Saturday, June 21, 2008


Number 71


Kentucky's 71st casualty in Smirky/Darth's spreading Middle East clusterfuck is Eric Terhune of Lexington.

The 34-year old was a captain in the Marine Corps and also a helicopter pilot. Terhune was on his third tour. He spent the first two in Iraq before heading to Afghanistan, where he'd been since April.

According to the Department of Defense, Terhune "died June 19 while conducting combat operations in Farah Province, Afghanistan. (He was) assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif."

The Herald-Leader reports today that family members of Terhune declined to comment Friday.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.




There's more: "Number 71" >>

Tuesday, February 5, 2008


At the End of the Day - Super Tuesday Edition, February 5, 2007

Well! It appears that the two strongest presidential candidates that have run for the Democratic nomination in ages have fought to a draw tonight. Hillary Clinton took the big states, and Obama took several smaller states, many with surprising margins. The only certainty to come out of this is the secure knowledge that the populace is fired up and ready to throw the current cabal out on their collective kiester.

Now, for the news...

The BBC is reporting that the southern regions of Afghanistan will have a bumper-crop of opium poppies. I guess that it isn't enough to screw up shooting wars, the Bush administration has to go ahead and decisively lose the (utterly ridiculous) war on drugs.

Doom & gloom on the economic front: The Dow tumbled about 3% on Tuesday, following a severe contraction of the service sector, and a warning by Standard & Poors that they might cut banks credit ratings. The fallout reached across the globe and Asian stocks plummeted on Wednesday. The Nikkei dropped four percent.

Repair ships arrived in the Mediterranean to repair cables that provide the internet service to the Middle East and India. Four cables were cut in the span of just a few days, and it's a mystery what happened to them.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who introduced trancendental meditation to the west and served as a spiritual advisor to the Beatles has died at his home in the Netherlands. His age was uncertain, but he is believed to have been in his 90's.

As Pakistan gets ready for parliamentary elections on February 18th, the country seems resigned to the fact that widespread vote-rigging will simply be a given, and Nawaz Sharif is not only not campaigning, he has has left the country.

Bush has nominated Lt. General Raymond Odierno for a fourth star and the position of vice chief of staff, which would put him in charge of the Army's day-to-day operations. Congress must approve the promotion. Here is hoping he doesn't face a cake-walk. I will take this opportunity to do a bit of crystal-ball gazing: Between November of this year and the end of February next year, the services will see a massive exodus of O-6 and above officers. Too many have been too worthless, and the sooner they shuffle off to San Diego and Tucson, the better off the military I have loved my entire life will be. General Yingling has a nice ring to it...

And finally - while America was absorbed with election returns, tornadoes ripped through Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee, leaving destruction in their wake and nineteen dead. If you are a person of faith, you might think about beseeching your deity on behalf of those affected.

[That's all - no more after the jump]




There's more: "At the End of the Day - Super Tuesday Edition, February 5, 2007" >>

Monday, February 4, 2008


Insurgencies are becoming entrenched along Afghan-Pakistan border

Radical Islamic fundamentalist militants are bolstering their numbers and expanding their scope of influence in the forbidding terrain of the lawless tribal areas that flank the border on both sides.

From here, they traffic in disarray, violence and chaos over a vast area of both countries. This is the area that the remnants of al Qaeda fled to when they were allowed to escape at Tora Bora. Here they have found fertile soil and they have set about the business of regrouping, recruiting and resurging. The violence and bloodshed are spreading from the border areas to the Pakistani heartland and threatens to destabilize the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan - governments which have allied themselves with the United States and the western allies in those volatile countries.

From McClatchy:

In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO forces are facing "a classic growing insurgency," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday.

But the U.S. military, stretched thin by the war in Iraq, is hard-pressed to send more than the 3,200 additional Marines the Bush administration is dispatching to Afghanistan. The growing insurgency there is fueling rifts within the NATO alliance as Germany and other nations refuse to allow their troops to participate in offensive operations in Afghanistan. The Afghan army is making progress but still cannot operate independently.

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," warned an Atlantic Council of the United States report last week. The report was directed by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, the former top NATO commander. "What is happening in Afghanistan and beyond its borders can have even greater strategic long-term consequences than the struggle in Iraq." (emphasis added)



[Keep Reading]

The Pakistani army is ill-suited to confront a home-grown insurgency in the tribal areas - it is geared toward fighting a conventional land-war against India. To date the Pakistanis have avoided the George Bush modus operandi of "when the only tool you have is a hammer..." and avoided sending forces to battle the insurgency (using them to chase down al Qaeda has been volatile enough). The military leaders are reluctant to turn their guns on the insurgents because they fear that heavy casualties would prompt schisms within the military along ethnic and sectarian lines and that would destroy the Pakistani armed forces.

All the U.S. and the NATO allies can do is train a few Pakistani troops because U.S. military action would spark outrage among the populace, already on the verge of boiling over with anti-U.S. and anti-government fueled outrage.

But it gets better - the threat of terrorists trained and indoctrinated in the tribal areas directed at Afghan, Pakistani and even western targets is greater than it has ever been.

"The Taliban in Afghanistan now control more of the country than at any time since 2001, and their confederates in the tribal areas of Pakistan are expanding their operations almost day by day. While our attention has been diverted by Iraq, we've overlooked a potentially far more serious threat to the security of all Americans," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., told McClatchy.

There's no hard evidence of direct collusion between the Afghan Taliban and a new Pakistani Taliban alliance, both of which are made up mostly of Pashtun tribesmen, who dominate the region of soaring mountains and rugged deserts that span the frontier. Indeed, the Afghan Taliban deny links with the Pakistani insurgents.

