Want a few minutes relief from political pondering? Why not take a tour of the Swiss Alps seen through the cockpit of a Swiss, Hawker Hunter jet fighter. If you've not seen it before, it is breathtaking.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Battle of the Black Sea
Yes, it is about oil.
Westerners have been left pretty much in the dark about what really lurks behind the recent Russia-Georgian war. In particular, we've heard almost nothing about Washington's diplomatic campaign to effective oust Russia from the oil riches of the region, even from the Middle East itself.
The goal has been to get Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Once under the protection of the Alliance the idea was then to have both countries close their ports to the Russian navy, eliminating the Russian's access to the Meditteranean and the Middle East. It looks like that has backfired.
The Ukraine may yet give the Russian navy the boot but, with access to Abkhaz ports, especially Poti, which are now firmly under Russian protection, it won't matter much.
Russia's moves in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are expected to be endorsed at the September 5 meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a mutual defence alliance along the lines of NATO comprising Russia, Belarus, Khazakstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. They may sound like small potatoes but they hold large reserves of oil and natural gas which the White House, Cheney in particular, has been attempting to secure and wrest out of Russian control.
Worse yet is the prospect of a new member to the CSTO - Iran. If Iran is admitted it would effectively acquire Soviet military protection. This would present a huge complication to the Americans and the Israelis. If the Russians deployed their latest, S-400 SAM batteries to Iran, it could make an American or Israeli air strike a very bloody affair. It could also bring Russia and America into a shooting war.
I've always felt that the biggest risk from NATO's seemingly pointless march to Russia's borders would be the prospect of strengthening the Russian-Chinese alliance through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. That appears to be just what is happening.
Russia is pushing back - hard. This may result in a speed up of Russian negotiations to establish a naval base in Syria. This would create a Russian military presence just north of Lebanon and little more than a heartbeat away from Israel.
There's great truth in the old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. The West had a grand opportunity to engage and embrace Russia in the immediate wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead that genius in Washington responded with a relentless campaign to contain, isolate and threaten Russia. Like everything else that Bush and his diseased, bald sidekick have done, there was no apparent awareness of or preparations for the ramifications of their actions, even consequences that should have been obvious.
Look at it this way, Russia really didn't create most of these opportunities it's now exploiting. We did that for them. Unfortunately the Kremlin remains (and may well stay) two steps ahead of us. Thanks George, you clot!
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain's Veep's Scandal
Sarah Palin, McCain's choice for veep and 2-year governor of Alaska, may be very grateful indeed that she was picked. Sarah may welcome the chance to put some serious distance between herself and the Alaska legislature.
Palin is caught up in a nasty scandal. She's alleged to have pressured the commissioner of Alaska's Public Safety Department to fire a cop, trooper Mike Wooten. Why? Hard to say but it could have had something to do with the ugly custody battle Wooten was then engaged in with Palin's sister.
For a while Governor Sarah denied there was anything to the story. Then the Alaska legislature unanimously approved the hiring of an investigator. Suddenly Governor Sarah had an epiphany - why yes, someone in her office did press the Public Safety Department to fire trooper Wooten - but, of course, it has nothing to do with her. She knew nothing about the whole nasty business.
From McClatchey Newspapers:
Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday [August 13th] revealed an audio recording that shows an aide pressuring the Public Safety Department to fire a state trooper embroiled in a custody battle with her sister.
Palin, who has previously said her administration didn't exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten, also disclosed that members of her staff had made about two dozen contacts with public safety officials about the trooper.
"I do now have to tell Alaskans that such pressure could have been perceived to exist although I have only now become aware of it," Palin said.
The majority of the calls came from Palin's chief of staff at the time, Mike Tibbles, according to an information gathered by the state attorney general's office. Attorney General Talis Colberg and Palin's husband, Todd, also contacted Monegan about the trooper.
Palin said she'd only known about some of the contacts and never asked anyone on her staff to get in touch with state public safety officials about Wooten.
"Many of these inquiries were completely appropriate. However, the serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction," she said.
Governor Sarah apparently overlooked something back when she was denying the whole thing - the Public Safety Department tapes all these calls.
Yes, Governor Sarah, two dozen calls from your aides and your husband to the Public Safety Department demanding trooper Mike Wooten's badge, "could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at [your] direction." If you would like people to perceive it otherwise, kindly come up with some explanation of why you wanted Wooten sacked other than the custody battle with your sister.
And I thought Cheney was the grand dissembler. That Dick has nothing on Sarah.
h/t Scott Tribe
Palin is caught up in a nasty scandal. She's alleged to have pressured the commissioner of Alaska's Public Safety Department to fire a cop, trooper Mike Wooten. Why? Hard to say but it could have had something to do with the ugly custody battle Wooten was then engaged in with Palin's sister.
For a while Governor Sarah denied there was anything to the story. Then the Alaska legislature unanimously approved the hiring of an investigator. Suddenly Governor Sarah had an epiphany - why yes, someone in her office did press the Public Safety Department to fire trooper Wooten - but, of course, it has nothing to do with her. She knew nothing about the whole nasty business.
From McClatchey Newspapers:
Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday [August 13th] revealed an audio recording that shows an aide pressuring the Public Safety Department to fire a state trooper embroiled in a custody battle with her sister.
Palin, who has previously said her administration didn't exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten, also disclosed that members of her staff had made about two dozen contacts with public safety officials about the trooper.
"I do now have to tell Alaskans that such pressure could have been perceived to exist although I have only now become aware of it," Palin said.
The majority of the calls came from Palin's chief of staff at the time, Mike Tibbles, according to an information gathered by the state attorney general's office. Attorney General Talis Colberg and Palin's husband, Todd, also contacted Monegan about the trooper.
Palin said she'd only known about some of the contacts and never asked anyone on her staff to get in touch with state public safety officials about Wooten.
"Many of these inquiries were completely appropriate. However, the serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction," she said.
Governor Sarah apparently overlooked something back when she was denying the whole thing - the Public Safety Department tapes all these calls.
Yes, Governor Sarah, two dozen calls from your aides and your husband to the Public Safety Department demanding trooper Mike Wooten's badge, "could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at [your] direction." If you would like people to perceive it otherwise, kindly come up with some explanation of why you wanted Wooten sacked other than the custody battle with your sister.
And I thought Cheney was the grand dissembler. That Dick has nothing on Sarah.
h/t Scott Tribe
Global Warming, Military Style
Those Looney Lefties also known as Pentagon analysts are again warning of global wars driven by climate change. From the Environmental News Network:
"...governments in the US and UK are already being briefed by their own military strategists about how to prepare for a world of mass famine, floods of refugees and even nuclear conflicts over resources.
Gwynne Dyer is a military analyst and author who served in three navies and has held academic posts at the Royal Military College at Sandhurst and at Oxford.
"[There will be] huge falls in the amount of crops that you can grow because there isn't the rain and it's too hot," he said. "That will apply particularly to the Mediterranean... and so not just the north African countries, but also the ones on the northern side of the Mediterranean. "The ones in the European Union like Spain and Italy and Greece and the Balkans and Turkey are going to be suffering huge losses in their ability to support their populations.
Climate refugees.
He says a fall in crops and food production means there will be refugees, people who are desperate. "It may mean the collapse in the global trade of food because while some countries still have enough, there is still a global food shortage," he said. "If you can't buy food internationally and you can't raise enough at home, what do you do? You move.
So refugee pressures - huge ones - are one of the things that drives these security considerations."
In Climate Wars, even the most hopeful scenarios about the impact of climate change have hundreds of millions of people dying of starvation, mass displacement of people and conflict between countries competing for basic resources like water. "India and Pakistan are both nuclear-armed countries. All of the agriculture in Pakistan and all of the agriculture in northern India depend on glacier-fed rivers that come off the Himalayas from the Tibetan plateau. Those glaciers are melting," Dr Dyer said.
"They're melting according to Chinese scientists to 7 per cent a year, which means they're half gone in 10 years. "India has a problem with this. Pakistan faces an absolutely lethal emergency because Pakistan is basically a desert with a braid of rivers running through it.
"Those rivers all start with one exception in Indian-controlled territory and there's a complex series of deals between the two countries about who gets to take so much water out of the river. Those deals break down when there's not that much water in the rivers." And then you have got the prospect of a nuclear confrontation, Dr Dyer says.
"It's unthinkable but yet it's entirely possible. So these are the prices you start to pay if you get this wrong," he said. "Some of them, actually, I'm afraid we've already got them wrong in the sense that there is going to be some major climate change." Dr Dyer explains the least alarmist scenario for the next couple of decades still involves enormous pressures on the US border. "That border's going to be militarised. I think there's almost no question about it because the alternative is an inundation of the United States by what will be, effectively, climate refugees," he said. "
http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/article/38054
"...governments in the US and UK are already being briefed by their own military strategists about how to prepare for a world of mass famine, floods of refugees and even nuclear conflicts over resources.
Gwynne Dyer is a military analyst and author who served in three navies and has held academic posts at the Royal Military College at Sandhurst and at Oxford.
"[There will be] huge falls in the amount of crops that you can grow because there isn't the rain and it's too hot," he said. "That will apply particularly to the Mediterranean... and so not just the north African countries, but also the ones on the northern side of the Mediterranean. "The ones in the European Union like Spain and Italy and Greece and the Balkans and Turkey are going to be suffering huge losses in their ability to support their populations.
Climate refugees.
He says a fall in crops and food production means there will be refugees, people who are desperate. "It may mean the collapse in the global trade of food because while some countries still have enough, there is still a global food shortage," he said. "If you can't buy food internationally and you can't raise enough at home, what do you do? You move.
So refugee pressures - huge ones - are one of the things that drives these security considerations."
In Climate Wars, even the most hopeful scenarios about the impact of climate change have hundreds of millions of people dying of starvation, mass displacement of people and conflict between countries competing for basic resources like water. "India and Pakistan are both nuclear-armed countries. All of the agriculture in Pakistan and all of the agriculture in northern India depend on glacier-fed rivers that come off the Himalayas from the Tibetan plateau. Those glaciers are melting," Dr Dyer said.
"They're melting according to Chinese scientists to 7 per cent a year, which means they're half gone in 10 years. "India has a problem with this. Pakistan faces an absolutely lethal emergency because Pakistan is basically a desert with a braid of rivers running through it.
"Those rivers all start with one exception in Indian-controlled territory and there's a complex series of deals between the two countries about who gets to take so much water out of the river. Those deals break down when there's not that much water in the rivers." And then you have got the prospect of a nuclear confrontation, Dr Dyer says.
"It's unthinkable but yet it's entirely possible. So these are the prices you start to pay if you get this wrong," he said. "Some of them, actually, I'm afraid we've already got them wrong in the sense that there is going to be some major climate change." Dr Dyer explains the least alarmist scenario for the next couple of decades still involves enormous pressures on the US border. "That border's going to be militarised. I think there's almost no question about it because the alternative is an inundation of the United States by what will be, effectively, climate refugees," he said. "
http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/article/38054
If you're interested in global warming as a source for global conflict you might also check out the speech given by Gareth Evans (president of International Crisis Group) on this subject:
Harper "Authoritarian"? Who Knew?
Furious Steve says that whether he's an authoritarian thug is completely irrelevant to his defamation suit against the Libs. From the Toronto Star:
Harper's lawyers will argue in Ontario Superior Court on Friday that the opinion of political scientist Peter Russell is irrelevant to the prime minister's $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberals.
Russell, a professor at the University of Toronto, argued the give and take of the Commons, and related arenas, is part of the cut and thrust of free political debate.
"This use of legal action to silence the opposition is characteristic of authoritarian governments," he said.
A spokesperson for the Conservative party has already dismissed Russell's affidavit as simply an opinion from an academic.
Relevant or not, I think any Canadian court can take judicial notice of the fact that our Furious Leader is decidedly authoritarian.
Harper's lawyers will argue in Ontario Superior Court on Friday that the opinion of political scientist Peter Russell is irrelevant to the prime minister's $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberals.
Russell, a professor at the University of Toronto, argued the give and take of the Commons, and related arenas, is part of the cut and thrust of free political debate.
"This use of legal action to silence the opposition is characteristic of authoritarian governments," he said.
A spokesperson for the Conservative party has already dismissed Russell's affidavit as simply an opinion from an academic.
Relevant or not, I think any Canadian court can take judicial notice of the fact that our Furious Leader is decidedly authoritarian.
West Playing Into Putin's Hands
Unlike all of our leaders, Vlad Putin is not a nice man. Unlike most of our leaders, Vlad Putin is a shrewd character adept at pulling the levers of power.
When Russia goaded that idiot Saakashvili into bombarding South Ossetia and then retaliated by invading Georgia and, later, recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, our leaders turned bright red and damn near blew up. Russia wasn't going to get away with that, no sir. Why, Russia would feel the sting of our sanctions and, better yet, we were going to boot it right out of the G8 too! That'd set Moscow a reeling.
Or not.
Putin, it seems, has the measure of Russia's vulnerability to Western retaliation - right down to the last kopek. He knows that the consequences, if they materialize at all, will be insignificant compared to the popularity he'll enjoy at home - where it matters.
This isn't just about Georgia or the autonomy of these two, small states. No, it's much bigger than that. It's about Western solidarity and how far that can be stretched.
Europe doesn't want to get caught in the middle of a BushChehney pissing match with the Kremlin. Winter isn't far off and the Euros know that their supply of Russian oil and gas could be the first casualty of American adventurism.
The European Union made the requisite threats of sanctions against Russia but The Guardian reports the EU is now backing away from any action.
Russia's foreign ministry spokesman, Andrey Nesterenko, ...lambasted Nato for "putting pressure" on Russia and said that there could be "irreversible consequences" for stability in Europe. Nato had no "moral right to lecture Russia," he added.
The Kremlin's defiant and unapologetic tone comes ahead of a special EU summit in Brussels on Monday, called by France, to discuss the EU's future relations with Russia. On Thursday, France's foreign minister, Bernard Coucher, intimated that sanctions against Moscow would be discussed.
Yesterday, though, the EU appeared to be rapidly retreating from this position.
Moscow has made clear it will respond to any punitive measures from Brussels, which could include the suspension of a new EU-Russia partnership agreement. "The time to pass sanctions has certainly not come," said a senior diplomat from France, which holds the EU presidency.
Analysts in Moscow today said that Russia's leadership was relatively relaxed about the threat of EU sanctions. "I don't think the contemporary west has any means to punish a state that is not quite a rogue state," Yulia Latynina, a commentator with the independent Echo of Moscow radio station told the Guardian.
She went on: "The Kremlin didn't take Tbilisi and didn't shoot (Mikheil) Saakashvili. What the west can really do — expelling Russia from the G8 or the World Trade Organisation — isn't important.'
Like it or not, the East-West game is only getting started. Yesterday Russia successfully test-fired its new, long-range "stealth" missile, the Topol RS-12M specifically designed to defeat the anti-missile batteries Bush intends to deploy in Poland.
China also stands to get dragged into this standoff via the SCO or Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Putin is seeking SCO support for his gambit on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Iran is also looking to take advantage of the tensions to strengthen its ties with Moscow and seek entry into the SCO. Iran would also like to get its hands on Russia's latest-generation S-400 surface to air missile batteries. The mere rumour of that has already given Washington and Israel fits.
There's a lot at stake in this brinksmanship including the fate of NATO. Without unity the Alliance makes little sense and yet the interests of Western and Central Europe are not in harmony with those of Eastern Europe. In a mutual-defence alliance you should never admit nations you really aren't willing to fight to defend if it comes right down to it.
I think NATO is hopelessly overextended and I think Vlad Putin thinks that too. If I'm right, this problem is bound to get worse before it gets any better.
When Russia goaded that idiot Saakashvili into bombarding South Ossetia and then retaliated by invading Georgia and, later, recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, our leaders turned bright red and damn near blew up. Russia wasn't going to get away with that, no sir. Why, Russia would feel the sting of our sanctions and, better yet, we were going to boot it right out of the G8 too! That'd set Moscow a reeling.
Or not.
