped the people get closer to the Taliban. They are dying and they feel that they are the same (as the Talibs) from the religious point of view."

Scores, possibly hundreds, of civilians have been killed in air strikes, mainly called in to support ground troops fighting rebels. The US-led NATO force, government officials and village leaders differ over details and numbers.

The Taliban-led insurgency is also being bolstered by drugs money -- the UN reported a 50per cent jump in this year's opium crop -- local and tribal disputes, and a lack of jobs.

With the wrecked economy and the dangers of getting crops to market, being a paid fighter for the Taliban is often the only way isolated Afghans can feed their families.

"It's important to emphasise: I don't think the Taliban themselves are wildly popular," Ms Nathan said.

"I don't think people want Taliban times back. It is a broad dissatisfaction with what is happening in the country now. I think the Taliban are very clever at appealing to people or groups that are locally disenfranchised or disempowered."

The Taliban shelter and train in neighbouring Pakistan -- once the group's main sponsor -- and President Pervez Musharraf faces international pressure to do more to stop them.

But the border, a random line in the sand drawn by British colonial rulers, passes through rugged, inhospitable territory and divides fiercely loyal ethnic groups who have never been fully controlled by any government for centuries. General Musharraf and NATO generals say stemming the flow of fighters is a tough task.

While some analysts say Tehran may be supporting the Taliban, most say no firm evidence has surfaced, rejecting Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's suggestion that the bomb that killed Trooper Pearce might have been made with supplies from Iran.

"He made that comment before any proper investigation had been done," said one soldier serving with NATO.

Much of the violence in Afghanistan is rooted in ordinary crime as the conflict erodes security and the rule of law and young men desperately seek money.

"Some of my friends don't have jobs. They just walk the streets. They talk among themselves of kidnapping a foreigner just to make some money," said "Sayed", a university business student who did not want his real name used.

Guns are easy to come by and drug addiction in the country that supplies almost all the world's opium is rising.

Unemployment is near 40 per cent and many Afghans live in appalling conditions, with no running water, sewerage or electricity. Roads are poor and in the capital -- crammed with tens of thousands of squatters camped in mud brick huts -- most middle-class residents are lucky to have power a few hours a day.

"People thought democracy would give them everything -- jobs, roads, electricity, water -- but nothing of this sort has happened," Mr Tarzi said.

"In fact, it's getting worse. There is a lack of jobs, a lack of employment. Overall, nothing much has been done.

"The money that has come in has not been productive in relation to industrialisation."

Confidence in the Afghan Government, the first democratically elected administration in three decades, is fading fast.

President Hamid Karzai, 49, the philosopher and former freedom fighter who has ruled this country since 2001, faces criticism for his failure to stamp out the Taliban and raise living standards.

Dubbed "the mayor of Kabul", because he rarely leaves his palace and his Government's writ barely extends beyond the capital, Mr Karzai is battling to balance the demands of the people who elected him with those of the foreign backers who prop up his Government.

He is also undermined by the fact his administration has control over only a small share of the billions of foreign aid dollars spent in his country.

Mr Karzai is not a popular leader, his critics say, accused of being ineffective and indecisive. In Kabul and many parts of the country his public portraits and banners are dwarfed and outnumbered by those of Ahmed Shah Masood, a popular mujaheddin leader assassinated by al-Qa'ida two days before the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001.

Domestically, Mr Karzai relies on a ragtag collection of former warlords, mujaheddin freedom fighters, ex-communists and others for support and is locked in a power struggle with his parliament. The President and the legislators -- a large number of whom are illiterate -- are coming to grips with democracy as much as with each other.

Mr Karzai has been criticised for failing to sack or prosecute corrupt officials and of handing out jobs as political favours to shore up support.

His Government has also failed to make serious inroads into the $3.3billion-a-year opium industry, which is tightly intertwined with the conflict and has been breaking production records almost every year since the Taliban's fall.

"The narcotics and insurgency feed into each other," said Ms Nathan.

Trooper Pearce, 41, a father of two, was killed when his convoy was hit by a roadside bomb in southern Uruzgan province, a major opium centre where Australian and Dutch troops are working on reconstruction.

Although it is a volatile area and a centre of Taliban support, the Dutch forces had forged close links with community leaders, cutting down the fighting, until a botched poppy eradication program by a US private security firm a few months ago, analysts say.

"Uruzgan was going OK until they went in with tractors and started ripping the poppy fields up," said the Kabul-based security analyst. "The Dutch had a good relationship with the people down there, the local leaders, but when they rip up your crop, what do you do? You grab your gun. They didn't even do that much damage to the crops in the end."

Australian troops make up a fraction of the 50,000 foreign forces in Afghanistan, and opinion is divided about how effective Canberra's contribution is.

"It's more symbolic," Mr Tarzi said. "I think (John) Howard is trying his best to see what (US President George W.) Bush is thinking, and he's going along that line.