But the ties among the Pashtuns are personal, historic, ethnic and ideological, and experts worry that the region faces a growing jihadi movement that's aided by al Qaida with Arab and Central Asian fighters, coordination, money and motivation.

"You see some indication that there is a blurring of the lines and some associations that are not helpful," said a senior U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Husain Haqqani, a political scientist and former aide to the late Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said that the group "have become a seamless whole." The common thread that unites them all is that the groups calling themselves "Taliban" on either side of the border are descended from the Mujahadeen, the Islamic guerrillas that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan from 1979-89. Back then, they were the standard-bearers for the west and they battled the Soviets with arms that were supplied by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Britain and flowed through Pakistan.

One point enjoys widespread support: The Bush administration bears much of the blame for the current FUBAR security situation in the least stable nuclear nation on earth.

First, in Bush's idiotic invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan was left to twist in the wind after the focus changed and left that poor, beleaguered nation unsecured after the 2001 invasion. Then the Bush administration turned the screws on Pervez Musharraf to send troops into the tribal areas to hunt down al Qaeda operatives who had escaped there from Tora Bora. The presence of these troops outraged the tribes, and cemented opposition with heavy-handed tactics and high civilian casualties. While this was going on, little heed was paid to the Taliban, and their support among a pissed-off populace took root. Growth in support exploded after Musharraf ordered a strike against The Red Mosque last summer. That raid killed scores of people.

The Taliban Movement of Pakistan, which was only established in December of 2007, has already extended it's reach into all seven tribal agencies, as well as the North West Frontier Province.

Taliban-sponsored violence has shaken the provincial capital Peshawar to it's very foundation. It has killed hundreds of security forces personnel. Ammunition deliveries have been hijacked, major thoroughfares have been seized, and for the first time ever, a major city has been cut off from the rest of the country by militants.

Across the border in Afghanistan, the Taliban has expanded the territory under their control and now moves around freely in spite of heavy combat losses last year with NATO troops. "The number of districts in which the Taliban operate exploded last year," said John McCreary, a former senior intelligence analyst with the Joint Chiefs of Staff who's now with the private contractor dNovus RDI. "This is the first year they have managed to sustain over 100 attacks per month for the whole year since they started to climb back. One hundred attacks per month used to be surge figure. Now it's the new norm."





There's more: "Insurgencies are becoming entrenched along Afghan-Pakistan border" >>

Friday, February 1, 2008


At the end of the day

Campaigning in Cal-ee-for-nee-ah -- "Home to nearly one in eight Americans, California is a giant, diverse political landscape, enormously expensive for candidates yet offering the campaign's largest batch of delegates." Who's doing what from AP.

Joe Conason asked, Will the Press Get Over Its Love for McCain? Hmmm, probably not. But wingnut heads continued to explode over McCain's perceived liberal bent. Oh, those crazy wabbits!

Paul Krugman spoke glowingly of John Edwards: "If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit." Amen to that! Also, from Krugman, "Obama does Harry and Louise, again."

Republican fraud? -- Say it isn't so! "As part of our ongoing efforts to institute and strengthen financial controls at the National Republican Congressional Committee, we learned earlier this week of irregularities in our financial audit process. Since these irregularities may include fraud, we have notified the appropriate law enforcement authorities. We are aggressively and thoroughly investigating the matter and, while we determine the details, we have terminated our relationship with a former employee who was engaged as an outside vendor." TPM

Quote of the day -- Sen. Saxby Chambliss spokeswoman on whether the senator would endorse John McCain: “We have a lot of balls in the air..." Oh? She had nothing more to report on the, um, endorsement.

James Risen subpoena -- Risen's attorney David N. Kelley said "the subpoena issued last week seeks the source of information for a chapter of James Risen's book "State of War regarding CIA efforts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program." Spencer Ackerman pointed out, "The Justice Department is going after New York Times reporter Jim Risen for the non-crime of revealing President Bush’s illegal domestic surveillance program. It’s pathetic and unsurprising—a fixture of Bush Justice—that the activity DOJ pursues isn’t the blatant illegality of Bush violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but instead the fact that government sources blew the whistle to a great investigative reporter."

Spinning Gates -- "Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates attempted to spin the negative downturn in Afghanistan, claiming that 'NATO has had a very successful year in 2007' and that the significant increase in suicide bombings in 2007 was the 'manifestations of a group that has lost in regular military terms.' “ Uh huh. "Arguing that increased acts of violence are signs of progress is a common Bush administration tactic." Oh, yeah. Via TP.

The deadliest day since the Surge™ began -- 70+ dead, 170 wounded in Baghdad killed by two women suicide bombers who "were Down's Syndrome victims exploited by al Qaida.... The explosives were detonated by remote control in a co-ordinated attack after the women walked into separate crowded markets, said the chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad General Qassim al-Moussawi." WaPo reported that the "two bombings killed 58 people, according to Iraqi police, and wounded more than 170 others."

Starting Monday -- At FDL, "the assault on civil rights laws in the last few years, with the impact of the Roberts Court on years of civil rights precedents front and center..."

From the land of absurdity -- What passes as American journalism continued to spread the lie about Clinton's remarks on the economy and global warming and "a new right-wing meme emerges." Carpetbagger Report

[That's all...no more after the jump.]




There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Sunday, January 27, 2008


At the end of the day

John Edwards campaigned in Dublin, GA. "Georgia Senate minority leader Robert Brown of Macon introduced Edwards at the farmer's market where an estimated crowd of at least 400 had gathered... 'Senator Edwards is the best candidate. He can win in November,' Brown said before rally. 'He's also very much in tune with what's going in in places like rural Georgia.'"