Putin, it seems, has the measure of Russia's vulnerability to Western retaliation - right down to the last kopek. He knows that the consequences, if they materialize at all, will be insignificant compared to the popularity he'll enjoy at home - where it matters.
This isn't just about Georgia or the autonomy of these two, small states. No, it's much bigger than that. It's about Western solidarity and how far that can be stretched.
Europe doesn't want to get caught in the middle of a BushChehney pissing match with the Kremlin. Winter isn't far off and the Euros know that their supply of Russian oil and gas could be the first casualty of American adventurism.
The European Union made the requisite threats of sanctions against Russia but The Guardian reports the EU is now backing away from any action.
Russia's foreign ministry spokesman, Andrey Nesterenko, ...lambasted Nato for "putting pressure" on Russia and said that there could be "irreversible consequences" for stability in Europe. Nato had no "moral right to lecture Russia," he added.
The Kremlin's defiant and unapologetic tone comes ahead of a special EU summit in Brussels on Monday, called by France, to discuss the EU's future relations with Russia. On Thursday, France's foreign minister, Bernard Coucher, intimated that sanctions against Moscow would be discussed.
Yesterday, though, the EU appeared to be rapidly retreating from this position.
Moscow has made clear it will respond to any punitive measures from Brussels, which could include the suspension of a new EU-Russia partnership agreement. "The time to pass sanctions has certainly not come," said a senior diplomat from France, which holds the EU presidency.
Analysts in Moscow today said that Russia's leadership was relatively relaxed about the threat of EU sanctions. "I don't think the contemporary west has any means to punish a state that is not quite a rogue state," Yulia Latynina, a commentator with the independent Echo of Moscow radio station told the Guardian.
She went on: "The Kremlin didn't take Tbilisi and didn't shoot (Mikheil) Saakashvili. What the west can really do — expelling Russia from the G8 or the World Trade Organisation — isn't important.'
Like it or not, the East-West game is only getting started. Yesterday Russia successfully test-fired its new, long-range "stealth" missile, the Topol RS-12M specifically designed to defeat the anti-missile batteries Bush intends to deploy in Poland.
China also stands to get dragged into this standoff via the SCO or Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Putin is seeking SCO support for his gambit on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Iran is also looking to take advantage of the tensions to strengthen its ties with Moscow and seek entry into the SCO. Iran would also like to get its hands on Russia's latest-generation S-400 surface to air missile batteries. The mere rumour of that has already given Washington and Israel fits.
There's a lot at stake in this brinksmanship including the fate of NATO. Without unity the Alliance makes little sense and yet the interests of Western and Central Europe are not in harmony with those of Eastern Europe. In a mutual-defence alliance you should never admit nations you really aren't willing to fight to defend if it comes right down to it.
I think NATO is hopelessly overextended and I think Vlad Putin thinks that too. If I'm right, this problem is bound to get worse before it gets any better.
And Now, Wrap Up the Disgruntled Women's Vote
John McCain is all about experience. He says so every chance he gets to anyone who'll listen.
So, who did John pick as his veep candidate - the person who will have to take over the reins in the Oval Office when his already wobbly mind packs in?
It's Alaska's rookie governor Sarah Palin! Sarah has all the credentials one would expect in someone second to the throne. She was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska until just two years ago and has held the governorship of that state since, gasp, 2006.
Mayor of a town of 6,000 to vice president in two easy steps. Just add water and stir!
Why did McCain pass over far more "experienced" prospects? Hmmm, I don't know, can you figure it out?
Before the announcement, McCain's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, said,
"He's going to choose someone who can be a partner in governing. He's going to choose someone who brings character and principle to the table and who shares his priorities. And I'm confident that he's going to make a great pick."
Oh great, we're going to have the mayor of Wasilla as McCain's "partner in governing."
So, who did John pick as his veep candidate - the person who will have to take over the reins in the Oval Office when his already wobbly mind packs in?
It's Alaska's rookie governor Sarah Palin! Sarah has all the credentials one would expect in someone second to the throne. She was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska until just two years ago and has held the governorship of that state since, gasp, 2006.
Mayor of a town of 6,000 to vice president in two easy steps. Just add water and stir!
Why did McCain pass over far more "experienced" prospects? Hmmm, I don't know, can you figure it out?
Before the announcement, McCain's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, said,
"He's going to choose someone who can be a partner in governing. He's going to choose someone who brings character and principle to the table and who shares his priorities. And I'm confident that he's going to make a great pick."
Oh great, we're going to have the mayor of Wasilla as McCain's "partner in governing."
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Obama Puts the Boots to McCain, Next Up - Gustav
How jittery are the Republicans? Ask Gustav. As the latest tropical storm/hurricane tracks steadily toward New Orleans, GOP leaders are seriously considering whether to postpone their presidential nomination convention.
With a nominee who'd like nothing better than to try on Bush's skivvies, a Gustav/Katrina confluence has senior Repugs soiling their own. Damn but it looks good on them.
New Orleans was three years ago - and remains - a disgrace for the Republican Party. They dodged many a bullet but the flooded districts of the Big Easy stuck, and they know it.
Meanwhile, I listened to a speech tonight that was pure Roosevelt, straight Kennedy. Barack Obama's acceptance speech was seismic. It really was. It was, at once calm and energizing, full of promise, not fear. I'm not sure that John McCain might have preferred a Category 5 hit on Bourbon Street to the hurricane lashing he got from Obama.
For those who weren't sure if Obama could actually battle McCain, tonight showed the gloves are very much off and that Obama isn't just willing, he's perfectly ready and willing to do just that.
McCain's biggest problem isn't Barack Obama. It's John McCain, closely followed in second place by George w. Bush. I remember a drill instructor who turned to a somewhat awkward squadron mate and threatened to "rip your arm off and beat you to death with it." That arm, of course, is everything, every lofty principle, that McCain made people believe he stood for in 2000. McCain's video legacy is like Kryptonite to Superman, except that it's entirely of his own making.
Obama also stuck a harpoon in McCain's side tonight when he announced that temperment is as important as experience in a Commander in Chief. There's another 20-lashes with a briney Cat for the Old Cold Warrior.
Yeah, from what I watched, I do believe that McCain would rather see New Orelans washed out to sea than take the thrashing he got tonight.
With a nominee who'd like nothing better than to try on Bush's skivvies, a Gustav/Katrina confluence has senior Repugs soiling their own. Damn but it looks good on them.
New Orleans was three years ago - and remains - a disgrace for the Republican Party. They dodged many a bullet but the flooded districts of the Big Easy stuck, and they know it.
Meanwhile, I listened to a speech tonight that was pure Roosevelt, straight Kennedy. Barack Obama's acceptance speech was seismic. It really was. It was, at once calm and energizing, full of promise, not fear. I'm not sure that John McCain might have preferred a Category 5 hit on Bourbon Street to the hurricane lashing he got from Obama.
For those who weren't sure if Obama could actually battle McCain, tonight showed the gloves are very much off and that Obama isn't just willing, he's perfectly ready and willing to do just that.
McCain's biggest problem isn't Barack Obama. It's John McCain, closely followed in second place by George w. Bush. I remember a drill instructor who turned to a somewhat awkward squadron mate and threatened to "rip your arm off and beat you to death with it." That arm, of course, is everything, every lofty principle, that McCain made people believe he stood for in 2000. McCain's video legacy is like Kryptonite to Superman, except that it's entirely of his own making.
Obama also stuck a harpoon in McCain's side tonight when he announced that temperment is as important as experience in a Commander in Chief. There's another 20-lashes with a briney Cat for the Old Cold Warrior.
Yeah, from what I watched, I do believe that McCain would rather see New Orelans washed out to sea than take the thrashing he got tonight.
Election Time - Bring On the Degenerates
The far-right, for all its supposed puritanical Christianity, doesn't hesitate to embrace degenerates. In fact, it's the natural home of deviants, offering them a banquet of their favourite foods - fear, bigotry, hatred and greed.
John McCain was attacked by these types in his presidential bid in 2000. George w. Bush sat by and allowed it to happen. Now this same bunch is attacking Barack Obama and, this time, it's the man of self-proclaimed lofty principles, McCain himself, who is sitting by and allowing it to happen.
McClatchey news service has an article today describing how Obama's campaign is spending a bundle on radio and television ads in Kentucky stressing that the Democratic nominee is a Christian. Why? Because the deviants, perverts and degenerates of the far right have been effectively spinning the story that Obama is a Muslim and, as such, a threat to America.
John McCain won't say it but these supporters seek nothing less than to undermine democracy to skew the vote by using blatant lies to exploit the fears and bigotry of vulnerable voters. It's completely anti-democratic. This is the stuff of tyrants and dictators. Perhaps that's more than sheer coincidence.
We have our share of these vermin in Canada also. I'm not saying we have anything like the American situation but still we have more than enough of these types. And it's certainly nothing new.
I can remember Pierre Trudeau's first election as prime minister. It was the first time I was eligible to vote. Back then there was no internet as a vehicle for spreading lies but they made up for it with leaflets that were quietly circulated claiming Trudeau was a draft-dodging, french-speaking, Catholic, communist sympathizing, homosexual. If you were bigoted about anything, they hit on it. I was surprised at the time to see intelligent, well-off people circulating this trash - and they did.
It was no fluke that Preston Manning's Reform Party turned into the destination of choice for bigots of all varieties. When they exposed themselves by making racist remarks, Manning had to punt them to a safe distance. Stephen Harper, aided by the collusion of Peter MacKay, brought that segment of the far-right into the Conservative Party.
How will they manifest their powers in the next federal election? I don't know but, given Harper's giddy delight in Rovian tactics, I'm sure we won't have long to wait to see them in action. Sad, really.
John McCain was attacked by these types in his presidential bid in 2000. George w. Bush sat by and allowed it to happen. Now this same bunch is attacking Barack Obama and, this time, it's the man of self-proclaimed lofty principles, McCain himself, who is sitting by and allowing it to happen.
McClatchey news service has an article today describing how Obama's campaign is spending a bundle on radio and television ads in Kentucky stressing that the Democratic nominee is a Christian. Why? Because the deviants, perverts and degenerates of the far right have been effectively spinning the story that Obama is a Muslim and, as such, a threat to America.
John McCain won't say it but these supporters seek nothing less than to undermine democracy to skew the vote by using blatant lies to exploit the fears and bigotry of vulnerable voters. It's completely anti-democratic. This is the stuff of tyrants and dictators. Perhaps that's more than sheer coincidence.
We have our share of these vermin in Canada also. I'm not saying we have anything like the American situation but still we have more than enough of these types. And it's certainly nothing new.
I can remember Pierre Trudeau's first election as prime minister. It was the first time I was eligible to vote. Back then there was no internet as a vehicle for spreading lies but they made up for it with leaflets that were quietly circulated claiming Trudeau was a draft-dodging, french-speaking, Catholic, communist sympathizing, homosexual. If you were bigoted about anything, they hit on it. I was surprised at the time to see intelligent, well-off people circulating this trash - and they did.
It was no fluke that Preston Manning's Reform Party turned into the destination of choice for bigots of all varieties. When they exposed themselves by making racist remarks, Manning had to punt them to a safe distance. Stephen Harper, aided by the collusion of Peter MacKay, brought that segment of the far-right into the Conservative Party.
How will they manifest their powers in the next federal election? I don't know but, given Harper's giddy delight in Rovian tactics, I'm sure we won't have long to wait to see them in action. Sad, really.
Tired of Wet Weekend Weather?
Have you ever wondered why the weather so often turns lousy just in time for the weekend? It's a great annoyance to the Monday to Friday crowd who see blue skies while they're on the job and rain clouds when they're not.
Here in the south coastal area of British Columbia, last summer seemed to be a steady pattern of rainy weekends. It was more than just noticeable.
Spanish researchers claim to have found evidence that, in some parts of Europe at least, the weather really does follow a weekly pattern which they claim may be man-made. The team studied Spanish data from 1961 to 2004. Their analysis suggests that weekday work activity generates far more air pollution that drops sharply on weekends. This, in turn, causes changes in air circulation that result in rainier weekends. Or at least that's the theory.
Out here we know a thing or three about rain. We get to study it steadily from November to May, year in and year out. We know there are a lot of sources of rain. El Nino, La Nina, and the Pineapple Express come to mind. Still, an urban link to weekly precipitation patters would be pretty interesting.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Arctic Ice Melt Nears Record
With several weeks remaining in the summer melt season, Arctic Ocean ice has already reached the second-lowest known level. Scientists find the degree of melt surprising given that we've had a relatively cold summer. The record melt happened last summer.
Arctic sea ice melting typically slows by now but this year the decline has remained steady. From The Star:
"It's an unfortunate sign that climate change is coming rapidly to the Arctic and that we really need to address the issue of global warming on a national level," said Christopher Krenz, Arctic project manager for Oceana.
"This is not surprising but it is alarming," said Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska. ``This was a relatively cool summer, and to have ice decrease to the second lowest minimum on record demonstrates that global warming's ongoing impact is profound."
Arctic sea ice melting typically slows by now but this year the decline has remained steady. From The Star:
"It's an unfortunate sign that climate change is coming rapidly to the Arctic and that we really need to address the issue of global warming on a national level," said Christopher Krenz, Arctic project manager for Oceana.
"This is not surprising but it is alarming," said Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska. ``This was a relatively cool summer, and to have ice decrease to the second lowest minimum on record demonstrates that global warming's ongoing impact is profound."
A Troubling Look Inside Kandahar
The Taliban are gradually retaking Kandahar City, the capital of Kandahar province, Canada's remit under the NATO-led, International Security Assistance Force, ISAF.
The map above shows you the districts of Kandahar province, a couple of which you may find familiar - Panjwai and Spin Boldak. That's where Canada's combat troops seem to do the lion's share of their fighting. The other districts you might never heard of before but, then again, there are some pretty big areas of Kandahar province where we don't maintain a presence because we're so grossly understrength.
In June the Taliban launched a stunning attack on Kandahar's prison, killing the guards and freeing about 900-prisoners including about 350-Taliban. The impact of that hit and run raid is still being felt among the people of Kandahar City.
>The New York Times reports that, since June, confidence in the Karazi government has cratered:
"The prison break, on June 13, was a spectacular propaganda coup for the Taliban not only in freeing their comrades and flaunting their strength, but also in exposing the catastrophic weakness of the Afghan government, its army and the police, as well as the international forces trying to secure Kandahar.
In the weeks since the prison break, security has further deteriorated in this southern Afghan city, once the de facto capital of the Taliban, that has become a renewed front line in the battle against the radical Islamist movement. The failure of the American-backed Afghan government to protect Kandahar has rippled across the rest of the country and complicated the task of NATO forces, which have suffered more deaths here this year than at any time since the 2001 invasion.
A rising chorus of complaints equally scathing about the failings of the government can be heard around the country. The collapsing confidence in the government of President Hamid Karzai is so serious that if the Taliban had wanted to, they could have seized control of the city of Kandahar on the night of the prison break, one Western diplomat in Kabul said.
The only reason they did not was they did not expect the government and the NATO reaction to be so weak, he said.
In fact, interviews with local officials and other people here who witnessed the bold prison break and its aftermath show that the level of government organization and security was woefully inadequate around what was clearly a high-priority target for the Taliban.
There were only 10 guards at the prison that night and about 1,400 inmates, said Col. Abdullah Bawar, the new head of the prison. In the immediate aftermath of the prison break, terrified local residents closed their shops and the town was silent for days as people braced themselves for more violence, including a possible attack on the city.
“We don’t know exactly if the Taliban is powerful, we have heard that,” said Gul Muhammad, 35, a shopkeeper who witnessed the assault on the prison and was even thrown off his feet by the blast. “But when we see this kind of attack, it seems they are very powerful."
Haji Muhammad Musa Hotak, a member of Parliament from Wardak Province, near the capital, Kabul, warned that the gap between the people and the government had grown dire.
So wide is it, in fact, the situation reminds him of the end of the Communist era, when support for the government of the Soviet-backed president, Najibullah, began collapsing under the onslaught of the mujahedeen, who had waged a 13-year resistance in the name of Islam against successive Communist rulers.