"He should concentrate more on what his people, the Australians, think. He is just following Mr Bush."

But Australia is one of a small group of countries -- along with the US, Britain, Canada and The Netherlands -- willing to send its soldiers to where most of the fighting is.

Some European countries refuse to deploy their troops to the volatile south. Several members of the NATO-led force impose tough -- and, critics say, absurd -- limits, or caveats, on how their soldiers can be used, with some barring their units from fighting in the snow, above certain altitudes or at night.

Ms Nathan said: "It is incredibly important to have nations who are prepared to go south in a robust way, to go down there not laden by caveats; to go down there to do what is needed, when it's needed, how it's needed."

Thursday, October 11, 2007

U.N. tells Bush to prosecute contractors

Of course, Bush ignores the U.N. at every available opportunity, while expecting that organisation to pick up the pieces of his disaster in Iraq. Problems of child malnutrition, cholera, lack of water, etc. are all referred to the U.N, while its advice, warnings, and reports are ignored. This gives the lie to Bush's alleged "concern" over the Iraqi populace.


U.N. says prosecute Iraq contractors who commit crimes

11/10/2007

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United Nations called on the United States government on Thursday to ensure that any U.S. private contractors committing offences in Iraq are prosecuted.
The killing of 17 Iraqis in a shooting involving U.S. security firm Blackwater last month has created tensions between Baghdad and Washington and sparked calls for tighter controls on private contractors, who are immune from prosecution in Iraq.
In a new human rights report, the U.N. mission in Iraq urged "U.S. authorities to investigate reports of deaths caused by privately hired contractors and establish effective mechanisms for holding them accountable for where the circumstances surrounding the killings show no justifiable cause".
The report covers the April-June quarter and was not specifically referring to the September 16 incident involving Blackwater. However, it noted other reported shootings by private security contractors in the three-month period, including one by the U.S. firm on May 24.
"The U.S. government should take steps to ensure that offences committed in Iraq by all categories of U.S. contractor employees are subject to prosecution under the law," the report by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) said.
Many Iraqis see private security companies as little more than private armies which act with impunity. Iraqi authorities have accused Blackwater of "deliberately killing" the 17 Iraqis in last month's shooting, but the security firm says its guards responded lawfully to a threat against a convoy it was guarding.
This week, in a second reported incident involving foreign security guards, two women were shot dead when their vehicle ventured too close to an armed convoy. The Australian-owned, Dubai-based security firm Unity Resources Group said the vehicle had ignored repeated warnings to stop

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

With us or against us? Either way you die.

The War On Terror requires more than clichés and bombs. In fact, it's not really a "war" at all, but a law enforcement scenario.

Is this why our allies are deserting us? We have a buffoon for a leader who goes out of his way to divide the world into "with us" and "against us" camps, and he offers nothing but perpetual war to both sides. The nations of the world must either die fighting our wars or become the targets of our wars, and we are busily searching out new wars. Snarling Republicans demand obedience and submission from friend and foe alike; no carrots and only sticks.

Norm Coleman wrings his hands and hopes that Bush knows what he is doing, while nodding eagerly at each new war proposed. Even though Bush's policies boil down to "let's cross our fingers and hope that a miracle happens so that we don't look as incompetent as we really are", Coleman continues to back him. Yes, it's so sad that we have to bankrupt our country and destroy our military in endless war, but if we don't then we will be weak and our enemies will prevail, says Coleman. Having fewer allies and creating new enemies on a daily basis somehow makes us safer and stronger, and killing people makes them see how wonderful we are. If only we can kill enough people, the world will see that we are really looking out for their best interests. The nations of the world will thank us for bombing and occupying them, because they will get brand new puppet governments that will imprison them and torture their citizens if they don't thank us enough for "saving" them from governments that imprison and torture them.

Yes, Norm, if only the world would simply bend over and drop its pants, then we wouldn't need all of this distasteful war, would we?


War on terror seen fuelling al Qaeda

By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.
A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.
"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.
"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimised but this will require a change in policy at every level."
He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.
The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.
In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.
If such measures were adopted it would still take "at least 10 years to make up for the mistakes made since 9/11."
"Failure to make the necessary changes could result in the war on terror lasting decades," the report added.
Rogers also warned of a drift toward conflict with Iran.
"Going to war with Iran", he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

All the Republicans have left is treason

I thought it relevant to point out that the right-wing in the U.S. is now completely out of ammunition.

For at least three years, Bush has called those opposed to the occupation of Iraq traitors and supporters of terrorism. The "treason card" has been badly overplayed, as we see in the MoveOn controversy and the flag lapel pin controversy. It is literally all that they have left. The right-wing has failed to convince even marginal numbers of Americans to believe in the occupation's ever-shifting rationale; now they can only insult us.