Also in GA, Obama visited a church in Macon where he spoke about his faith: "Poverty has no place in a world of plenty, and hate has no place in a world of believers."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) plans to endorse Obama on Monday, according to the NYT. Steve Benen added more insights.

FISA tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. -- In an interview with McClatchy's Matt Stearn, "Clinton said she would break from the campaign trail to return to Washington Monday" in planning "to vote to block a bill to extend the expansion of electronic eavesdropping powers because it provides immunity for phone companies..." Per a FDL update, Obama will be there, too. Yee haw!

Mitt's up! -- Romney rose in FL polls via Chris Bowers: "Zogby now shows a 30%-30% tie, while yesterday McCain lead 31%-28%. Insider Advantage shows Romney ahead 26%-24%, whereas yesterday it was a 23% to 23% tie. Rasmussen shows Romney extending his lead to 33%--27%, whereas three days earlier Romney only led 27%-23%. In fact, the last four polls conducting Florida tracking show the state moving from McCain 25.5%--23.5% Romney, to Romney 29.3%--27.8% McCain." Looks like a Repub slugfest to the finish.

McCain's running mate -- Lemme imitate SNL's church lady: "Could it be... Condi?" Thus sayeth the Prince of Darkness, "...talk to ordinary people about [Condi] and they say, boy, that's terrific. The politicians don’t like it.” Video at TP.

Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday questioned Huckabee about evidence of Saddam's WMDs. The Huckster replied, "I don’t have any evidence.... ...My point was that, no, we didn’t find them. Did they get into Syria? Did they get into some remote area of Jordan? Did they go some other place? We don’t know. They may not have existed. But simply saying — we didn’t find them so therefore they didn’t exist — is a bit of an overreach." Shorter Huckster: "Eeeb, eeeb, eeeb, eeeb!"

Krugman series, Part I: "Why has the Bush economy been so lousy?" See also bmaz's recent post, "Our Collapsing Economy - How We Got Here."

U.S. military death toll reached 3,934. "The AP count is three higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EST."

Iraqi troops arrived in Mosul, "site of recent deadly insurgent attacks, in an effort to suppress militant groups." Iraq's Defense Ministry spokesman Askari said, "They are Iraqi army forces and include troops, mechanized troops and air force. The plan will be similar to the ones implemented in Baghdad and Diyala [province]." LATimes

So now Bush shifts the military's focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan. " 'The sense I get is that at least in military terms they are getting a response from Washington which they weren't getting all along,' said Schaffer, a career foreign service officer who was deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia in the administration of former President Bush."

"The Week Ahead" at SCOTUSblog -- "No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected to be issued from the Court this week." Reply briefs due Friday by 2 p.m. on Dada v. Mukasey.

On personal note -- It's fundraising time and for a good cause. Blue Girl needs a computer. So if you can throw some bucks her way -- the goal is $750 -- she can get back online sooner than later. Purdy please?

[That's all...no more after the jump.]




There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Thursday, January 24, 2008


At the end of the day

FISA & telecom immunity -- We will live to fight another day. However, Claire McCaskill sold the Bill of Rights for pocket change. Expect some unpleasant repercussions come re-election time.

Democrats unite! -- Hillary: "As soon as we have a nominee, we will be strongly united because the most important thing is to put a Democrat in the White House starting in January 2009." What did Obama say? The better question is what didn't he say? Read Jane Hamsher from last night.

GOP voters don't seem too excited about the elections. For analysis and numbers, Down With Tyranny!

Dennis Kucinich gives up on the WH. "He was regularly shut out of presidential debates - even after he went to the courts to seek airtime in Las Vegas.... ...commentators have given Kucinich credit for giving a greater airing to anti-war sentiment." We still love you, Dennis!

Krugman evaluated the economic stimulus program and it's not pretty. Robert Greenstein at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that "the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders."

Anti-Abortionists MIA -- Republicans say they're pro-life but they don't show up for the Big March. How convenient.

Hate crimes slimebag -- During the Jena march, a "white man accused of driving past a group of black civil rights activists with two nooses dangling from the back of his pickup truck" was indicted for "conspiring to threaten and intimidate the marchers and with having committed a federal hate crime."

Fighting torture could land 11 activists in the federal pen for as much as six months. The Nation

"Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq" -- "American-backed Sunni militias who have fought Sunni extremists to a standstill in some of Iraq’s bloodiest battlegrounds are being hit with a wave of assassinations and bomb attacks, threatening a fragile linchpin of the military’s strategy to pacify the nation." Intel Dump offered further insights, particularly on the political front: "I think that Crocker and Petraeus have written off the Iraqi government at all levels as too corrupt and ineffective to be a part of the long-term counterinsurgency strategy in that country."

Afghanistan backslides -- The warlords shall rise again! See how invading Iraq diverted our forces from the right war at the wrong time?

Et tu, media? -- The honeymoon must be wearing off. Via Kevin Drum, yesterday Obama got some of the same type of media B.S. that was dumped on Hillary today. With enough time -- and it doesn't take long -- media svengalis could transform Barack into a divisive figure (jpg) like they have Clinton. This is how our morally-bankrupt press corp screws America (h/t Taylor Marsh for the jpg).

Bush legacy scrutiny -- An advocacy group "plans to spend $8.5 million" on advertising Bush's failed presidency. "Framing his legacy helps us in the '08 elections, there is no doubt about that," Woodhouse said. "But our principal mission would be defining the failures of Bush and the ideology he represents." Swopa

[That's all...no more after the jump.]