The Taliban attack has also shaken local confidence in the international forces here and exposed the difficult situation of the understaffed Canadian troops in Kandahar, who have lost 90 soldiers in the last two and a half years in the province trying to contain an increasingly virulent Taliban insurgency.
On the night of the prison break, Canadian troops based in the town as part of the NATO-led international Security Assistance Force were busy dealing with a number of roadside bombs planted, apparently in a coordinated plan to divert the attention of security forces from the attack.
The failings make people wonder what the foreign troops are really doing in Afghanistan, said Mr. Daoud, the shopkeeper. “The Canadians are here, but things are getting worse and worse.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27kandahar.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
The core threat in this is in the loss of popular support for the central government. That lies at the heart of any insurgent's strategy. Undermine confidence in the government and its forces and you can cause popular support for the government to collapse. Once the government loses the support of its people, the counterinsurgency forces defending the government come to be seen, not as protectors, but as oppressors unnecessarily dragging out their war and inflicting suffering on the people.
Incidents like the weekend's American air bombardment said, by the Karzai government, UN observers, the provincial governor and the locals to have killed some 90-civilians, 60 of them children, acquire the significance of the Boston Massacre. Like the mythical Boston Massacre, it's a great propaganda tool for the insurgency, one that has legs and traction.
Our military support is crucial to the Kabul government but more important is the support of the Afghan people. Once popular support is lost our troops become not the defenders of the people but the bodyguards of the Karzai government.
And this reveals where trying to fight a military war in response to the insurgents' political war is all but doomed to failure. The Taliban can't engage us in a military showdown. They don't have the numbers. They don't have the weaponry. They can, however, undermine their rival political force, the central government, by inflicting a thousand small cuts that the military force is powerless to prevent. An ineffective government coupled with government corruption, the drug barons, the warlords - all of these things work in favour of the insurgency. Helicopter gunships and Leopard tanks are irrelevant to this.
Kandahar City isn't an isolated case. Many reports over the past few months reveal that the Taliban are closing in on Kabul. They won't try to capture Kabul but they don't have to. They merely need to cut the vulnerable ring road, surround the city and choke off its communications, transportation and trade routes.
What about the time factor? That, too, is on the insurgents' side. They know that Westerners expect to see tangible victories and that their patience for results is limited. When their forces spend years fighting an unwinnable war and steadily lose ground, people at home want an end to it. Algeria, French IndoChina, Vietnam, and Afghanistan under the Soviets stand as examples of what tends to happen.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Points of No Return
Polls show that the great majority of Canadians today get the idea of global warming.
Those that do, want something done about it even if they can't really grasp what that something is.
Those who want something done to arrest global warming want that something done in time even if they're unsure how much time we have to get that something done.
Read about global warming and associated climate change and you're bound to hear of "tipping points," which are points at which global warming and its spillover effects will be unstoppable.
Now, as I see it, it comes down to a question of which tipping point arrives first; the human tipping point or the climatic tipping point. We'd better hope it's the human tipping point and hope that we reach it in time.
What's the "human tipping point?" Consider it the point at which enough consensus exists to make effective global warming solutions not only possible but imperative. The point at which a sufficient majority of our species demands action that they cannot be ignored by our leaders or overwhelmed in nonsense by the denialists.
We'll likely reach that human tipping point when enough of us understand that we can change our world and that if we don't change, our world will change us all on its own.
If we don't reach our tipping point before the earth reaches one or more of its climatic tipping points we may find ourselves playing catch up ball for the survival of our species.
It has gradually become apparent that meeting this challenge may be in the hands of mankind, not our governments. I'm not sure there are enough governments capable of acknowledging and taking independent action if only to persuade and cajole holdouts into coming on side. Some nations have to start this and, so far, it's been a pretty piecemeal, muddled effort. That's in part because there are inevitable economic side effects of action. There are downsides. The trade off is limited downsides voluntarily sustained now or far greater downsides involuntarily sustained later.
Governments gave up posterity as a quaint and obsolete notion a long time ago and, in doing that, they deprived us of the mindset we require to tackle global warming. You see, respecting posterity entails leadership. It means persuading the electorate to do without something for the benefit of their country in the future. Our leaders aren't much into that any longer. They choose not to lead but to follow. Leadership has given way to manipulation. Appealing to fears, prejudices and greed is much easier, faster and more effective. It requires little by way of integrity, courage or vision. And yes, we've been conditioned to accept just that.
Many ask why do these things now when the really bad effects won't be felt during our lifetimes? It makes some perverse sense. Why do without for someone else? The answer is because what lies in store for that "someone else" will be the consequences of our actions. We've already set in motion processes what will afflict future generations. What gives us the right to continue that, to make life that much worse for them? What gives us the right to enjoy luxuries today that will cost the lives of women and children in less fortunate places?
Do you have that right? Do you think that's right? Don't go sidestepping for the exits, arguing that the science isn't in or that there's nothing we can do about it anyway. You're already doing something about it and what you're doing is already being felt around the world and will create even more suffering in decades and centuries to come if it's not stopped. What we've done in two or three generations is going to be paid for in scores, possibly hundreds of generations to come.
Do you think it's all right to walk down a local street, pick out a stranger and gut-shoot them so they die a slow and painful death? No, of course not. Do you think it's okay to go to the Third World and do that same thing? I'm sure you don't. Why then do you think it's okay to do that environmentally? Is it because you don't construe it as an act of violence? Is it simple "out of sight, out of mind?" Is it because you've taught yourself to look away and not think about it?
Change is coming and it's inevitable. Look at it like a tsunami. You're sitting at your beachside resort when the warning comes in of a possible earthquake-generated tsunami. So, do you remain in your deck chair savouring that Corona moment or do you pack up and head for high ground? You're just a layman. You don't know for certain that a tsunami is on the way. The experts don't know positively either but they believe there's a very real risk of a killer wave and we don't second guess them, we react.
The devastation that will be created by unchecked anthropogenic global warming will make the worst tsunami look insignificant in contrast. On every point of the planet, every square metre, our lives will change. There'll be no spot unaffected, nothing. A few places will actually improve in some ways but the number of them will be dwarfed by the lands and regions rendered uninhabitable. And once you render vast areas uninhabitable it brings change, often unwelcome consequences, to every other place.
There won't be any new Edens created by global warming. That's just silly. Adam and Eve had Eden all to themselves. There might have been the odd, troublesome snake but there was no horde at the garden's gate pushing its way in.
Taking effective action to fight global warming on both fronts - remediation and adaptation - doesn't mean reducing ourselves to penury. That's the fear you've been conditioned to respond to talking.
Think about this. As you read this, and I mean this very instant, the sacrifice required to fight global warming is as minimal as it's every going to get. Right now. Next month, next year, a decade from now that sacrifice is going to be much greater and, here's the thing, the longer you wait the less choice you're going to have on dealing with the problem. Time is not on your side, it's not on our side. The problem is steadily getting bigger and nastier while our options are just as steadily getting smaller and nastier.
The human tipping point we need to reach won't be found in any world capitols. It's in your mind and in the mind of every other member of our species. That's where the tipping point, our tipping point, has to be grown. That's where the decisive impetus for action will emerge.
Global warming. It's a problem that's all in your mind.
Those that do, want something done about it even if they can't really grasp what that something is.
Those who want something done to arrest global warming want that something done in time even if they're unsure how much time we have to get that something done.
Read about global warming and associated climate change and you're bound to hear of "tipping points," which are points at which global warming and its spillover effects will be unstoppable.
Now, as I see it, it comes down to a question of which tipping point arrives first; the human tipping point or the climatic tipping point. We'd better hope it's the human tipping point and hope that we reach it in time.
What's the "human tipping point?" Consider it the point at which enough consensus exists to make effective global warming solutions not only possible but imperative. The point at which a sufficient majority of our species demands action that they cannot be ignored by our leaders or overwhelmed in nonsense by the denialists.
We'll likely reach that human tipping point when enough of us understand that we can change our world and that if we don't change, our world will change us all on its own.
If we don't reach our tipping point before the earth reaches one or more of its climatic tipping points we may find ourselves playing catch up ball for the survival of our species.
It has gradually become apparent that meeting this challenge may be in the hands of mankind, not our governments. I'm not sure there are enough governments capable of acknowledging and taking independent action if only to persuade and cajole holdouts into coming on side. Some nations have to start this and, so far, it's been a pretty piecemeal, muddled effort. That's in part because there are inevitable economic side effects of action. There are downsides. The trade off is limited downsides voluntarily sustained now or far greater downsides involuntarily sustained later.
Governments gave up posterity as a quaint and obsolete notion a long time ago and, in doing that, they deprived us of the mindset we require to tackle global warming. You see, respecting posterity entails leadership. It means persuading the electorate to do without something for the benefit of their country in the future. Our leaders aren't much into that any longer. They choose not to lead but to follow. Leadership has given way to manipulation. Appealing to fears, prejudices and greed is much easier, faster and more effective. It requires little by way of integrity, courage or vision. And yes, we've been conditioned to accept just that.
Many ask why do these things now when the really bad effects won't be felt during our lifetimes? It makes some perverse sense. Why do without for someone else? The answer is because what lies in store for that "someone else" will be the consequences of our actions. We've already set in motion processes what will afflict future generations. What gives us the right to continue that, to make life that much worse for them? What gives us the right to enjoy luxuries today that will cost the lives of women and children in less fortunate places?
Do you have that right? Do you think that's right? Don't go sidestepping for the exits, arguing that the science isn't in or that there's nothing we can do about it anyway. You're already doing something about it and what you're doing is already being felt around the world and will create even more suffering in decades and centuries to come if it's not stopped. What we've done in two or three generations is going to be paid for in scores, possibly hundreds of generations to come.
Do you think it's all right to walk down a local street, pick out a stranger and gut-shoot them so they die a slow and painful death? No, of course not. Do you think it's okay to go to the Third World and do that same thing? I'm sure you don't. Why then do you think it's okay to do that environmentally? Is it because you don't construe it as an act of violence? Is it simple "out of sight, out of mind?" Is it because you've taught yourself to look away and not think about it?
Change is coming and it's inevitable. Look at it like a tsunami. You're sitting at your beachside resort when the warning comes in of a possible earthquake-generated tsunami. So, do you remain in your deck chair savouring that Corona moment or do you pack up and head for high ground? You're just a layman. You don't know for certain that a tsunami is on the way. The experts don't know positively either but they believe there's a very real risk of a killer wave and we don't second guess them, we react.
The devastation that will be created by unchecked anthropogenic global warming will make the worst tsunami look insignificant in contrast. On every point of the planet, every square metre, our lives will change. There'll be no spot unaffected, nothing. A few places will actually improve in some ways but the number of them will be dwarfed by the lands and regions rendered uninhabitable. And once you render vast areas uninhabitable it brings change, often unwelcome consequences, to every other place.
There won't be any new Edens created by global warming. That's just silly. Adam and Eve had Eden all to themselves. There might have been the odd, troublesome snake but there was no horde at the garden's gate pushing its way in.
Taking effective action to fight global warming on both fronts - remediation and adaptation - doesn't mean reducing ourselves to penury. That's the fear you've been conditioned to respond to talking.
Think about this. As you read this, and I mean this very instant, the sacrifice required to fight global warming is as minimal as it's every going to get. Right now. Next month, next year, a decade from now that sacrifice is going to be much greater and, here's the thing, the longer you wait the less choice you're going to have on dealing with the problem. Time is not on your side, it's not on our side. The problem is steadily getting bigger and nastier while our options are just as steadily getting smaller and nastier.
The human tipping point we need to reach won't be found in any world capitols. It's in your mind and in the mind of every other member of our species. That's where the tipping point, our tipping point, has to be grown. That's where the decisive impetus for action will emerge.
Global warming. It's a problem that's all in your mind.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Dear George
Dear George:
Your friends called today and asked me to speak to you, sort of a one man intervention if you like.
The trouble, George, is that you're a dummy, a moron. You just can't resist your compulsion to screw with things until they break, can you?
You screwed around with Iraq - broke it. You screwed around with Afghanistan - broke it. You screwed around with your army. Broke that too. You screwed around with your economy and, guess what? You broke it. You screwed around with Social Security but you were stopped in time although you almost broke it too.
You screwed around with NATO and, if it's not already broken, it's damned close. You idiot.
NATO, it's an "alliance" George, not your goddamned Foreign Legion. An alliance depends on mutual commitments, George. Mutual covenants forged from mutual interests.
You screwed with NATO until it became bloated and almost meaningless. It's got 26-members now. Can you name all of them, George? Of course you can't. And you want to shove Ukraine and Georgia into the bag before you're done.
Here's an idea, dummy. A mutual defence alliance has to be made up of nations that are actually willing to defend each other. That little prerequisite defines the territorial limits of NATO. That limit ended somewhere in Central Europe, say Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Beyond that, who cares? Here are a few pointers from today's Guardian you should think about:
"The new Nato states in the Baltics and central Europe are not, unlike the US or Britain, preoccupied with terrorism, Afghanistan, or Iran's nuclear potential. Their bugbear is the Kremlin. The Czechs and the Poles have agreed to host the Pentagon's missile defence system not because they worry about Iranian missiles, but because they feel more secure by having US troops permanently on their soil for the first time.
...The Nato-led coalition's lack of success in Afghanistan has exposed divisions caused recriminations, with Germany bearing the brunt of the criticism for its reluctance to put its forces on the frontlines.
Germany has also been central to the Georgia crisis, highlighting the limits of Nato's policies towards Russia and its post-cold war policy of expanding into the countries around Russia's rim.
In a report on the Georgia crisis to be released on Monday, the European Council on Foreign Relations says: "Moscow is well aware that few Nato members want to extend a mutual security guarantee to a country at war with Europe's biggest neighbour."
This cuts to Nato's policy flaw. "The main question is, are you willing to go to war for Tbilisi? I think the answer is no," said the EU official."
Let's be honest, George. This expansion into the Balkans and Caucasus is all about expanding your nation's sphere of influence into these regions. This is the expansion of America's sphere of influence right up to Russia's doorstep. This isn't about NATO, the Alliance is only America's beard on this one. You're just using NATO to legitimize your neo-conservative policy agenda.
"Are you willing to go to war for Tbilisi?" The question answers itself and in that answer lies the stupidity of expanding a supposed, mutual defence Alliance to Russia's borders. You want to put American forces in Tbilisi, George? Who's stopping you? Go ahead, just don't try to cloak it as a NATO initiative when it's yours, all yours.
I remember another George Bush, the one who led a legitimate coalition to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. I remember how, after the guns fell silent, that other George Bush stood up and proclaimed the advent of a "new world order." That guy must be in tears by now. You screwed with that new world order, George - and you broke it. Idiot.
George, you've only got a few months left to go, so why don't you just back off. Send Condi home, give her the rest of the term off. Ditto for Dick. Hell he's going to need the few months that are left just to burn records and documents, maybe go "hunting" with a few people who know too much. But whatever you do, just leave NATO alone, George. There's a chance, slim though it may be, that NATO might survive once you're gone.
2011 And Out - Will America Really Leave Iraq?
Has George w. Bush really folded his hand? Might John McCain have to oversee the withdrawal/expulsion of American troops from Iraq? The mind boggles at the possibilities.
Iraq's foreign minister says negotiators have hammered out a deal calling for the withdrawal of all American combat forces by the end of 2011.
There are two potential snags. The American committment to depart is "condition based" which seems to leave plenty of wiggle room for claims that conditions aren't quite right yet. The second issue is just what the tens of thousands of troops that remain after the withdrawal of combat troops will actually be doing. They'll supposedly be delegated to training and support duties. Perhaps.
Will conditions be right by 2011 for the withdrawal of American combat forces? Maybe, but don't count on it. The Kurds and the Arab Iraqis are still hanging around the OK Corral where they'll settle the Kirkuk question. The Kurdish Autonomous Region (where flying the Iraqi flag is prohibited) is fiercely determined to establish its claim to Kirkuk and the neighbouring oil fields.
Tensions have been simmering as the Kurd's secret police have been doing a little ethnic cleansing of their own, driving out Arabs and increasing the Kurdish population in advance of a referendum that has already been postponed to avoid an outright clash. Now the Arab and Turkmen population are pushing back.