And the lapdogs of the right-wing have gone further than Bush. Dissent itself is seen by them as dangerous to our freedom. Opponents of the occupation have been routinely characterised as mentally ill, stupid, opportunistic, and cowardly. It hardly takes effort to point out that Republicans live in a delusional world where "victory" has been imminent for years and where every setback merely "proves" that the "enemy" is on the ropes. Or that isolated facts are conflated to apply to the entire situation in Iraq by little more than force of will on their part. The mere statement of an objective by senior military commanders is seen by Republicans as the accomplishment of that objective. Mixon says that his goal is to clear Al-Qaeda out of Diyala -- there, it's done. He said so, didn't he? Contorted numbers are placed in front of Republicans and they are eagerly lapped up without a hint of critical thought involved, because this is somehow "patriotic". Reports of "insurgents" being killed are celebrated as if nobody will take these people's place, much less thinking just how these people were defined as "insurgents". And Republicans are not at all opportunistic; they merely make obscene profits from the war. As far as "cowardly" goes, it is clear that so many of the architects and spinners of this occupation have never served in the military or in combat. Clinton was apaprently a "draft dodger" by virtue of his student deferment, but the vast majority of the right-wing media tools did the same thing. It's okay, though, because they are "patriotic".

So, with no solid facts to persuade anyone with, they moved to scare tactics. If we don't "win" in Iraq, then we apparently will be taken over by Muslims and forced to bow to the East, wear burquas, etc. Nobody bought that, even a little bit. Vietnam and the domino theory were paraded around, but people just chuckled. Every now and then, the "Iraqis voted" talking point gets some play, and the Republicans are reminded that the Sunnis boycotted that vote, the provincial elections aren't happening, and that those wonderful elections got the Iraqis an impotent and incompetent government.

So they are back to treason, the Swiss Army knife of political discourse. Uh-huh. The vast majority of the American people are communists who want to see America destroyed and replaced by a Sharia state....that'll play well. Let's try that one. Sure, 70% of the electorate are dirty traitors, but if they only change their minds and support Bush on everything then they will immediately become wonderful patriots. All of that treason stuff will be forgotten. Come on, we'll be your friend. Oh, and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, of course. Um, and we'll need more police state powers to protect you. But other than that, it's a win-win. Trust us, you commie dirtbags... uh, I mean loyal citizen. Did we mention you should really send your kids off to Iraq, just to prove we can trust you? Well, we meant to. But then we can all be friends, and you'd like that, wouldn't you? Hey, we'll even give you this flag lapel pin.

Aside from the ability to prevent Democrats from doing anything, all Republicans can do is keep stuffing the government with droids based on their religious beliefs and political donations. Even this will come to an end in January '09, and there will be a lot of incompetent sycophants trying to fill think tank jobs. It's a suicide pact between the President and his Party. And whatever allies we have left, of course. How could this plan possibly fail?

'Progress' brings a lot more death somehow

I thought things were improving in Iraq -- at least, that's what the right-wing says.
So we surge 30,000 troops in a constantly shifting plan that is focused on Baghdad. The results for one day (today) are below. It's sad reading, and hardly seems like "normalcy", stability, or "progress". It instead seems a lot like a particularly nasty failed-state situation.

Five bombings, two mortar attacks, some shootings, and a new crop of corpses turned up on top of it all. And that's just in Baghdad. Thirteen others were killed in other parts of the occupied nation.

...and this is at least three months into the allegedly successful surge.

Baghdad

4 civilians were wounded in an IED explosion near Salahuddin square in Kadhemiyah neighborhood north Baghdad around 10,00 am.

A civilian was killed and 3 others wounded in an IED explosion near the Polish embassy in Al Arasat neighborhood downtown Baghdad around 2,00 pm.

4 civilians were killed and 10 others wounded in a parked car bomb explosion near the Technology University east Baghdad around 1,00 pm.

A civilian was killed and 5 others wounded near Al Khansaa police station in Kamaliyah neighborhood east Baghdad around 1,00 pm.

Three mortar shells targeted the buildings of the former general security agency in Baladiyat; number of casualties is unknown as Iraqi police said.

Four mortar shells slammed into the Green Zone today, Iraqi police said. No casualties were reported by the police.

A road side bomb targeted Iraqi army vehicle in Madaen today. No casualties were reported.

A road side bomb targeted an American military convoy causing no damage according to the Iraqi police.

Police found 7 dead bodies throughout Baghdad. 1 in Adhamiya, 1 in Ur, 1 in Amil, 1 in Ealam, 1 in Doura, 1 in Washash, 1 in Shuala.

Kirkuk

Gunmen killed a barber while he was in his car on the street between the villages of Ubaidyah and Hawdh 13 west of Kirkuk city today morning.

Salahuddin

A suicide car bomb exploded near a check point of the Iraqi police in Al Alam area east Tikrit city around 10,00 am. 2 civilians were killed and 4 policemen were wounded. A building for the ministry of agriculture was completely destroyed.

A suicide car bomb targeted the police station in Dijla town, 25 Kilometers south of Tikrit, today. Ten civilians were killed and 8 people were injured (including 3 policemen).