There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Thursday, January 17, 2008


Another day ends

2008 Campaign: A presidential "mash-up" of all the candidates by Walter Shapiro. Who can beat whom?

Off message, off key: "This is how the conservative movement wins even when it loses. ...Democratic candidates... keep repeating their propaganda for them... ...Between pushing Reagan myths and repeating Bush's anti-tax message, the big winner this week in the Democratic primary is Grover Norquist..." Digby.

Rick Perlstein weighs in on "cuddly" conservatives and Ronnie's legacy: "Reagan really did almost blow the world up."

Case dismissed: "A federal judge has just dismissed the Nevada caucus case, ruling that the at-large casino caucuses can go forward." Will it help Obama? McJoan

Middle-class squeeze: Did you know that Americans love to work long hours? Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) thinks so. Someone send her to Kool-Aid rehab, please!

Kaboom! Iraq, Afghanistan: In Iraq, 5x more airstrikes in 2007 than 2006. UNAMI estimates -- 200+ civilian deaths from April to December 2007. In Afghanistan, 2x more airstrikes in 2007 than 2006. Civilian deaths tripled to 300+. Winning hearts and minds...

More on Iraq: Blows my mind! According to top U.S. military -- Dubik, Odierno, Kimmit -- "...Iraq's security forces will probably require U.S. military support for as long as a decade." Tomorrow's WaPo.

Culture shock: A new tactic of the anti-abortion movement -- pitiful males -- and a new disease, "Post-Abortion Syndrome... for men." Blue Girl had something to say about it, too.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]




There's more: "Another day ends" >>

Alienating our Allies

It isn't like we have a whole lot of them left, so Bob Gates slur against our NATO allies in Afghanistan is not only troubling, it is, frankly, stupid. Which also troubles me - Gates is not a stupid fellow. I have never been a fan, but at least I grudgingly respected his competence and talent - but then he said this:

“I’m worried we’re deploying [military advisers] that are not properly trained, and I’m worried we have some military forces that don’t know how to do counter-insurgency operations.”
Now I can make with the scorn and ridicule without a second thought.

In case you missed it, Gates blasted the Brits and other NATO member states fighting in Afghanistan by saying in an interview that the allies lack of experience in counter-insurgency warfare was contributing to the escalating violence and instability in the south of that beleaguered nation, and contributing to the rise of the Taliban. (Perhaps he has forgotten that the Brits are the only country to actually win a counterinsurgency? Malaysia in the 50's, anyone?)

[Keep reading...]

His remarks drew sharp criticism and instant reactions from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, the three countries that have born the brunt in the south. The Dutch were particularly incensed.
The Dutch were so angry at what appeared to be direct criticism that they summoned the US Ambassador in The Hague to explain Mr Gates’s comments. British and Dutch officials refused to believe that the criticism was directed at them, but Eric Adelman, the US Assistant Secretary of Defence, nonetheless had to ring around Nato capitals to give reassurance that Mr Gates was not attacking any individual member.

[snip]

As officials tried to smooth over the apparent rift, his comments drew a fierce response. Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP and a former British Army officer, said they were “bloody outrageous”. He said: “I would beg the Americans to understand that we are their closest allies, and our men are bleeding and dying in large numbers.”

Britain has 7,800 troops in southern Afghanistan, where 81 have been killed. The Dutch and the Canadians have also lost a substantial number of soldiers in counter-insurgency operations against the Taleban.

So what's the deal here? Remember that Gates, at his very core, is an ideologue. Is he making such unhinged and offensive comments now because he knows that a year from now there will be a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both houses? Is he undermining relations now in advance of that eventuality because he wants to make it as difficult as it can possibly be for the next president?

Petulant fuck.




There's more: "Alienating our Allies" >>

Thursday, December 27, 2007


Rall: Is Dems’ “No to Iraq, yes to Afghanistan” any better than Bush?

Bhutto assassination seems to confirm his take

His succinct answer? No. First, Ted Rall makes the case this is the wrong war in the wrong place:
In fact, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan the whole time U.S. forces were “looking” for him in Afghanistan. So was Al Qaeda, and most of its training camps. The money for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Being fought by the wrong military:
I’m not convinced the military can fight terrorists. Blowing up schools and weddings is a lousy way to fight Islamic extremism. The history of counterinsurgency shows that it’s easier to kill your enemies with an open mind than with bombs. But if you’re determined to go the military route, you’d be better off taking on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt — in that order.

Rall says he expects little different from both Democratic Congressional leadership and presidential candidates.

But, he notes that some educated voters are starting to see things differently.
Not everyone is falling for the Democrats’ “forget their war, let’s fight our war” spiel, though. A letter to the editor of the Times began: “I hope that when the Bush administration and NATO conclude their analyses of the Afghanistan mission they will reach one inescapable, common-sense conclusion: that Western-style democracy cannot be militarily imposed on a culture that is based on tribal loyalties. Maybe at that point, our nation and the world will be able to finally use our economic and human resources in a more efficient manner.”

Personally, I accepted the war in Afghanistan when it started, though I wasn’t gung-ho about it.

But, if you look at things today, short of pumping far, far more troops in their than the Soviets ever did (extra troops needed to offset the Soviets’ indiscriminate use of mines), we don’t have a chance in Afghanistan.

And, getting back to Rall’s initial point, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan shows that fighting in Afghanistan without doing anything about Pakistan is like Sisyphus vainly pushing the rock up the hill.

I would say that we should privately give Afghan President Hamid Karzai a Dec. 31, 2009 deadline (very generous) for us wrapping up our presence in Afghanistan. We then should get serious with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and threaten not just a cutoff of economic aid, but a push for international sanctions.