Kirkuk has always been the 800 pound gorilla of Iraqi unification. It speaks volumes that, five years after the overthrow of Saddam, this critical issue remains unresolved.
Also unresolved are Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia and the freshly armed Sunni militias of the Awakening movement that have allied with American forces to drive out al Qaeda terrorists. Sadr, who is currently laying low, remains a political threat to the Maliki government and its Badr militia. That one is going to have to be sorted out.
And Iraq's Shiite government has now moved on the Sunni militias' leadership. The Baghdad government has issued orders to arrest 650-top Awakening Council leaders. The move is giving American generals fits. They fear the Iraqi move could drive the former Sunni guerrillas back into the arms of the insurgency and undo many of the gains that have resulted in a significant reduction of American casualties.
Many American military leaders admit it was the Awakening movement, not the surge, that has been truly responsible for the decline in American fatalities.
Iraq's foreign minister says negotiators have hammered out a deal calling for the withdrawal of all American combat forces by the end of 2011.
There are two potential snags. The American committment to depart is "condition based" which seems to leave plenty of wiggle room for claims that conditions aren't quite right yet. The second issue is just what the tens of thousands of troops that remain after the withdrawal of combat troops will actually be doing. They'll supposedly be delegated to training and support duties. Perhaps.
Will conditions be right by 2011 for the withdrawal of American combat forces? Maybe, but don't count on it. The Kurds and the Arab Iraqis are still hanging around the OK Corral where they'll settle the Kirkuk question. The Kurdish Autonomous Region (where flying the Iraqi flag is prohibited) is fiercely determined to establish its claim to Kirkuk and the neighbouring oil fields.
Tensions have been simmering as the Kurd's secret police have been doing a little ethnic cleansing of their own, driving out Arabs and increasing the Kurdish population in advance of a referendum that has already been postponed to avoid an outright clash. Now the Arab and Turkmen population are pushing back.
Kirkuk has always been the 800 pound gorilla of Iraqi unification. It speaks volumes that, five years after the overthrow of Saddam, this critical issue remains unresolved.
Also unresolved are Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia and the freshly armed Sunni militias of the Awakening movement that have allied with American forces to drive out al Qaeda terrorists. Sadr, who is currently laying low, remains a political threat to the Maliki government and its Badr militia. That one is going to have to be sorted out.
And Iraq's Shiite government has now moved on the Sunni militias' leadership. The Baghdad government has issued orders to arrest 650-top Awakening Council leaders. The move is giving American generals fits. They fear the Iraqi move could drive the former Sunni guerrillas back into the arms of the insurgency and undo many of the gains that have resulted in a significant reduction of American casualties.
Many American military leaders admit it was the Awakening movement, not the surge, that has been truly responsible for the decline in American fatalities.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Three More Canadian Soldiers Lost in Afghanistan
Three more gone. Same sad story. Foot patrol encounters hidden improvised explosive device - booby trap. The three dead were combat engineers attached to the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the PPCLI. A fourth member of the patrol was severely injured.
One of the dead, Sergeant Shawn Eades, was on his third tour of Afghanistan.
If You Only Read One Post on Afghanistan This Month, This Should Be It
And no, I didn't write it. Instead, it's a brilliant piece by Seumas Milne explaining why the Afghan fire is bound to spread and what we're doing to fan the flames:
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Canada's Troubles in Afghanistan Start at the Top
Here are a few home truths to keep in the back of your mind while weighing our progress in this maniacal war without end on terror:
1. An otherwise winnable war can be lost by bad military leadership.
2. An otherwise winnable war can be lost by bad political leadership.
3. Wars are rarely lost at the 11th hour. The groundwork for failure is often laid early in the game.
4. Wars are usually lost long before the losing side realizes it has failed. The outcome of a war may be conclusively decided long before the losing side has sustained enough damage to acknowledge the fact.
5. Superior technology and firepower are a poor substitute for competent political and military leadership.
6. Time is a precious and limited commodity in warfare. Fatigue sets in quickly and can be fatal.
7. Rarely are wars fought for the reasons fed to the public.
Pretty much each of these truths comes to bear on the way in which we perceive the war in Afghanistan. Our military leadership has been haphazard - at best. Read General Petraeus' counterinsurgency field manual, FM 3-24. This eye opener essentially digests the experiences and lessons of asymmetrical warfare since the days of the Romans. The players change, their weapons change, but the core principles survive. Then, having read that enlightening work, apply its recommendations to what we've been doing in Afghanistan. Sorry, I can 't do that for you, there's far too much material involved. Just, please, don't tell me we have the slightest hope of "winning" in Afghanistan until you've at least read the manual (which is, by the way, available, at no charge, in PDF format on the internet).
You don't need to take some measly 4-star American combat general's word for it. Read Caesar, read T.E. Lawrence or so many others. You'll find it all there. But - don't argue Afghanistan with me until you're able to discuss the salient aspects of guerrilla warfare.
By Petraeus' own writings, we're making every mistake in the book (including FM 3-24) in Afghanistan. I so wish the ghost of Colonel Lawrence had been around to whisper a bit of this reality to General Hillier before he cajoled his way through Paul Martin's office and on into Kandahar. Which leads me to bad political leadership.
I fully accept that Paul Martin fell for a song and dance act on Afghanistan. If, as Martin aides claim, he only approved it on Hillier's assurance that the forces could take it on and take on another major mission at the same time, what was Hillier doing giving this assurance? Either Hillier was smart enough to know that wasn't true - or he wasn't smart enough to know whether it was true. No matter which end you approach this from, it was lousy military leadership.
Then, as the enemy grew in strength and the mission took on burdens far beyond the worst-case scenario given Martin - Hillier did nothing to see that the Canadian force was appropriately reinforced.
Look at it this way. Hillier got the PM to sign on - and openly told Canadian TV cameras - that the 2.500-strong force was sufficient because we were going into that large province but only to kill "a few dozen ...scumbags." Given the history of Afghanistan, all its troubles and associated circumstances and perils, how could anyone say that? You don't take on missions - voluntarily, even beggingly - unless you're absolutely certain that the force you take will be able to cope with a worst-case situation. And then, when that worst-case situation emerges and catches you shorthanded, you do nothing to increase your numbers to the size of the force you ought to have taken in there when you first outlined the mission?
Imagine a Canadian general going to the prime minister of the day and coming out with approval for a war that will utterly exhaust our armed forces and leave them much less able to deal with any other threat anywhere, including Canada itself, that may emerge - and for years, possibly generations. Imagine that. Yet, somehow, that's precisely what's staring us in the face right now. If Hillier didn't warn Paul Martin off this godawful predicament, he ought to come out and explain why not? The Canadian people need an answer from The Big Cod on that one.
Sorry, ladies and gents, but winding up where we are right now , given all the clues and indicators, was foreseeable as at least "possible" if not straight out "probable." Why did this seem to come as such an unimagineable surprise by our military leaders?
Our political leadership failed - and continues to fail us. I don't believe you need to have much expertise in military history to see this coming down the line. Somehow Paul Martin accepted some pretty baseless assurances when he and his organization ought to have known better. But if benign gullibility is Martin's crime, his successor's has been far more culpable. Harper wants to be one of the boys, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of the other English-speaking democracies, the good old white boys.
Harper's leadership on Afghanistan is entirely politically-driven. That's bad news for the troops because it means their mission is compromised by a political agenda. The best trained, best equipped and most capable and motivated troops cannot overcome weak political and military leadership.
The Afghanistan war, or at least our chapter of it, began in 2001. Now we're in the bottom half of 2008. In the course of those seven years a lot has changed, not much of it for the good.
Afghanistan remains a failed state. Why? One reason is the destabilizing role of the insurgency, a problem compounded by the chaos in neighbouring Pakistan. That, however, is only one reason and there are others. Another key reason is that a strong Afghan state with a powerful central government is not in the interests of some very key players, among them the warlords (to whom we've handed over most of the country) and the drug barons.
It's no accident that Hamid Karzai remains the mayor of Kabul. He exercises only those powers the warlords are willing to give him and we're not doing a damned thing about that. Why? Because that would risk bringing us into conflict not only with a Pashtun insurgency but also with the Hazara, Turkmen, Tajik and Uzbek leadership. We'd be at war with everybody.
Time is a precious commodity in warfare and seven years is an almost unbelievable amount of time for a war and yet, as Milne noted in the previous piece from the Guardian, we've not achieved a single objective we had for invading and occupying Afghanistan.
There's no faulting our troops in this. They're not responsible for the abject failure of their leadership, political and military. The soldiers at the sharp end are doing a terrific job. They're well trained, committed and very capable but they can't overcome their shortage in numbers or the fundamental flaws inherent in "the mission" that will deny their efforts any meaningful victory.
1. An otherwise winnable war can be lost by bad military leadership.
2. An otherwise winnable war can be lost by bad political leadership.
3. Wars are rarely lost at the 11th hour. The groundwork for failure is often laid early in the game.
4. Wars are usually lost long before the losing side realizes it has failed. The outcome of a war may be conclusively decided long before the losing side has sustained enough damage to acknowledge the fact.
5. Superior technology and firepower are a poor substitute for competent political and military leadership.
6. Time is a precious and limited commodity in warfare. Fatigue sets in quickly and can be fatal.
7. Rarely are wars fought for the reasons fed to the public.
Pretty much each of these truths comes to bear on the way in which we perceive the war in Afghanistan. Our military leadership has been haphazard - at best. Read General Petraeus' counterinsurgency field manual, FM 3-24. This eye opener essentially digests the experiences and lessons of asymmetrical warfare since the days of the Romans. The players change, their weapons change, but the core principles survive. Then, having read that enlightening work, apply its recommendations to what we've been doing in Afghanistan. Sorry, I can 't do that for you, there's far too much material involved. Just, please, don't tell me we have the slightest hope of "winning" in Afghanistan until you've at least read the manual (which is, by the way, available, at no charge, in PDF format on the internet).
You don't need to take some measly 4-star American combat general's word for it. Read Caesar, read T.E. Lawrence or so many others. You'll find it all there. But - don't argue Afghanistan with me until you're able to discuss the salient aspects of guerrilla warfare.
By Petraeus' own writings, we're making every mistake in the book (including FM 3-24) in Afghanistan. I so wish the ghost of Colonel Lawrence had been around to whisper a bit of this reality to General Hillier before he cajoled his way through Paul Martin's office and on into Kandahar. Which leads me to bad political leadership.
I fully accept that Paul Martin fell for a song and dance act on Afghanistan. If, as Martin aides claim, he only approved it on Hillier's assurance that the forces could take it on and take on another major mission at the same time, what was Hillier doing giving this assurance? Either Hillier was smart enough to know that wasn't true - or he wasn't smart enough to know whether it was true. No matter which end you approach this from, it was lousy military leadership.
Then, as the enemy grew in strength and the mission took on burdens far beyond the worst-case scenario given Martin - Hillier did nothing to see that the Canadian force was appropriately reinforced.
Look at it this way. Hillier got the PM to sign on - and openly told Canadian TV cameras - that the 2.500-strong force was sufficient because we were going into that large province but only to kill "a few dozen ...scumbags." Given the history of Afghanistan, all its troubles and associated circumstances and perils, how could anyone say that? You don't take on missions - voluntarily, even beggingly - unless you're absolutely certain that the force you take will be able to cope with a worst-case situation. And then, when that worst-case situation emerges and catches you shorthanded, you do nothing to increase your numbers to the size of the force you ought to have taken in there when you first outlined the mission?
Imagine a Canadian general going to the prime minister of the day and coming out with approval for a war that will utterly exhaust our armed forces and leave them much less able to deal with any other threat anywhere, including Canada itself, that may emerge - and for years, possibly generations. Imagine that. Yet, somehow, that's precisely what's staring us in the face right now. If Hillier didn't warn Paul Martin off this godawful predicament, he ought to come out and explain why not? The Canadian people need an answer from The Big Cod on that one.
Sorry, ladies and gents, but winding up where we are right now , given all the clues and indicators, was foreseeable as at least "possible" if not straight out "probable." Why did this seem to come as such an unimagineable surprise by our military leaders?
Our political leadership failed - and continues to fail us. I don't believe you need to have much expertise in military history to see this coming down the line. Somehow Paul Martin accepted some pretty baseless assurances when he and his organization ought to have known better. But if benign gullibility is Martin's crime, his successor's has been far more culpable. Harper wants to be one of the boys, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of the other English-speaking democracies, the good old white boys.
Harper's leadership on Afghanistan is entirely politically-driven. That's bad news for the troops because it means their mission is compromised by a political agenda. The best trained, best equipped and most capable and motivated troops cannot overcome weak political and military leadership.
The Afghanistan war, or at least our chapter of it, began in 2001. Now we're in the bottom half of 2008. In the course of those seven years a lot has changed, not much of it for the good.
Afghanistan remains a failed state. Why? One reason is the destabilizing role of the insurgency, a problem compounded by the chaos in neighbouring Pakistan. That, however, is only one reason and there are others. Another key reason is that a strong Afghan state with a powerful central government is not in the interests of some very key players, among them the warlords (to whom we've handed over most of the country) and the drug barons.
It's no accident that Hamid Karzai remains the mayor of Kabul. He exercises only those powers the warlords are willing to give him and we're not doing a damned thing about that. Why? Because that would risk bringing us into conflict not only with a Pashtun insurgency but also with the Hazara, Turkmen, Tajik and Uzbek leadership. We'd be at war with everybody.
Time is a precious commodity in warfare and seven years is an almost unbelievable amount of time for a war and yet, as Milne noted in the previous piece from the Guardian, we've not achieved a single objective we had for invading and occupying Afghanistan.
There's no faulting our troops in this. They're not responsible for the abject failure of their leadership, political and military. The soldiers at the sharp end are doing a terrific job. They're well trained, committed and very capable but they can't overcome their shortage in numbers or the fundamental flaws inherent in "the mission" that will deny their efforts any meaningful victory.
It was stunning to read last week that the National Post itself has clued in to the fact that we're woefully understrength in Afghanistan. Wow, and it only took them seven years to notice! Even the Spot understands that we can't win in Afghanistan with the paltry forces we've deployed to Kandahar. Maybe if the Spot can figure that out there's hope yet that our politicians and generals may also reach that same state of belated enlightenment.
New Fish for Chipewayn - Yippee!
Fort Chipewyan, just downstream from the fabled Athabasca Tar Sands, seems to be raking in a lot of "firsts." For one there's the incidence of cancer among the local natives. But wait, there's more!
Now there's Petrofish, a new type of Goldeye - with two mouths.
A Parks Canada official from the Woods Buffalo National Park had a look at the mutant before handing it back to the Mikesew Cree nation. A report has been sent to Alberta's Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP), a cooperative that includes the Harper Department of Fisheries and Petrobucks, the Tony Clement Department of Dirty Needles, the Alberta environment department and silly walks, oilsands corporations and a few natives thrown in for good measure (those who haven't already contracted cancer).
Local natives are treating the mutant fish with alarm but, then again, they would, wouldn't they?
Rot At The Top - Eight Years of Awful Leadership
Well, we did it again. Washington wanted to play hardball with Moscow and succeeded only in exposing the weakness of the NATO alliance. As a symbol of Western solidarity, NATO has been left bloated, battered and bruised, largely by American bullheadedness since September, 2001.
NATO's Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has been a total dud. He's great at making grandiose pronouncements that are best quickly forgotten if only to avoid embarrassing the Alliance and Scheffer himself. He failed to rally the member states to make a meaningful commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. Those nations that have shouldered the burden - Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, France and Germany - have pretty much acted on their own rather than as a NATO force. That is reflected in the way each fights (or doesn't) by its own rules on its own turf. That's five out of twenty-seven member nations (how many can you name?). Doesn't sound very impressive, does it? Scheffer, a rotten leader.
There was Tony Blair, Washington's lap dog, its poodle. Blair's career can be summed up with the epitaph, "He went along to get along." He not only vouchsafed Washington's outrageous lies on Iraq, he tossed in his own for good measure. A rotten leader but a good judge of when it was time to get out with his hide intact.