There's more: "Rall: Is Dems’ “No to Iraq, yes to Afghanistan” any better than Bush?" >>

Wednesday, December 26, 2007


Diplomats Expelled from Afghanistan

A diplomatic set-to is brewing in Afghanistan in the wake of a Briton and an Irishman being declared "Persona Non Grata" and ordered to leave the country by Thursday. The men, who work for the European Union and the United Nations stand accused of threatening state security by meeting with Taliban insurgents. Both men have worked in Afghanistan for over a decade, even when the Taliban was in charge in the country. Both are well versed in local languages and customs.

The Afghan government accused the men of meeting with members of the Taliban in the southern province of Helmand, where the Taliban insurgency has a stronghold. Helmand province where the majority of the opium poppies are grown and harvested. "Not only did they hold talks with the Taliban, but also had given them money," the Afghan official said. "It is not clear whether they were supporting the insurgency or not."

It is unclear at present whether the meeting was a personal undertaking, or whether they were acting in an official capacity. Approximately 50 Afghans, some of whom are colleagues of the men, have been detained for questioning and investigations over their links to the matter.

Western diplomats sprang to the defense of the two men, insisting that it was all a misunderstanding, and that they hoped the men would be allowed to return quickly. They insist that the men were likely meeting with tribal leaders, and didn't set out to negotiate with the taliban. The skill set the men possess are vital to the success of the multiple programs and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that are struggling to run reconstruction and development projects.

The greatest threat to humanitarian progress in Afghanistan is the strengthening Taliban insurgency, particularly in the southern and eastern portions of the country where the remnants of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network sow distention and stoke the fires of insurgency.

The unnamed Afghan official that spoke to Reuters said that the meeting in question took place in the Musa Qala district of Helmand province. Musa Qala is the region that sparked controversy earlier in the year when British forces withdrew after a deal was brokered with tribal elders to police themselves. That agreement was blasted by the Afghan government after Taliban insurgents promptly took over control of the region and held it until they were driven out two weeks ago by NATO and Afghan forces.

The Afghan government has little popular support in the Taliban strongholds, and insists publicly that it does not negotiate with insurgents, but unofficially it is commonplace for frequent contacts to take place. Likewise, western governments and diplomats hold a similar public line, while privately arguing that dividing the insurgency and splitting the leadership is a legitimate strategy to be pursued.

[That's all, folks...]




There's more: "Diplomats Expelled from Afghanistan" >>

Sunday, December 16, 2007


The latest worry for U.S. troops — a superbug

The Observer reports that U.S., U.K. and Canadian troops are bringing back a new virulent bacteria from both Afghanistan and Iraq:

The bacterium, Acinetobacter baumannii, first emerged as a “mystery infection” afflicting US service personnel returning from the war in Iraq in 2003-04. It was described by a scientific journal specialising in hospital epidemiology as the “most important emerging hospital-acquired pathogen worldwide.” The journal added that it was potentially a “major threat to public health” due to its ability to mutate rapidly and develop a resistance to all known drugs.

Although different types of acinetobacter have been known for decades in hospitals, the new “T” strain identified in the injured troops is particularly virulent and has been observed to appear in US servicemen within two hours of being admitted to a field hospital. It affects the spinal fluid, bones and lungs, causing pneumonia, respiratory failure and other complications. Equally worrying is its resilience. Extremely difficult to eliminate from medical facilities once established, the bug can survive for up to 176 days in a human host. US officials concede that, once established in the medical evacuation chain, the germ is almost impossible to stamp out.

It remains to be seen just how bad this may become, but, it doesn’t sound good to read about.




There's more: "The latest worry for U.S. troops — a superbug" >>

Sunday, November 25, 2007


Remember Afghanistan?

Sure you do - the country in which bin Laden and his warren of terrorists found safe haven from which to plot the terror attacks of September 11. Think hard. It'll come back to you.

And when it does, consider that we should be applying the lessons of Vietnam to the situation there. One lesson in specific...As the end drew nigh and helicopters on the roof of the embassy became inevitable, an exchange took place between two battle-hardened Colonels, Harry Summers from the United States Army, and Colonel Tu from North Vietnam. Stinging from the defeat, Summers reportedly said “You never beat us on the battlefield.” To which Tu replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

That is the lesson that we should be heeding in Afghanistan.

But instead...

White House assessment of the war in Afghanistan has concluded that wide-ranging strategic goals that the Bush administration set for 2007 have not been met, even as U.S. and NATO forces have scored significant combat successes against resurgent Taliban fighters, according to U.S. officials.

The evaluation this month by the National Security Council followed an in-depth review in late 2006 that laid out a series of projected improvements for this year, including progress in security, governance and the economy. But the latest assessment concluded that only "the kinetic piece" -- individual battles against Taliban fighters -- has shown substantial progress, while improvements in the other areas continue to lag, a senior administration official said.

And while the Taliban gradually takes back territory - they now hold 54% of the land area of the country - The military points to tactical successes while the intelligence branches point to strategic failures; and any chance of realizing United States objectives in that beleaguered nation slip further and further away.

[That's all, folks...]




There's more: "Remember Afghanistan?" >>

Thursday, November 22, 2007


Afghanistan: Majority Taliban, and Kabul could fall next year

At least if you go by land area. The Guardian reports the Taliban now control more than half the country at an estimated 54 percent.

The Senlis Council, an independent British think tank, warns the country could be lost entirely, even as the Taliban front line creeps closer and closer to Kabul:

“It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when ... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out.”