Then, of course, there's the Wrecking Crew. No, I didn't lift that reference from the just released book. I coined it for a photo album I posted on this very blog on 21 September, 2007. If you want an amusing stroll down Memory Lane, check it out. http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.com/search?q=%22Wrecking+Crew%22
Ah yes, the Wrecking Crew. Leadership at its very worst. Consistently rotten to the point of perversion. They've squandered their nation's strength and its wealth, harming many to abet the already privileged few. Abroad they took their nation's prestige and goodwill and sold it cheap in pursuit of a radical ideology fomented from a viral hubris. It was a twenty-first century adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes played on a global stage. Applied delusion on a mass scale. Like all such folly it wasn't long before it collapsed under its own weight.
Bush, aided by the sycophant Scheffer, treated NATO as a child might treat a balloon - constantly blowing it up and squeezing it. With no effort to rationalize the Alliance or clarify and redefine its role in a post-Cold War era, Bush just kept on trying to toss in one Eastern European nation after another, a protracted campaign of passive-aggression against Moscow.
History has shown that alliances work best when there exist strong bonds, shared interests and common purpose. In Cold War NATO those elements were obvious and strongly-shared. It was actually a very large alliance, as these things go, and, despite that, it functioned quite well. Post Cold-War NATO is a bloated, clumsy thing progressively expanded through Central and Eastern Europe. There is nothing "North Atlantic" about the ex-Warsaw Pact states now relabelled as our own and very little that could pass for strong bonds, shared interests and common purpose, something evident in all the "no shows" in Afghanistan.
What are the strong bonds and shared interests between Canadians and Romanians or Slovenians? The question answers itself. Are we really willing to send our young men and women to fight over them? Of course we're not and our adversaries, real or potential, know it.
NATO has come to exist more as an extension of American foreign policy than anything else. This may be the undoing of NATO itself for it conflicts with the whole notion of shared interests and common purpose needed to maintain a healthy alliance. It represents the clash of Washington unilaterialism with a supposedly multilateral coalition.
Afghanistan may have marked the beginning of the end for NATO for it demonstrated the Alliance to be a square peg that couldn't be made to fit the round hole. With NATO members shirking "the mission" on a ratio of four to one, it's hard to depict this as a NATO venture at all.
Throughout the Bush years the West has consistently overplayed its hand. Bush overplayed his hand by going into Iraq unnecessarily with entirely predictable and yet, for the supposed leader of the free world, wilfully unforeseen consequences. American military power was never greater than before the first American tanks rolled across the Iraqi border. The occupation of Iraq showed little states that once dreaded America's military prowess that they had less to fear than they had imagined. By using force needlessly, Bush allowed the rise of Iran and the Shiites as the dominant regional force in the Middle East.
Now we have Georgia. Any guesses why Putin and Medvedev are dragging their feet on withdrawing their forces from Georgia? It's because we, once again, have overplayed our hand. Putin has been given a no-risk opportunity to see just what resolve NATO can truly muster when Condi Rice shows up in Brussels to crack the whip on the Alliance underlings. He has so much to gain and so very little to lose by delay and we've played right into his hand. Summer is almost over and Europe is anticipating an urestricted supply of Russian gas to heat its homes this winter. You do the math.
This game isn't over and we can't wish it away. If NATO is to be salvaged it will have to be rationalized with clearly defined purposes and equally clear commitments from its members. There is already talk of a two-tier Alliance - NATO Classic and NATO Lite if you like - which makes more sense as the days, and failures, go by. Organize the member states by commonality of interests and you will inevitably get back to a North Atlantic group (old NATO) and a Central and Eastern European group (new NATO) acting cooperatively but not in lockstep. That, at least, might restore some credibility to Article 5 of the Charter.
NATO's Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has been a total dud. He's great at making grandiose pronouncements that are best quickly forgotten if only to avoid embarrassing the Alliance and Scheffer himself. He failed to rally the member states to make a meaningful commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. Those nations that have shouldered the burden - Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, France and Germany - have pretty much acted on their own rather than as a NATO force. That is reflected in the way each fights (or doesn't) by its own rules on its own turf. That's five out of twenty-seven member nations (how many can you name?). Doesn't sound very impressive, does it? Scheffer, a rotten leader.
There was Tony Blair, Washington's lap dog, its poodle. Blair's career can be summed up with the epitaph, "He went along to get along." He not only vouchsafed Washington's outrageous lies on Iraq, he tossed in his own for good measure. A rotten leader but a good judge of when it was time to get out with his hide intact.
Then, of course, there's the Wrecking Crew. No, I didn't lift that reference from the just released book. I coined it for a photo album I posted on this very blog on 21 September, 2007. If you want an amusing stroll down Memory Lane, check it out. http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.com/search?q=%22Wrecking+Crew%22
Ah yes, the Wrecking Crew. Leadership at its very worst. Consistently rotten to the point of perversion. They've squandered their nation's strength and its wealth, harming many to abet the already privileged few. Abroad they took their nation's prestige and goodwill and sold it cheap in pursuit of a radical ideology fomented from a viral hubris. It was a twenty-first century adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes played on a global stage. Applied delusion on a mass scale. Like all such folly it wasn't long before it collapsed under its own weight.
Bush, aided by the sycophant Scheffer, treated NATO as a child might treat a balloon - constantly blowing it up and squeezing it. With no effort to rationalize the Alliance or clarify and redefine its role in a post-Cold War era, Bush just kept on trying to toss in one Eastern European nation after another, a protracted campaign of passive-aggression against Moscow.
History has shown that alliances work best when there exist strong bonds, shared interests and common purpose. In Cold War NATO those elements were obvious and strongly-shared. It was actually a very large alliance, as these things go, and, despite that, it functioned quite well. Post Cold-War NATO is a bloated, clumsy thing progressively expanded through Central and Eastern Europe. There is nothing "North Atlantic" about the ex-Warsaw Pact states now relabelled as our own and very little that could pass for strong bonds, shared interests and common purpose, something evident in all the "no shows" in Afghanistan.
What are the strong bonds and shared interests between Canadians and Romanians or Slovenians? The question answers itself. Are we really willing to send our young men and women to fight over them? Of course we're not and our adversaries, real or potential, know it.
NATO has come to exist more as an extension of American foreign policy than anything else. This may be the undoing of NATO itself for it conflicts with the whole notion of shared interests and common purpose needed to maintain a healthy alliance. It represents the clash of Washington unilaterialism with a supposedly multilateral coalition.
Afghanistan may have marked the beginning of the end for NATO for it demonstrated the Alliance to be a square peg that couldn't be made to fit the round hole. With NATO members shirking "the mission" on a ratio of four to one, it's hard to depict this as a NATO venture at all.
Throughout the Bush years the West has consistently overplayed its hand. Bush overplayed his hand by going into Iraq unnecessarily with entirely predictable and yet, for the supposed leader of the free world, wilfully unforeseen consequences. American military power was never greater than before the first American tanks rolled across the Iraqi border. The occupation of Iraq showed little states that once dreaded America's military prowess that they had less to fear than they had imagined. By using force needlessly, Bush allowed the rise of Iran and the Shiites as the dominant regional force in the Middle East.
Now we have Georgia. Any guesses why Putin and Medvedev are dragging their feet on withdrawing their forces from Georgia? It's because we, once again, have overplayed our hand. Putin has been given a no-risk opportunity to see just what resolve NATO can truly muster when Condi Rice shows up in Brussels to crack the whip on the Alliance underlings. He has so much to gain and so very little to lose by delay and we've played right into his hand. Summer is almost over and Europe is anticipating an urestricted supply of Russian gas to heat its homes this winter. You do the math.
This game isn't over and we can't wish it away. If NATO is to be salvaged it will have to be rationalized with clearly defined purposes and equally clear commitments from its members. There is already talk of a two-tier Alliance - NATO Classic and NATO Lite if you like - which makes more sense as the days, and failures, go by. Organize the member states by commonality of interests and you will inevitably get back to a North Atlantic group (old NATO) and a Central and Eastern European group (new NATO) acting cooperatively but not in lockstep. That, at least, might restore some credibility to Article 5 of the Charter.
Make no mistake about it, the West needs NATO or some similar alliance, to confront the threats and challenges looming this century. There's plenty of trouble coming, everything from resource wars to climate-driven mass migration - enough that we don't have to provoke needless conflicts. We need to take an inventory of what we're about to face and craft a new understanding of what we'll need in an alliance for this cetury.
Our world is undergoing upheaval - environmentally, economically, and geo-politically - that will call out for new leadership. The ideologues have shown themselves unfit to navigate these shoals. We have an urgent need for new leadership with a clearer vision, steadier hand and a lighter touch.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Harper Woos Tory Youth Vote
One thing Stephen Harper understands is the importance of staying in touch with young Conservatives.
The Temptation of Vlad Putin
Georgia attacks S. Ossetia. Russia repels invaders. Russia storms Georgia. Ceasefire deal is inked. Russia stays put in Georgia. Washington flies into a tizzy, summons NATO underlings to Brussels. NATO members threaten "sanctions" on Russia. Putin yawns.
What is Vlad Putin's game? I think it's just possible that NATO has presented him with a temptation he can't resist. It may have given Putin the opportunity to test NATO's resolve and explore the tensions that pervade the alliance. Putin may even sense a possible opportunity to fracture NATO's already wobbly solidarity.
Look at it from Vlad's perspective.
1. He knows that the major Western European powers are going along with Washington very reluctantly. They need Russia a lot more than they need or want Georgia. Russia is a main source of Europe's natural gas supply and it's become a vital market for Western European exports.
2. He knows that NATO's eastward expansion through the Balkans and Caucasus has been American-driven and that the US has pretty much ignored its traditional allies' reservations which, incidentally, included the very prospect of a Georgia-style conflict.
3. He knows that NATO has shown itself something of an alliance in name only in Afghanistan with some nations ducking the mission altogether and others placing such severe restrictions on the use of their deployed forces as to undermine their benefit to ISAF.
4. He knows that he can afford to test the waters. If the heat gets too much, all he needs to do is order his mechanized forces to drive back a few hundred kilometers and all will be forgiven.
5. He knows that the Europeans will ensure that NATO's response will be mild at worst. The Washington ideologues may have an appetite for reviving the Cold War but the Euros, who dealt with it in their backyard for half a century, want no part of that.
No, when Nick Sarkozy leveled his "or else" ultimatum, he might just have presented Putin an opportunity he can't refuse to test NATO's heart - and its spine.
What is Vlad Putin's game? I think it's just possible that NATO has presented him with a temptation he can't resist. It may have given Putin the opportunity to test NATO's resolve and explore the tensions that pervade the alliance. Putin may even sense a possible opportunity to fracture NATO's already wobbly solidarity.
Look at it from Vlad's perspective.
1. He knows that the major Western European powers are going along with Washington very reluctantly. They need Russia a lot more than they need or want Georgia. Russia is a main source of Europe's natural gas supply and it's become a vital market for Western European exports.
2. He knows that NATO's eastward expansion through the Balkans and Caucasus has been American-driven and that the US has pretty much ignored its traditional allies' reservations which, incidentally, included the very prospect of a Georgia-style conflict.
3. He knows that NATO has shown itself something of an alliance in name only in Afghanistan with some nations ducking the mission altogether and others placing such severe restrictions on the use of their deployed forces as to undermine their benefit to ISAF.
4. He knows that he can afford to test the waters. If the heat gets too much, all he needs to do is order his mechanized forces to drive back a few hundred kilometers and all will be forgiven.
5. He knows that the Europeans will ensure that NATO's response will be mild at worst. The Washington ideologues may have an appetite for reviving the Cold War but the Euros, who dealt with it in their backyard for half a century, want no part of that.
No, when Nick Sarkozy leveled his "or else" ultimatum, he might just have presented Putin an opportunity he can't refuse to test NATO's heart - and its spine.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Tony Clement Scolds Doctors' Ethics. Maybe He Wishes He Had Some.
Harper Uber-Weasel, HealthMin Tony Clement, has castigated Canadian doctors for supporting safe-injection facilities such as Vancouver's Insite. According to The Globe & Mail, Tony tried a new tack:
"Is it ethical for health-care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance, or purity or potency, drugs that cannot otherwise be legally prescribed?" Mr. Clement said.
Clement's mush-mouthed sophistry is, as always, over the top. No one supports "the administration of drugs." What the medical profession supports is the provision of clean needles and a safe place for addicts to use under supervision, a site that also offers counselling for those wanting to end their drug habits. As Clement knows this isn't about the administration of drugs. Close Insite and those very drugs will still be bought and sold and administered only in back alleys with shared needles that create an enormous health problem for the entire community.
CMA president Dr. Brian Day wasted no time kicking Clement to the curb where his type belongs.
"Dr. Brian Day said sites that allow addicts to inject their own narcotics under the supervision of medical staff have been successful in curbing illegal drug use and slowing the spread of disease.
"Is it ethical for health-care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance, or purity or potency, drugs that cannot otherwise be legally prescribed?" Mr. Clement said.
Clement's mush-mouthed sophistry is, as always, over the top. No one supports "the administration of drugs." What the medical profession supports is the provision of clean needles and a safe place for addicts to use under supervision, a site that also offers counselling for those wanting to end their drug habits. As Clement knows this isn't about the administration of drugs. Close Insite and those very drugs will still be bought and sold and administered only in back alleys with shared needles that create an enormous health problem for the entire community.
CMA president Dr. Brian Day wasted no time kicking Clement to the curb where his type belongs.
"Dr. Brian Day said sites that allow addicts to inject their own narcotics under the supervision of medical staff have been successful in curbing illegal drug use and slowing the spread of disease.
"We specifically take issue with the minister using that phrase," Dr. Day told reporters after Mr. Clement's speech.
"The minister was off base in calling into question the ethics of physicians involved in harm reduction.
"It's clear that this was being used as a political issue."
Clement, reaching even lower, then criticized Insite as ineffective, because most narcotics are still used in "back alleys and seedy motels." Wait a minute. Insite isn't effective because it isn't big enough to reach more addicts? So let's shut it down? Hey Nimrod, if that's your concern - reaching more addicts - why don't you simply fund more clinics?
The man is a total moral reptile.
Pakistan, Land of Circuitous Problems
What to do, what to do? If we want to achieve some sort of success in Afghanistan (and what that might look like grows smaller as the years pass), there will have to be some breakthrough in Pakistan.
Musharraf is gone. Like most things that happen in Pakistan, that's a mixed blessing, certainly for NATO forces in Afghanistan and probably for the Pakistanis themselves. Mushie might not have been a great ally to the West in the fight against al Qaeda but he was a somewhat effective keel for his country.
Without Musharraf, the two ruling parties will now have to try to govern and, in Pakistan, that's a Herculean chore. The pols are going to have to carve out turf that has been traditionally dominated by Pakistan's army. The military is actually far more than just an armed force. It's also a wealthy and powerful political and economic institution and, as such, tearing the country out of the generals' grasp may not be all that easy. Pakistan's military is more than familiar with seizing power in coups.
The other key segment of the military is Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency or ISI. This secretive outfit is still believed to be harbouring Taliban forces in the tribal lands and is also strongly believed to have played a role in the July 7th bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. Some experts believe the ISI remains a free agent utterly beyond the control of the civilian government.
While the attempted orderly transition of power into civilian hands proceeds there's the question of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and Dr. Kahn's nuclear weapons export shop that was never completely dismantled. There are some experts who fear that Kahn & Co. could surreptitiously resume business if the fledgling government gets distracted.
Finally there's al Qaeda and the Taliban operating relatively freely in the tribal lands. Mushie was never able to bring them to heel and he was Washington's boy, something that severely wounded his popularity and political survival. The new bunch seems intent on distancing themselves from America and, when it comes right down to it, there's really only one way to do that.
America keeps raising the notion of crossing into Pakistan to hunt down the terrorists and the insurgents but that's probably just noise. The US and ISAF are woefully understrength in Afghanistan as it is. Where would they get the megaforce it would take to try to tame the tribal homelands and purge them of the insurgents? That's really tough, forbidding territory and any infidel who seeks to take it on will be fighting more than the insurgents. They'll have to fight the tribesmen themselves and they are genuinely tough customers.
There seem to be no good answers on how to deal with Pakistan. Perhaps with infinite patience, and perseverence and solid groundwork, some breakthrough may yet be achieved, eventually. And yet the Bush administration's recent courting of India has created an enormous setback in relations with Pakistan.
What we ultimately achieve in Afghanistan may well depend on Washington's ability to sort out its problems with Islamabad. Don't hold your breath.
Musharraf is gone. Like most things that happen in Pakistan, that's a mixed blessing, certainly for NATO forces in Afghanistan and probably for the Pakistanis themselves. Mushie might not have been a great ally to the West in the fight against al Qaeda but he was a somewhat effective keel for his country.
Without Musharraf, the two ruling parties will now have to try to govern and, in Pakistan, that's a Herculean chore. The pols are going to have to carve out turf that has been traditionally dominated by Pakistan's army. The military is actually far more than just an armed force. It's also a wealthy and powerful political and economic institution and, as such, tearing the country out of the generals' grasp may not be all that easy. Pakistan's military is more than familiar with seizing power in coups.
The other key segment of the military is Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency or ISI. This secretive outfit is still believed to be harbouring Taliban forces in the tribal lands and is also strongly believed to have played a role in the July 7th bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. Some experts believe the ISI remains a free agent utterly beyond the control of the civilian government.
While the attempted orderly transition of power into civilian hands proceeds there's the question of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and Dr. Kahn's nuclear weapons export shop that was never completely dismantled. There are some experts who fear that Kahn & Co. could surreptitiously resume business if the fledgling government gets distracted.
Finally there's al Qaeda and the Taliban operating relatively freely in the tribal lands. Mushie was never able to bring them to heel and he was Washington's boy, something that severely wounded his popularity and political survival. The new bunch seems intent on distancing themselves from America and, when it comes right down to it, there's really only one way to do that.
America keeps raising the notion of crossing into Pakistan to hunt down the terrorists and the insurgents but that's probably just noise. The US and ISAF are woefully understrength in Afghanistan as it is. Where would they get the megaforce it would take to try to tame the tribal homelands and purge them of the insurgents? That's really tough, forbidding territory and any infidel who seeks to take it on will be fighting more than the insurgents. They'll have to fight the tribesmen themselves and they are genuinely tough customers.
There seem to be no good answers on how to deal with Pakistan. Perhaps with infinite patience, and perseverence and solid groundwork, some breakthrough may yet be achieved, eventually. And yet the Bush administration's recent courting of India has created an enormous setback in relations with Pakistan.
What we ultimately achieve in Afghanistan may well depend on Washington's ability to sort out its problems with Islamabad. Don't hold your breath.
Georgia On My Mind
Is NATO overplaying its hand? France's Nick Sarkozy is uttering ominous threats to Russia to get out of Georgia "or else." Condi Rice is convening a meeting of the whole scout troop in Brussels presumably to tell Russia to get out of Georgia "or else."
One ultimatum atop another. Vlad Putin may have a tidy stack of them on his desk before long. I suppose he'll read them. He's pretty shrewd so he'll probably give them some serious thought. After that, however, it's anybody's guess.
The trouble with an ultimatum is that, while they're easy to give, you do risk having to make good the "or else" part. Nick knows that which is why he's completely vague about the consequences France will inflict on Russia if the Kremlin doesn't fold.
The thing with threats is that the person on the receiving end first has to take the measure of the threat and then weigh the sincerity of the threatener. There's an enormous amount of guessing involved which is why these things sometimes go so very wrong.
So, what are we going to threaten Russia with? Is Stephen Harper going to raise an army, or even a division maybe, to send off to fight the Russians? Oh spare me, please. The people of Canada, like the people of Britain and the peoples of Europe have no stomach for clashing with Russia over something as piddling as Saakashvili's Georgia. The last thing America needs is another heavy-lifting job for its already beleaguered, "Stop Loss" hostage army.
What I fear most is that Putin has an accurate measure of the NATO alliance in its current bloated, hapless configuration. Even Afghanistan gives the NATO members the vapours. A shooting war with Russia versus NATO is a joke.
Maybe we'll reinstate the Cold War. We had enough trouble with that during the half century when we were still insanely wealthy and powerful. Actually, in a way, extending NATO to Russia's borders is a continuation of the Cold War the way we like to do things these days - on the cheap. Maybe we'll all go back to chipping in 4% of our GDP to contain Russia like we did in the bad old days. Won't that be fun (buy Lockheed-Martin fast).
The good news is that NATO has Condi Rice to advise them. She's an expert on the Soviet Union and should be on top of all things Russian. Of course her advice to the horde at Brussels won't be based on her academic assessment but in support of the policies devised by Bush and Cheney.
Condi has already had some tough words for Putin telling reporters that, "People are going to begin to wonder if Russia can be trusted." Coming from a key member of a government that no one needs to wonder if it can be trusted, Rice's admonition must be scary indeed to the Kremlin.
Keeping NATO intact was tough enough when we only had to contend with the interests of North Americans and Western Europeans. Tossing the Eastern European nations, with all their problems and baggage, into the mix was just plain dumb. Poland, the Czechs, the Balts and the Hungarians, sure. The rest? Whatever for?
What no one wants to acknowledge is that the extension of NATO to Russia's borders was an act of American neo-conservatism, plain and simple. It was always about poking the bear in the ribs with a sharp stick by extending America's sphere of interest into Russia's own backyard. It was a stupid power grab with predictable consequences.
It's curious that no one is mentioning what may be the greatest risk to our brinksmanship - driving Russia more squarely into a strategic (i.e. anti-West) alliance with China. Does anyone in his right mind think that Georgia is worth that price?
One ultimatum atop another. Vlad Putin may have a tidy stack of them on his desk before long. I suppose he'll read them. He's pretty shrewd so he'll probably give them some serious thought. After that, however, it's anybody's guess.
The trouble with an ultimatum is that, while they're easy to give, you do risk having to make good the "or else" part. Nick knows that which is why he's completely vague about the consequences France will inflict on Russia if the Kremlin doesn't fold.
The thing with threats is that the person on the receiving end first has to take the measure of the threat and then weigh the sincerity of the threatener. There's an enormous amount of guessing involved which is why these things sometimes go so very wrong.
So, what are we going to threaten Russia with? Is Stephen Harper going to raise an army, or even a division maybe, to send off to fight the Russians? Oh spare me, please. The people of Canada, like the people of Britain and the peoples of Europe have no stomach for clashing with Russia over something as piddling as Saakashvili's Georgia. The last thing America needs is another heavy-lifting job for its already beleaguered, "Stop Loss" hostage army.
What I fear most is that Putin has an accurate measure of the NATO alliance in its current bloated, hapless configuration. Even Afghanistan gives the NATO members the vapours. A shooting war with Russia versus NATO is a joke.
Maybe we'll reinstate the Cold War. We had enough trouble with that during the half century when we were still insanely wealthy and powerful. Actually, in a way, extending NATO to Russia's borders is a continuation of the Cold War the way we like to do things these days - on the cheap. Maybe we'll all go back to chipping in 4% of our GDP to contain Russia like we did in the bad old days. Won't that be fun (buy Lockheed-Martin fast).
The good news is that NATO has Condi Rice to advise them. She's an expert on the Soviet Union and should be on top of all things Russian. Of course her advice to the horde at Brussels won't be based on her academic assessment but in support of the policies devised by Bush and Cheney.
Condi has already had some tough words for Putin telling reporters that, "People are going to begin to wonder if Russia can be trusted." Coming from a key member of a government that no one needs to wonder if it can be trusted, Rice's admonition must be scary indeed to the Kremlin.
Keeping NATO intact was tough enough when we only had to contend with the interests of North Americans and Western Europeans. Tossing the Eastern European nations, with all their problems and baggage, into the mix was just plain dumb. Poland, the Czechs, the Balts and the Hungarians, sure. The rest? Whatever for?
What no one wants to acknowledge is that the extension of NATO to Russia's borders was an act of American neo-conservatism, plain and simple. It was always about poking the bear in the ribs with a sharp stick by extending America's sphere of interest into Russia's own backyard. It was a stupid power grab with predictable consequences.
It's curious that no one is mentioning what may be the greatest risk to our brinksmanship - driving Russia more squarely into a strategic (i.e. anti-West) alliance with China. Does anyone in his right mind think that Georgia is worth that price?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
McCain's Mental Muddle
I used to like the John McCain who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. I don't much care for the guy who calls himself John McCain today. That said I have had moments where I felt really uncomfortable watching the new McCain stumble into brain lock again and again on the campaign trail.
At the outset it was possible to dismiss the occasional lapse as a "senior's moment" but they're coming so fast and furious of late that questions are being raised about whether the Arizona senator is mentally fit to run America.
Check out this interesting discussion at the Talking Points Memo Cafe:
Bush Fiercely Upholding Joe Stalin's Legacy
George w. Bush is demanding that South Ossetia and Abkhazia remain Georgia territories, regardless of the wishes of the Ossetians and Abkhaz. George w. Bush wants to restore the same situation that was imposed on South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin. Yes, that's right, it was the ethnic-Georgian Stalin who pushed the Ossetians and Abkhaz against their will into the arms of Georgia.
From The Independent:
"...Hidden in the lush forest above the coast at Gagra in Abkhazia is a lime-green mansion; one of several dachas built for Joseph Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, along the Abkhaz coastline. He'd come for weeks in the summer, relaxing on the balcony or playing a game of pool with other leading Bolsheviks. It may have been here that Stalin made many of the decisions that scattered and divided nations, and led to many of the conflicts that have flared up since the Soviet Union collapsed. National and ethnic identities were shifted, encouraged or suppressed during different periods. Whole nations were deported to Siberia or the Kazakh steppe, scattered irrevocably like human dust. Borders between the different entities of the union were changed at will, often with the express intention of fomenting ethnic unrest.
From The Independent:
"...Hidden in the lush forest above the coast at Gagra in Abkhazia is a lime-green mansion; one of several dachas built for Joseph Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, along the Abkhaz coastline. He'd come for weeks in the summer, relaxing on the balcony or playing a game of pool with other leading Bolsheviks. It may have been here that Stalin made many of the decisions that scattered and divided nations, and led to many of the conflicts that have flared up since the Soviet Union collapsed. National and ethnic identities were shifted, encouraged or suppressed during different periods. Whole nations were deported to Siberia or the Kazakh steppe, scattered irrevocably like human dust. Borders between the different entities of the union were changed at will, often with the express intention of fomenting ethnic unrest.
In Abkhazia itself, huge numbers of Georgian settlers were moved in; the Abkhaz language was suppressed and the Georgian language was enforced in schools and universities. In fact, many ethnic Abkhaz talk about the Georgian rule over their territory in the same terms that the Georgians themselves talk about Soviet oppression.
While Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin undoubtedly ruthlessly exploit the tensions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it is a foolish mistake to think they created them. Ossetians and Abkhaz remember all too well the aggressive and unpleasant Georgian nationalism during the early 1990s, and have no desire to be part of a Georgian state. Meanwhile, after the wars in both regions at that time, many ethnic Georgians still live as refugees in grim conditions in Tbilisi and other Georgian cities.
The Abkhaz say that all the West's posturing over "territorial integrity" is meaningless – why on earth should arbitrary lines drawn up by Stalin be the basis for statehood in the 21st century? Now that Saakashvili has been humiliated over the South Ossetian conflict, the Abkhaz are more buoyant than ever, and it's hard to see the territory ever becoming part of Georgia again. The threat of conflict will always loom, though, and when the Georgians rebuild their army and country, we can expect to see renewed conflict."
Now, it seems, Canada and the US have announced they're "withdrawing" from a planned NORAD exercise with the Russians. Wait a second, it's a NORAD exercise. WE are NORAD. Isn't this a bit like refusing to attend your own, backyard birthday party?
Stephen Harper, never one to let facts get in his way, told reporters, ""In my judgment, this is a very worrisome development. It really indicates a Soviet-era mentality. "
The Ossetian and Abkhaz people have endured a century of intermittent fighting with neighbouring Georgia. Read the history and then ask yourself if we're really backing the Good Guys in this one or maybe just honouring the legacy of Joseph Stalin.
McCain Isn't Just More of the Same. He's So Much More.
John McCain knows the Iraq War is extremely unpopular with the American people. That's why he deftly changes the subject, saying there's no undoing the past and, like it or not, it's essential that America emerge victorious.
What the Old Cold Warrior doesn't want to discuss is his own Uber-hawkishness in the wake of 9/11. The New York Times takes a look at just that today and it sheds an important, perhaps even critical, light on John McCain's fitness to command the world's most powerful and, in the wrong hands, most dangerous military in the world:
"...Within hours [of the 9/11 attacks], Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.
“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”
...To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.
His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.
...While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi's opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.
...The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”
...Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)
One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others.
...Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.
...At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”
Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1218986227-SdI9iNC4PQ0VTrBpxPkTCw
It may be no coincidence that the neo-cons have gone to ground in this campaign. Even their imperialist/dominate the world website, http://www.newamericancentury.org/, has been shut down, apparently for non-payment. They must, however, be beside themselves in anticipation of an even more neo-conservative regime replacing BuCheney. And what a candidate. All the impulsiveness of George w. Bush and all the murderous bloodthirst of Dick Cheney rolled into one.
What the Old Cold Warrior doesn't want to discuss is his own Uber-hawkishness in the wake of 9/11. The New York Times takes a look at just that today and it sheds an important, perhaps even critical, light on John McCain's fitness to command the world's most powerful and, in the wrong hands, most dangerous military in the world:
"...Within hours [of the 9/11 attacks], Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.
“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”
...To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.
His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.
...While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi's opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.
...The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”
...Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)
One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others.
...Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.
...At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”
Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1218986227-SdI9iNC4PQ0VTrBpxPkTCw
It may be no coincidence that the neo-cons have gone to ground in this campaign. Even their imperialist/dominate the world website, http://www.newamericancentury.org/, has been shut down, apparently for non-payment. They must, however, be beside themselves in anticipation of an even more neo-conservative regime replacing BuCheney. And what a candidate. All the impulsiveness of George w. Bush and all the murderous bloodthirst of Dick Cheney rolled into one.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Arms Race Update - Welcome to the Bad Old Days
Too young to remember the Cold War? Don't worry, it may be back before you know it.
The Times reports that Russia is considering re-arming its Baltic fleet of subs, cruisers and bombers with nuclear weapons.
"Under the Russian plans, nuclear warheads could be supplied to submarines, cruisers and fighter bombers of the Baltic fleet based in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between the European Union countries of Poland and Lithuania.
The Times reports that Russia is considering re-arming its Baltic fleet of subs, cruisers and bombers with nuclear weapons.
"Under the Russian plans, nuclear warheads could be supplied to submarines, cruisers and fighter bombers of the Baltic fleet based in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between the European Union countries of Poland and Lithuania.
A senior military source in Moscow said the fleet had suffered from underfunding since the collapse of communism. “That will change now,” said the source.
“In view of America’s determination to set up a missile defence shield in Europe, the military is reviewing all its plans to give Washington an adequate response."
The Russian military also said it would ignore attempts to restrict the movement of its Black Sea fleet in and out of Sebastopol, in Ukraine. The Crimean port was emerging as a potential flashpoint in Russia’s efforts to prevent former Soviet countries on its borders from joining Nato.
This weekend Ukraine further angered Russian officials by offering to create a joint missile defence network with western countries.
The Russians have already indicated that they may point nuclear missiles at western Europe from bases in Kaliningrad and Belarus. They are also said to be thinking of reviving a military presence in Cuba. "
The Americans are predictably outraged even though the Bush regime itself is pressing ahead with development of a new generation of nuclear weapons for America's military. Once again it's "do as I say, not as I do" smothered in a layer of fetid hypocrisy.
Added to the other known arms races already well underway - China and India for example - this is just the sort of thing we can expect when rational diplomacy is trumped by red-meat ideology. We've gone down this road before. Then we were called back from the edge by sensible leaders. Today we've got Putin and the prospect of McCain. Oh dear.