Its 110-page report coincides with an equally severe warning from Oxfam. In a report for the House of Commons International Development Committee the humanitarian and aid agency warns that the security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating significantly with the country's problems exacerbated by corruption in central and local government.

Senior British and US military commanders privately agree despite their public emphasis on short-term successes against Taliban fighters.

Senlis recommends urgent action, as does Oxfam, but nobody seems to listen or care:
It says that the NATO-led International Security Force of some 40,000 troops should be at least doubled and include forces from Muslim countries as well as Nato states which have refused to send troops to the country.

There is no sign of any move within NATO to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.

While western governments, like the Senlis Council and Oxfam, are increasingly concerned about the lack of effectiveness of President Hamid Karzai's government, there is no agreement about how to solve the problems.

Also interesting to note that “our boy” in Kabul is more and more perceived as less and less effective, kind of like the whole succession of “our boys” in Baghdad.

The domestic political fallout will be huge if the Taliban occupies Kabul in, say, mid-summer 2008, after primaries are over but before the party national conventions. That holds true in spades if Bush’s soul-gazed bosom buddy in Karachi, Pervez Musharraf, continues to dig in his heels about not taking serious action against the Taliban and allies in the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands.

Ted Rall was right: If there was a country to invade six yeas ago, it was Pakistan. But, THAT most definitely would have required a military draft.




There's more: "Afghanistan: Majority Taliban, and Kabul could fall next year" >>

Saturday, November 17, 2007


Musharraf WAS the Taliban

Or, why we’re fighting the wrong war in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq

The full version of the Ted Rall comment:
The marketing of Musharraf as a bulwark against radical Islam and the Taliban is one of the biggest jokes of the post-9/11 era. He wasn't for the Taliban before he was against them. He was the Taliban.

Rall crossed the border from from China to Pakistan at just the time Musharraf was overthrowing prime minister Nawaz Sharaf. He then invited Taliban fighters from Afghanistan to come into the Kashmir region of Pakistan to up the ante in the fighting against India in the third Kashmir War.

That said, Rall is blunt in that our war in Afghanistan is, in his opinion, even worse than the invasion of Iraq. Why?

This is why:
If U.S. officials had wanted to catch Osama bin Laden, all they had to do was call Musharraf. On 9/11, the Al Qaeda leader was laid up in a Pakistani military hospital in Islamabad. If the dictator refused, invading Pakistan —if you’re into that sort of thing — would certainly have been more justifiable than Afghanistan or Iraq. A Pakistan War could have neutralized the world's most dangerous nuclear threat, established a valuable strategic American foothold between India and China, and — if we worked with the UN — scored us popularity points for restoring democratic rule.

Such a war would have been far more justifiable than Afghanistan or Iraq. No country was more responsible than Pakistan for 9/11. Pakistan hosted Al Qaeda's headquarters in Kashmir. Most of its training camps were in Kashmir and Pakistan's Tribal Areas--not Afghanistan. On July 22, 2004, The Guardian reported that General Mahmoud Ahmed, chief of the ISI under Musharraf, had sent $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker. The Wall Street Journal confirmed that Pakistani intelligence had financed 9/11, but the 9/11 Commission decided not to investigate our “strategic ally in the war on terrorism.”

Remember in what country Daniel Pearl was killed? Rall is right.

And, though he doesn’t get specifically into it, as long as he kept the border open, we could have sent all the troops we have in Iraq to Afghanistan and still not totally snuffed out Al Qaeda.

Rall’s conclusion?
Musharraf was always a huckster. Anyone who paid attention could see that, but that's the problem: we never do.

Right on.

And, this refreshing angle on this is part of why I like Rall as a columnist.




There's more: "Musharraf WAS the Taliban" >>

Tuesday, August 14, 2007


Fighting less & winning more

Following up on the discussion about taking a love-compassion-awareness approach to politics in general, here's a post about taking, let's call it, an "awareness approach" to fighting an insurgency.

Nathaniel Fick, a former Marine captain, provides perspective today of why a new approach to fighting is key, and how the kill-them-all strategy can't keep us safe.

In a Washington Post column, Fick talks about his experience teaching counterinsurgency tactics in Afghanistan. One of his key points is that fighting less, leads to winning more. Fick writes that he asked his students to list their top three targets in a Taliban stronghold.

When I asked a U.S. officer to share his list, he rattled off the names of three senior Taliban leaders to be captured or killed. Then I turned and asked an Afghan officer the same question. "First we must target the local councils to see how we can best help them," he replied. "Then we must target the local mullahs to find out their needs and let them know we respect their authority." Exactly. In counterinsurgency warfare, targeting is more about whom you bring in than whom you take out.

It's a column well worth reading.




There's more: "Fighting less & winning more" >>

Monday, August 13, 2007


Long Years of Floundering and Ultimate Failure


Though they are words that could sum up just about every aspect of the George W. Bush (Mis)Administration®, in this case they illustrate the failure that is Afghanistan.

“Initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.”
I cannot take credit for those words, for they are words spoken by Il Douche'™ himself, ironically noting how his (mis)administration's efforts to rebuild Afghanistan would not emulate the failures of others.

“We’re not going to repeat that mistake,” he said. “We’re tough, we’re
determined, we’re relentless. We will stay until the mission is done.”
Or, at least until those resources would be diverted for the unnecessary war in Iraq.

In October 2002, Robert Grenier, a former director of the C.I.A.’s counterintelligence center, visited the new Kuwait City headquarters of Lt. Gen David McKiernan, who was already planning the Iraq invasion. Meeting in a sheetmetal warehouse, Mr. Grenier asked General McKiernan what his intelligence needs would be in Iraq.