“In view of America’s determination to set up a missile defence shield in Europe, the military is reviewing all its plans to give Washington an adequate response."
The Russian military also said it would ignore attempts to restrict the movement of its Black Sea fleet in and out of Sebastopol, in Ukraine. The Crimean port was emerging as a potential flashpoint in Russia’s efforts to prevent former Soviet countries on its borders from joining Nato.
This weekend Ukraine further angered Russian officials by offering to create a joint missile defence network with western countries.
The Russians have already indicated that they may point nuclear missiles at western Europe from bases in Kaliningrad and Belarus. They are also said to be thinking of reviving a military presence in Cuba. "
The Americans are predictably outraged even though the Bush regime itself is pressing ahead with development of a new generation of nuclear weapons for America's military. Once again it's "do as I say, not as I do" smothered in a layer of fetid hypocrisy.
Added to the other known arms races already well underway - China and India for example - this is just the sort of thing we can expect when rational diplomacy is trumped by red-meat ideology. We've gone down this road before. Then we were called back from the edge by sensible leaders. Today we've got Putin and the prospect of McCain. Oh dear.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Taliban's Brutal Tactics are Working
This week's murder of three international aid workers by the Taliban outside Kabul may make some wonder why the insurgents would resort to such grisly tactics? Surely killing innocents will alienate the Afghan public, right? This should all be a fatal error in the guerrilla's struggle for the "hearts and minds" of Afghanis.
Would that were so but it's not. These murderous attacks actually accomplish a lot for the insurgents. They make the locals fearful - and hence, respectful even complaint - of the Taliban. But that's not the real objective. The main prize is to break down public confidence and respect for the government side, the side that's pledged to protect the people.
In the Toronto Star, a Canadian advisor to Afghan president Hamid Karzai, retired Colonel Mike Capstick, says the Taliban tactics are succeeding:
The switch by Taliban insurgents to spectacular attacks, including the daylight murders of international aid workers that left two Canadians among the dead, has shattered Afghans' confidence in the international community and the Afghan government's ability to provide basic security, says a top Canadian adviser to President Hamid Karzai.
"It's a pretty bad year – not only for aid workers – it's a bad year for Afghan national police, international military forces, Afghan national army and tragically, Afghan civilians," said Capstick.
Capstick, who led the first Canadian strategic advisory team to Karzai's government in 2005-06, said "strategically, in the rest of the country" the picture is troubling as insurgents move "towards a tactic of doing the spectacular attacks."
Citing an attempted assassination of Karzai in April at a military parade, the Kandahar prison break in June, the July bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed more than 50 people, and a rash of "attacks on internationals like this," Capstick said the Taliban tactics are "working."
Assaults on unarmed humanitarian workers, on food aid convoys, and bombings that slaughter Afghan civilians have not triggered a backlash against the insurgents as might be expected.
Instead, he said, "it's causing people to become more fearful and for them to lose confidence."
"The Afghan people have lost any confidence that they had in the international community's and the Afghan government's ability to provide basic security."
Almas Bawar Zakhilwal, director in Canada for the Senlis Council think-tank, also sees conditions worsening. "The insurgency was confined to the south before, now we see it in the east and all around Kabul ... It looks like they're closing their circle on Kabul."
Would that were so but it's not. These murderous attacks actually accomplish a lot for the insurgents. They make the locals fearful - and hence, respectful even complaint - of the Taliban. But that's not the real objective. The main prize is to break down public confidence and respect for the government side, the side that's pledged to protect the people.
In the Toronto Star, a Canadian advisor to Afghan president Hamid Karzai, retired Colonel Mike Capstick, says the Taliban tactics are succeeding:
The switch by Taliban insurgents to spectacular attacks, including the daylight murders of international aid workers that left two Canadians among the dead, has shattered Afghans' confidence in the international community and the Afghan government's ability to provide basic security, says a top Canadian adviser to President Hamid Karzai.
"It's a pretty bad year – not only for aid workers – it's a bad year for Afghan national police, international military forces, Afghan national army and tragically, Afghan civilians," said Capstick.
Capstick, who led the first Canadian strategic advisory team to Karzai's government in 2005-06, said "strategically, in the rest of the country" the picture is troubling as insurgents move "towards a tactic of doing the spectacular attacks."
Citing an attempted assassination of Karzai in April at a military parade, the Kandahar prison break in June, the July bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed more than 50 people, and a rash of "attacks on internationals like this," Capstick said the Taliban tactics are "working."
Assaults on unarmed humanitarian workers, on food aid convoys, and bombings that slaughter Afghan civilians have not triggered a backlash against the insurgents as might be expected.
Instead, he said, "it's causing people to become more fearful and for them to lose confidence."
"The Afghan people have lost any confidence that they had in the international community's and the Afghan government's ability to provide basic security."
Almas Bawar Zakhilwal, director in Canada for the Senlis Council think-tank, also sees conditions worsening. "The insurgency was confined to the south before, now we see it in the east and all around Kabul ... It looks like they're closing their circle on Kabul."
The only thing surprising in any of this is that anyone should find this even slightly surprising. This is Guerrilla Warfare 101. These are tactics that have been proven over centuries from Africa to Asia, Central and South America to Europe.
The only way to win the hearts and minds of the public is to give them 24/7 security from the insurgents and that takes huge numbers of troops. Time is not on our side. Time is entirely on the side of the bad guys. We've already had seven years of wasted, screwing around, and we've been steadily losing ground year by year.
America's General Petraeus himself has said the cardinal rule of counter-insurgency is "Go big or go home." Well we certainly haven't gone big, have we? In fact, we're wallowing so far behind the power curve that the other side is steadily nearing a critical mass where they'll become unstoppable. Can't believe that can happen? Suit yourself.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Hey Condi - Shut the Hell Up!
No amount of hypocrisy will stop Bush's main White House shill, Condoleeza Rice from throwing out one ridiculous statement after another.
This is the woman who, after all, gave us the "mushroom cloud" gimmick about Iraq and, like the rest of these mutts, she's shown herself a compulsive liar time and again. Yes, that's right, Condoleeza Rice is an inveterate liar, a wilful prevaricator, unrepentant fabricator, shady dissembler, an unscrupulous tale bearer, rapacious charlatan, cheap hustler, low swindler, devious rapscallion and tawdry, sideshow mountebank. What she says is so unreliable, so wilfully and hopelessly tainted, as to be meaningless, farcical even.
Today Condysleaza laid into Russia for the Georgia fiasco. With a straight face, 'Sleaza warned that the time is past when one nation can invade another, occupy it and overthrow a government. Apparently the deadline for that neat trick lapsed in Baghdad in 2003.
Hey Condi, shut the hell up!
We Don't Need Clowns Like Saakashvili in NATO
From the Balkans to the Caucusus there are many scores just waiting to be settled. We saw that when Yugoslavia fell apart leading to massacres in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. Then Georgia beset Abkhazia and South Ossetia which eventually led to Saakashvili's pathetic assault on South Ossetia which inevitably backfired, sending the Georgians reeling for cover.
We don't need governments led by the likes of Saakashvili in NATO. They're much too unpredictable and unreliable to be trusted with NATO membership. Saakashvili revealed as much in his remarks today. They show a guy who is out of touch with reality and who thought he could bring the weight of the West into his showdown with Moscow. From the New York Times:
"President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, who has appeared repeatedly on Western television during the days of conflict with Russia, made frantic and apparently overstated warnings on Wednesday that Russian troops were poised to enter the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
In an interview on CNN, the Georgian president said the Russians “are closing on the capital, circling,” with the intention of establishing their own government.
...he also blamed the West for not intervening more forcefully, nearly a week after hostilities broke out between Georgia and its much larger neighbor.
“Frankly, my people feel let down by the West,” he said.
As for how he planned to halt the formidable Russian forces if they indeed headed toward Tbilisi, he said, “This will not be only Georgian troops” but an “all-out defense.”
Asked if the White House was doing enough, he said: “I just spoke to President Bush. Frankly, some of the first statements were seen as a green light for Russia. They were kind of soft.”
He said the United State should be doing more. “We should realize what is at stake for America; America is losing the whole region,” he said.
He dismissed allegations that Georgia started the fighting. “How can we attack Russia?” he asked. “That’s the ludicrous thing.”'
No, the ludicrous thing is that NATO entertained admitting a country headed by this screwball into the Alliance. It's becoming plain that he thought he'd pick a fight that the West would have to come in and finish for him. Imagine having to send our soldiers to fight the Russians for this joker. No thanks.
Despite all the outrage spewing from our leaders, we'd do well to keep a clear head as to just what really happened in the Caucusus. Check out this opinion piece from Seumas Milne published in The Guardian:
McCain's Spin Cycle
The crisis over South Ossetia is no laughing matter. It's believed that thousands have died in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia at the hands of the Georgian and Russian armies.
There is some wry humour, however, in the way the right-wing pundits have been flailing about, spinning furiously, before landing in a spent heap. They're incensed at Vlad Putin and damn well want something done about it but, when it comes to that certain "something," they keep coming up empty.
I'm sure the White House wishes it had some leverage over Moscow but it doesn't. American influence is at an all-time low. It's skint. It's worse even than the aftermath of Vietnam.
That may just be the real Bush legacy, the idea that global power is a weapon that works best when it's unused and that, above all else, even a mighty nation needs to pick its fights carefully.
WWJMD? Yes, indeed, What Would John McCain Do in this situation? Judging by his addled rhetoric of recent months, Johnny boy would probably find some means of unilateral action, some way to give Putin one upside along the head. Oh he'd sure as hell demand that Russia be kicked out of the G8 and he might even get his way. He'd certainly keep Russia out of the WTO. He might even try to reinstate the Cold War.
In other words, John McCain might damage America more than he could ever damage Russia. Why? McCain's gunslinger views aren't shared outside America (of course there's always Harper). The Euros aren't interested in playing McCain's game. They need Russian energy and, almost as importantly, access to Russian markets. So, if McCain can't swing Europe, maybe he could get the Asians to bite? Sorry, no. NATO? Not a chance (see Europe ante). Maybe a "coalition of the broke and needy" might rope in a few eastern European states but, no, they're all too familiar with the Bear on their doorstep.
Put simply, John McCain might just be the guy to isolate his own country in a weird sort of rebound containment. And an isolated America might find it a lot tougher dealing with its international creditors, particularly China.
George w. Bush has done a pretty effective job of hammering America on the anvil of his delusions. Maybe McCain will finish the job.
There is some wry humour, however, in the way the right-wing pundits have been flailing about, spinning furiously, before landing in a spent heap. They're incensed at Vlad Putin and damn well want something done about it but, when it comes to that certain "something," they keep coming up empty.
I'm sure the White House wishes it had some leverage over Moscow but it doesn't. American influence is at an all-time low. It's skint. It's worse even than the aftermath of Vietnam.
That may just be the real Bush legacy, the idea that global power is a weapon that works best when it's unused and that, above all else, even a mighty nation needs to pick its fights carefully.
WWJMD? Yes, indeed, What Would John McCain Do in this situation? Judging by his addled rhetoric of recent months, Johnny boy would probably find some means of unilateral action, some way to give Putin one upside along the head. Oh he'd sure as hell demand that Russia be kicked out of the G8 and he might even get his way. He'd certainly keep Russia out of the WTO. He might even try to reinstate the Cold War.
In other words, John McCain might damage America more than he could ever damage Russia. Why? McCain's gunslinger views aren't shared outside America (of course there's always Harper). The Euros aren't interested in playing McCain's game. They need Russian energy and, almost as importantly, access to Russian markets. So, if McCain can't swing Europe, maybe he could get the Asians to bite? Sorry, no. NATO? Not a chance (see Europe ante). Maybe a "coalition of the broke and needy" might rope in a few eastern European states but, no, they're all too familiar with the Bear on their doorstep.
Put simply, John McCain might just be the guy to isolate his own country in a weird sort of rebound containment. And an isolated America might find it a lot tougher dealing with its international creditors, particularly China.
George w. Bush has done a pretty effective job of hammering America on the anvil of his delusions. Maybe McCain will finish the job.
Shell Game
Well, at least they tried.
Shell Oil (that's Royal Dutch Shell PLC to you) tried to put a heavy coat of lipstick on its Tar Sands pig in UK advertisements, heralding the Athabasca project as "sustainable energy." That prompted the World Wildlife Federation to lodge a complaint with Britain's Advertising Standards Authority. From the Associated Press:
The advertisement focused on two of Shell's projects. One involves exploration in Canada's oil sands where bitumen, a tar-like form of petroleum, can be extracted and upgraded to synthetic crude oil. The ad also mentioned Shell's plan to build one of the United States' largest oil refineries in Texas.
“The challenge of the 21st century is to meet the growing need for energy in ways that are not only profitable but sustainable,” said Shell's full-page ad in the Financial Times.
The watchdog ruled that Shell breached regulations relating to substantiation, truthfulness and that the advertisement “was defined primarily in environmental terms.”
Citing a 2006 report by Canada's National Energy Board, the watchdog said the report claimed that the environmental impact of the country's oil sands projects were of major concern. Producing crude from bitumen can involve strip mining and generate more emissions than conventional crude.
“The ASA's decision to uphold WWF's complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that greenwash is unacceptable,” said David Norman, the World Wildlife Federation's director of U.K. campaigns.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Is It Time to Rethink NATO?
The essence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was mutual-defence. We were all pledged to come to the aid of each other in the event any of us was attacked - by the Soviet Union.
NATO never would have come into being if any of the signatories believed another might use the alliance to provoke a Soviet attack. It wouldn't have been tolerated.
Does that still hold true? Maybe not but the founding member states would be well served to read the Riot Act to our new, eastern European members.
A report from McClatchey Newspapers Washington bureau sheds some disturbing light on events behind Georgia's ill-fated attack on South Ossetia:
"Pentagon officials said that despite having 130 trainers assigned to Georgia, they had no advance notice of Georgia’s sudden move last Thursday to send thousands of Georgian troops into South Ossetia to capture that province's capital, Tskhinvali.
Not only did the U.S. troops working alongside their Georgian counterparts not see any signs of an impending invasion, Georgian officials did not notify the U.S. military before the incursion, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy.
Some experts, however, wondered whether the administration might have inadvertently sent Saakashvili mixed messages that would have led him to believe he could count on U.S. support if he got into trouble.
"The Russians have clearly overreacted but President Saakashvili . . . for some reason seems to think he has a hall pass from this administration," said former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
A "parade" of U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, visited Tbilisi to urge Saakashvili to avoid giving the Kremlin to act, a State Department officials said.
At the same time, U.S. officials said that they believed they had an understanding with Russia that any response to Georgian military action would be limited to South Ossetia.
Did America really get sandbagged by Saakashvili? That's hard to imagine but, if they did, it speaks volumes of America's hellbent rush to expand NATO eastwards. On the other hand, it could just be that the White House and the Pentagon - already facing enough problems with their military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan - want to distance themselves from failure in the Caucasus.
One thing is clear. It's time to rethink NATO and come out with some clear guidelines to ensure that no eastern European member can start a war we would all regret.
The Old Cold Warrior Sees Red
If John McCain becomes the next US president, he promises to show Russia some tough love.
McCain has long championed booting Russia out of the G8 and he might even get his way before the G8's relevance turns really wobbly. Now he wants NATO to get Georgia into the alliance ASAP.
Georgia? Some key NATO members have their doubts on that one. After all, had they allowed themselves to be steamrollered by Washington's earlier demands on Georgia, they might be facing an Article 5 call to take up arms against Russia right now triggered by some guy named Saakashvili. How long do you think the alliance would last in that situation? A week? Two?
Some critics say John McCain wants to refight the Vietnam War to redeem America's honour. It seems he might want to revisit the Cold War also, maybe even turn it from cold to hot.
John McCain is delusional.
He overstates his own nation's powers and underestimates his opponent's. He sees America and Russia in a simplistic, two-dimensional way. Old John doesn't seem to understand that, among the nations of the world who wish harm on the USA, Russia is well down the list.
America's chief rival in the coming decades will be China. What possible good can come to the United States by goading Russia into embracing China even more closely? This is not the time for empty American sabre-rattling. It doesn't work with a guy like Putin and it can even scare off your friends.