The answer was simple. “They wanted as much as they could get,” Mr. Grenier said.
Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, Mr. Grenier said in an interview, “the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq,” including the agency’s most skilled counterterrorism specialists and Middle East and paramilitary operatives. That reduced the United States’ influence over powerful Afghan warlords who were refusing to turn over to the central government tens of millions of dollars they had collected as customs payments at border crossings.

While the C.I.A. replaced officers shifted to Iraq, Mr. Grenier said, it did so with younger agents, who lacked the knowledge and influence of the veterans. “I think we could have done a lot more on the Afghan side if we had more experienced folks,” he said.

A former senior official of the Pentagon’s Central Command, which was running both wars, said that as the Iraq planning sped up, the military’s covert Special Mission Units, like Delta Force and Navy Seals Team Six, shifted to Iraq from Afghanistan.

So did aerial surveillance “platforms” like the Predator, a remotely piloted drone armed with Hellfire missiles that had been effective at identifying targets in the sparsely populated mountains of Afghanistan. Predators were not shifted directly from Afghanistan to Iraq, according to the former official, but as new Predators were produced, they went to Iraq.

“We were economizing in Afghanistan,” said the former official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. “The marginal return for one more platform in Afghanistan is so much greater than for one more in Iraq.”
The (mis)administration's failure in Iraq is essentially the failure in Afghanistan, writ large, but in not having learned easy lessons it might have gained from engaging in the Afghani folly, it was doomed to repeat them in Iraq.

As of the fall of Kabul in 1992, Afghanistan was left without a central government, but left to the devices of various tribal factions, much as has happened in Iraq, after the dismantling of the Ba'thist government and the standing Iraqi army and the destruction of the nation's infrastructure. Once again, an excellent plan for invasion, yet none for occupation.
An “initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.”




There's more: "Long Years of Floundering and Ultimate Failure" >>

Sunday, August 5, 2007


"Poppies Will Make Them Sleep"


Indeed, that seems to have been the effect upon the Bush (Mis)Administration, as it slowly yet inevitably continues to lose ground on the first frontline in the War on Terra®.

Afghanistan will produce another record poppy harvest this year that cements its status as the world's near-sole supplier of the heroin source, yet a furious debate over how to reverse the trend is stalling proposals to cut the crop, U.S. officials say.

U.N. figures to be released in September are expected to show that Afghanistan's poppy production has risen up to 15 percent since 2006 and that the country now accounts for 95 percent of the world's crop, 3 percentage points more than last year, officials familiar with preliminary statistics told The Associated Press.

But counterdrug proposals by some U.S. officials have met fierce resistance, including boosting the amount of forcible poppy field destruction in provinces that grow the most, officials said. The approach also would link millions of dollars in development aid to benchmarks on eradication; arrests and prosecutions of narcotraders, corrupt officials; and on alternative crop production.
As poppies bloom, our coffers wilt as more money is thrown at the problem, in stunningly ineffective ways.
[P]roponents call [for] an "enhanced carrot-and-stick approach" to
supplement existing anti-drug efforts. They are the focus of the new $475 million program outlined in a 995-page report, the release
of which has been postponed twice and may be again delayed due to disagreements,
officials said.

Counternarcotics agents at the State Department had wanted to release a 123-page summary of the strategy last month and then again last week, but were forced to hold off because of concerns it may not be feasible, the officials said.

The program represents a 13 percent increase over the $420 million in U.S. counternarcotics aid to Afghanistan last year. It would adopt a bold new approach to "coercive eradication" and set out criteria for local officials to receive development assistance based on their cooperation, the officials said. [all emphasis mine]
The black hole of money, troops & resources that is the Afghanistan Campaign continues to grow, slowly yet inexorably. But, at least the cost of heroin should drop; that whole free-market supply-and-demand thing, ya know.
Perhaps this was part & parcel of the necon plan from the beginning. Since it is mostly the ungodly, gay-lovin', gun-hatin' Hollyweird liberal types that engage in heroin usage, a large contingent of the Left may be too distracted by stints in rehab to back the progessive cause. You'd have to admire such evil genius.




There's more: ""Poppies Will Make Them Sleep"" >>

Thursday, March 8, 2007


Where's Afghanistan?

And no, the answer I am looking for is not "between Iran and Pakistan" but that would get partial credit.

I just read the Defense Department's Current News Early Bird, which is essentially abstracts of the top news stories from the morning papers. Reading it today, I am left pondering that burning question. Remember Afghanistan? That's where the real trerrorists are, and where we could be doing some good.



Buildup In Iraq Needed Into ’08, U.S. General Says

[New York Times, March 8, 2007, Pg. 1]
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008.

Pentagon OKs Military Police Increase
[Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2007]
The Pentagon approved a request by the new U.S. commander in Iraq for 2,200 MPs to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the Baghdad security crackdown.


Petraeus: Iraqi Insurgents Attacks Up
[Washingtonpost.com, March 8, 2007]
Gen. David Petraeus said insurgents in Iraq have sought to intensify attacks during a Baghdad security crackdown, which he predicted won’t be at fully strength until June.

U.S. Commander Says No Military Solution To Iraq
[Reuters.com, March 8, 2007]
Gen. Petraeus said U.S. and Iraqi security forces cannot solve the problem of violence in Iraq without political action and reconciliation with some militant groups.

Petraeus Strategy Takes Aim At Post-Vietnam Mind-Set
Seeks to change military view on insurgencies

[USA Today, March 8, 2007, Pg. 9]
Gen. Petraeus, 20 years ago, wrote a dissertation that said many of the lessons U.S. military leaders learned from the Vietnam War were wrong. He is taking his own advice in Iraq by moving U.S. troops off large bases and into combat outposts in Baghdad’s turbulent neighborhoods.

Suicide Bomber Kills 30 In Café
Three GIs die in another blast

[Washington Times, March 8, 2007, Pg. 15]
A powerful bomb killed three U.S. soldiers trying to clear explosives from a highway near Baghdad, and a suicide bomber killed 30 persons and wounded dozens in a café northeast of the capital.

At Least 146 Shiites Killed Across Iraq
Wave of Violence Comes on Eve of Shiite Holiday

[Washington Post, March 8, 2007, Pg. 18]
As a small Shiite political party pulled out of the governing Shiite parliamentary bloc the put Iraq’s prime minister in power, violence continued in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country yesterday.

Iraqi Government Urges Displaced To Return Home
U.S. Military Officials Say Encouraging Resettlement Is Perilous, Citing Ongoing Sectarian Violence.

[Washington Post, March 8, 2007, Pg. 18]
Ground-level U.S. and Iraqi officials warn that encouraging Iraqis to return to their homes is perilous at a time when bombings regularly occur.

Sadr City Patrol Met With Iraqi Egos, Priorities
[Houston Chronicle, March 8, 2007]
Iraqi troops that were scheduled to join an American patrol in Sadr City delayed operations by more than two hours by showing up late and debating who would get to ride or walk during street patrols.

Political Bloc To Target Shiite Extremists
Alliance plans to pressure Iraq’s prime minister

[USA Today, March 8, 2007, Pg. 8]
A new coalition in Iraq’s parliament seeks to challenge Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and force him to purge Shiite militias from police and government.
And here is the coverage Afghanistan received today:
Taliban Has 4,000 Ready To Fight NATO, Militant Commander Says
[Boston Globe, March 8, 2007]
A top Taliban commander said the group has 4,000 fighters bracing to rebuff NATO’s largest-ever offensive in southern Afghanistan, now in its second day.


This isn't a contact-your-congressman issue. This is a contact-the-ombudsman-of-your-local- newspaper issue.




There's more: "Where's Afghanistan?" >>

Wednesday, January 17, 2007


Hillary return from Iraq, Opposes Escalation

I awoke this morning to NPR and Hillary Clinton talking about her just-concluded trip to Iraq, and she is saying things I want to hear.

  • She opposes the presidents proposed escalation and she wants to cap the number of troops deployed to Iraq.
  • She wants to set conditions for the Iraqi government and put political benchmarks in place that must be met.
  • She proposes that American troops be repositioned out of Baghdad and that American forces begin to pull back out of Iraq.
  • She stated explicitly that we need to concentrate on Afghanistan and bolster troop numbers there in preparation for the upcoming Taliban spring offensive.(emphasis mine)

It will surprise no one that I agree with the Senator, since the only thing she is proposing that I haven't is the part about capping troop numbers - and I smacked my forehead for overlooking it as soon as she said it.

Don't get me wrong - this does not redeem her in my eyes. She still helped us get into this disaster, and I not only won't support her in the primaries, I will work vehemently against her; for that reason alone. I won't be forgetting that she was wrong and we were right, and I will be reminding everyone of that at every turn between now and when the election cycle gets going in earnest.

But on the other hand...Hawks deserting the cause is a necessary step in the process. I welcome them aboard, but they better be chastened because God Damnit, when you are this wrong, and the consequences are this big, you don't get a Mulligan.

(cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State)




There's more: "Hillary return from Iraq, Opposes Escalation" >>

Saturday, January 13, 2007


Surging in the wrong direction


Somehow, the Republicans managed to paint the Democrats as wanting to surrender the "War on Terror" because we see the folly of continued involvement of American forces in Iraq.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is time to set the record straight.

The war in Iraq and the War on Terror are far from the same thing. In fact, I would argue that their respective circles barely overlap. Iraq is a sectarian civil war and American forces are caught in the crossfire. The front in the War on Terror is located on the other side of Iran, in Afghanistan.

They keep asking for a Democratic plan. Fine. This Democrat has one. The first thing we do is get our diplomats together with Iranian diplomats and we agree to stop meddling around on their borders if they will stop meddling in Iraq. (And make Juan Cole one of the Diplomats we send.) Acknowledge that the location of American combat forces on two of her borders has something to do with Iran's sudden interest in developing nuclear weapons. Especially when it is established fact that a lot of American commando activity has been going on in Iran below the CNN line. I understand their motivation because I can read a map.

The next thing we do is start pulling brigades back to Kuwait and let them rest up and have some leave. Reduce forces in Iraq by 10,000 a month, and when they are rested, add them to the NATO effort in Afghanistan, where 21,500 additional troops would make a real difference.

I accept that Iraq is a disaster no matter what, and can't be won militarily. It is an apostacy that 3000 Americans have died in an unnecessary war. But I am not willing to lose Afghanistan too.

But that is what is certain to happen if we continue focusing on Iran, and if we lose Afghanistan, then literally, the terrorists win. (That might be the only time those words have been used properly.)

As it stands, all signs point to a Taliban re-emergence in Afghanistan in the spring, and that comes in February in the south.

It is time for us to put Afghanistan at the forefront. I support the justified and justifiable war, but I can't support the vanity war George W. Bush is intent on pursuing to the bitter end in Iraq. It is time we all take a hard look at reality, and not just the parts we want to see, and start making some hard choices. And it is time we started framing the issues.




There's more: "Surging in the wrong direction" >>