By the way, if a McCain White House did decide to reinstate the Cold War, who would fund that enormously expensive venture? Given that American can only do these things on borrowed money, would that come from the Chinese or the Europeans?
McCain has long championed booting Russia out of the G8 and he might even get his way before the G8's relevance turns really wobbly. Now he wants NATO to get Georgia into the alliance ASAP.
Georgia? Some key NATO members have their doubts on that one. After all, had they allowed themselves to be steamrollered by Washington's earlier demands on Georgia, they might be facing an Article 5 call to take up arms against Russia right now triggered by some guy named Saakashvili. How long do you think the alliance would last in that situation? A week? Two?
Some critics say John McCain wants to refight the Vietnam War to redeem America's honour. It seems he might want to revisit the Cold War also, maybe even turn it from cold to hot.
John McCain is delusional.
He overstates his own nation's powers and underestimates his opponent's. He sees America and Russia in a simplistic, two-dimensional way. Old John doesn't seem to understand that, among the nations of the world who wish harm on the USA, Russia is well down the list.
America's chief rival in the coming decades will be China. What possible good can come to the United States by goading Russia into embracing China even more closely? This is not the time for empty American sabre-rattling. It doesn't work with a guy like Putin and it can even scare off your friends.
By the way, if a McCain White House did decide to reinstate the Cold War, who would fund that enormously expensive venture? Given that American can only do these things on borrowed money, would that come from the Chinese or the Europeans?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Fresh Out of Statesmen, Awash In Ideologues
Who will negotiate with Russian strongman Vlad Putin? It won't be Georgia's Saakashvili. He's finished. It will probably take some sort of intermediary, a stand-in for Georgia, and that would be?
The Russia-Georgia conflict cries out for statesmen but, sadly, all we've got right now are ideologues and it shows. Ideologues are at their very worst in situations like this. They have little credibility and less persuasiveness. They're often one-trick ponies. When they run up against a nation that's not vulnerable to their coercion, we usually find that ideologues revert to angry denunciation and hollow gestures - tantrums, foot-stamping.
Unfortunately for our side, Vlad Putin is a hard case. When it comes to negotiators that pretty much rules out the Bushies or the Brownies. The Guardian suggests our intermediary might be Sarkozy.
What's unclear is just what is to be negotiated. Here we may run into considerable asymmetry. What Russia is after may be a far more expansive than what Georgia wants or what Europe wants.
From Moscow's perspective, Georgia may be a metaphor for its greater struggle against a steadily encroaching NATO. If the Russians can't roll back recent NATO expansion into the Balkan and Caucasus regions, it may still serve Russian interests to sow doubts about the alliance and the security it truly offers among NATO's new, eastern members.
Would NATO truly defend Romania against Russia? What do you think? Of course what I think and what you think doesn't matter. What's important to Putin is the impression left in the minds of those in places like Sofia and Bucharest, Kiev and Riga.
Georgia's Saakashvili was playing a bluff when he attacked South Ossetia. He's not stupid. He must have expected a different outcome than what he's facing just a week later. What's not clear is why. It will be fascinating when, months from now, Saakashvili spills the beans about why he pulled the trigger without noticing the gun was pointed at his own head.
A disastrous military adventure leading to the permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will surely spell the end of Saakashvili's political future. It will also at least somewhat destabilize eastern Europe. America, after all, is in no position to reinstate Cold War-style militarization through this region.
What we probably won't see anytime soon are the ripples now being felt by the NATO alliance. Whether Washington or Brussels wish to acknowledge it, NATO has suffered strains and at least hairline fractures over Afghanistan. There were some members who were uncomfortable with Bush's stampede to expand the alliance into eastern Europe. The Georgia debacle will do nothing to ease those concerns and doubts.
Russia now says it will halt its blitz into Georgia short of Tbilisi. It's also said it won't recognize Saakashvili. Probably everybody agrees on that one. Imagine Saakashvili sitting at the table and signing off on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He'd be hanging from a light post within weeks.
So an outsider will do the negotiating for Georgia and, by implication, for the rest of Europe and (to some extent) NATO itself. Sarkozy? Perhaps but he too is an ideologue, not a statesman. The risk to that is that ideologues will probably see this as a simple question of Georgia and a couple of autonomous regions to be stripped from the loser. That's an approach that would thrill Putin if only because it leaves all of the greater issues and his future options unmentioned and wide open.
We'd do well not to let the ramifications of this fiasco escape us. This isn't an isolated matter. To Putin and the Kremlin it's a couple of moves that may have a telling effect later in this chess game.
The Russia-Georgia conflict cries out for statesmen but, sadly, all we've got right now are ideologues and it shows. Ideologues are at their very worst in situations like this. They have little credibility and less persuasiveness. They're often one-trick ponies. When they run up against a nation that's not vulnerable to their coercion, we usually find that ideologues revert to angry denunciation and hollow gestures - tantrums, foot-stamping.
Unfortunately for our side, Vlad Putin is a hard case. When it comes to negotiators that pretty much rules out the Bushies or the Brownies. The Guardian suggests our intermediary might be Sarkozy.
What's unclear is just what is to be negotiated. Here we may run into considerable asymmetry. What Russia is after may be a far more expansive than what Georgia wants or what Europe wants.
From Moscow's perspective, Georgia may be a metaphor for its greater struggle against a steadily encroaching NATO. If the Russians can't roll back recent NATO expansion into the Balkan and Caucasus regions, it may still serve Russian interests to sow doubts about the alliance and the security it truly offers among NATO's new, eastern members.
Would NATO truly defend Romania against Russia? What do you think? Of course what I think and what you think doesn't matter. What's important to Putin is the impression left in the minds of those in places like Sofia and Bucharest, Kiev and Riga.
Georgia's Saakashvili was playing a bluff when he attacked South Ossetia. He's not stupid. He must have expected a different outcome than what he's facing just a week later. What's not clear is why. It will be fascinating when, months from now, Saakashvili spills the beans about why he pulled the trigger without noticing the gun was pointed at his own head.
A disastrous military adventure leading to the permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will surely spell the end of Saakashvili's political future. It will also at least somewhat destabilize eastern Europe. America, after all, is in no position to reinstate Cold War-style militarization through this region.
What we probably won't see anytime soon are the ripples now being felt by the NATO alliance. Whether Washington or Brussels wish to acknowledge it, NATO has suffered strains and at least hairline fractures over Afghanistan. There were some members who were uncomfortable with Bush's stampede to expand the alliance into eastern Europe. The Georgia debacle will do nothing to ease those concerns and doubts.
Russia now says it will halt its blitz into Georgia short of Tbilisi. It's also said it won't recognize Saakashvili. Probably everybody agrees on that one. Imagine Saakashvili sitting at the table and signing off on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He'd be hanging from a light post within weeks.
So an outsider will do the negotiating for Georgia and, by implication, for the rest of Europe and (to some extent) NATO itself. Sarkozy? Perhaps but he too is an ideologue, not a statesman. The risk to that is that ideologues will probably see this as a simple question of Georgia and a couple of autonomous regions to be stripped from the loser. That's an approach that would thrill Putin if only because it leaves all of the greater issues and his future options unmentioned and wide open.
We'd do well not to let the ramifications of this fiasco escape us. This isn't an isolated matter. To Putin and the Kremlin it's a couple of moves that may have a telling effect later in this chess game.
Okay, Hit Him With Your Purse
Western nations are keen to find some tangible role in unwinding the conflict between Russia and Georgia. One right-winger writing in The Times advocated giving Georgia quick admission into NATO. Another pundit, writing in The Guardian, suggests threatening to pull Russia's seat at the G8 - a tactic already endorsed by John McCain.
What to do, what to do? Here's a suggestion (and you knew I'd have one). How about we start by realizing that we've overplayed our hand? We (that is to say our Leader of the Free World, George w. Bush) decided to ram NATO's borders right up to Russia's doorstep. The logic behind that was always pretty fuzzy as was the actual committment behind it. Putting anti-missile missiles and radar systems on Russia's doorstep while pretending they were intended to defend against rogue missiles from Iran was another silly, red-meat provocation.
You have to work extremely hard to ignore the history of warfare over the past two centuries enough not to realize that certain actions tend to have quite predictable and proven results. One of these actions is to encircle and contain a major power. By turns, this sort of thing has sparked wars in Europe and elsewhere. A major player, seeing itself being hemmed in, turns paranoid and lashes out. Call it human nature if you like.
And that's exactly what Bush has been attempting - the encirclement of both Russia and China. Driving the world's paramount military alliance headed by the world's sole superpower right up to Red Square is an act of provocation and nothing but. Enlisting India to flank and contain China and threaten her oil routes to the Middle East is another blatant act of provocation. Maybe if the United States was looking at another half-century as the dominant industrial economy on the planet these options might be somewhat more viable. But America is in decline while the BRIC nations are in ascendancy.
Then there's the rationale for NATO. Did we really need Slovakia or Romania in NATO? What on earth for? Are they rushing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Afghanistan? Of course not. They get let into NATO, NATO issues an urgent plea for help from its member states, and they say "forget it." Huh?
My guess is that the eastern European states will be as reliable as NATO members as they were as members of the Warsaw Pact. Worse yet, this Georgian stunt demonstrates that they can do some rash, even dangerously stupid things that could have serious repercussions for a mutual-defence alliance like NATO.
We've overplayed our hand and the Russians have seen our bet and called.
Sometimes there are no miracle solutions. This is one of those times.
Washington accuses Russia of trying to force regime change on Georgia. Memo to Washington - that's not such a bad idea. The increasingly authoritarian Saakashvili blew it. It's not just the Russians who can never trust him again. On the trust issue, we're in the same boat. We need to send a clear message to the Georgians and to the leaders of the newly-minted NATO membership that there's no room within the alliance for adventurism (except, of course, the American type).
As for Moscow, well there's not a lot we can do. Sending forces into Georgia is so stupid even Cheney won't go there. Forget about the Security Council. Sanctions? It turns out the West needs Russia more than they need us. The last thing we need to do is to drive Russia away from the West and more closely into economic, political and military co-operation with the Chinese.
No, the outcome of the Georgian-Russian conflict won't be of our making. Nor will it resolve our provocations of Moscow or Russia's suspicion of Western intentions. Worse yet, America still has the Frat Boy while Russia sends Putin to the chess table.
If there are any lessons to be learned from this debacle, any gain to be had, maybe it's to understand the urgent need to defuse tensions between Russia and the West, even if that means backing down a notch.
What to do, what to do? Here's a suggestion (and you knew I'd have one). How about we start by realizing that we've overplayed our hand? We (that is to say our Leader of the Free World, George w. Bush) decided to ram NATO's borders right up to Russia's doorstep. The logic behind that was always pretty fuzzy as was the actual committment behind it. Putting anti-missile missiles and radar systems on Russia's doorstep while pretending they were intended to defend against rogue missiles from Iran was another silly, red-meat provocation.
You have to work extremely hard to ignore the history of warfare over the past two centuries enough not to realize that certain actions tend to have quite predictable and proven results. One of these actions is to encircle and contain a major power. By turns, this sort of thing has sparked wars in Europe and elsewhere. A major player, seeing itself being hemmed in, turns paranoid and lashes out. Call it human nature if you like.
And that's exactly what Bush has been attempting - the encirclement of both Russia and China. Driving the world's paramount military alliance headed by the world's sole superpower right up to Red Square is an act of provocation and nothing but. Enlisting India to flank and contain China and threaten her oil routes to the Middle East is another blatant act of provocation. Maybe if the United States was looking at another half-century as the dominant industrial economy on the planet these options might be somewhat more viable. But America is in decline while the BRIC nations are in ascendancy.
Then there's the rationale for NATO. Did we really need Slovakia or Romania in NATO? What on earth for? Are they rushing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Afghanistan? Of course not. They get let into NATO, NATO issues an urgent plea for help from its member states, and they say "forget it." Huh?
My guess is that the eastern European states will be as reliable as NATO members as they were as members of the Warsaw Pact. Worse yet, this Georgian stunt demonstrates that they can do some rash, even dangerously stupid things that could have serious repercussions for a mutual-defence alliance like NATO.
We've overplayed our hand and the Russians have seen our bet and called.
Sometimes there are no miracle solutions. This is one of those times.
Washington accuses Russia of trying to force regime change on Georgia. Memo to Washington - that's not such a bad idea. The increasingly authoritarian Saakashvili blew it. It's not just the Russians who can never trust him again. On the trust issue, we're in the same boat. We need to send a clear message to the Georgians and to the leaders of the newly-minted NATO membership that there's no room within the alliance for adventurism (except, of course, the American type).
As for Moscow, well there's not a lot we can do. Sending forces into Georgia is so stupid even Cheney won't go there. Forget about the Security Council. Sanctions? It turns out the West needs Russia more than they need us. The last thing we need to do is to drive Russia away from the West and more closely into economic, political and military co-operation with the Chinese.
No, the outcome of the Georgian-Russian conflict won't be of our making. Nor will it resolve our provocations of Moscow or Russia's suspicion of Western intentions. Worse yet, America still has the Frat Boy while Russia sends Putin to the chess table.
If there are any lessons to be learned from this debacle, any gain to be had, maybe it's to understand the urgent need to defuse tensions between Russia and the West, even if that means backing down a notch.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Just What We Need - Another Conflict in Afghanistan
When it comes to foreign policy, the Bush/Cheney regime has been an unmitigated disaster, the perfect storm of indifference, over-confidence and inconsistent goals.
Toppling Saddam was supposed to spark the spread of democracy through the Middle East. Instead it resulted in the ascendancy of fundamentalist Shiite influence from Iraq to Iran, Syria to Lebanon.
In its War (without end) on Terror, the United States has fractured Trans-Atlantic solidarity and undermined NATO unity. Bush has done a lot to try to mend fences over the past two years but it'll take a new American administration and an awful lot of diplomacy to restore those relationships.
Already faced with being eclipsed economically by an emerging China, the US has driven China and Russia into each other's arms through clumsy attempts at containment. This is not to say the Shanghai Cooperation Organization wouldn't have emerged otherwise but US efforts certainly gave it unhelpful impetus.
Then there's Afghanistan. We're busy trying to hold the Taliban and al-Qaeda at bay while the country literally rots beneath our feet. Fundamentalist Islamist warlords rule most of the country, barely tolerating a notional central government in Kabul that is both feeble and terminally corrupt. We're struggling to save the irredeemable.
We keep saying the key to stopping the Taliban is the neighbouring state of Pakistan. Then Washington gives Islamabad ample cause not to cooperate by encouraging rival India to expand its presence in Afghanistan. Bloody minded idiocy!
With warlords, drug barons, insurgents and a corrupt government and security service, what we all need now in Afghanistan is another source of conflict, especially a proxy battle between Pakistan and India. Yet that's exactly what's happening.
India has a history of meddling in Afghanistan to bring pressure on Pakistan's western front. As Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, reported in Asia Times Online, Indian-Pakistani rivalries are very much in play in Afghanistan:
"All through the painful twists and turns, Indian policy towards Afghanistan was steeped in pragmatism and remained largely Pakistan-centric. But things seem to be changing. The horizons appear to have vastly expanded. According to Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid, Kabul is "replacing Kashmir as the main area of antagonism" between India and Pakistan. The Pakistani security establishment has convinced itself that Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies are engaged in undermining Pakistan's security. American analysts say Afghanistan has explicitly become a theater of Pakistan-India adversarial relations. But there is a much larger dimension.
The Pakistani establishment is also sizing up the new geopolitical reality - the unprecedented pro-India tilt in the US's regional policy. It is having a hard time coping with the trilateral consensus between Kabul, Delhi and Washington, which pillories Islamabad as the "primary and near-exclusive trouble maker" in the region. The Pakistani establishment cannot accept that while Islamabad remains a key partner for Washington in the "war on terror", it is Delhi that is on the way to becoming a stakeholder in US global strategies.
...the Pakistani perspective sees the emerging regional equations as a dangerous slide toward Indian military superiority and regional "hegemony". How does the Pakistani military, weaned on adversarial feelings towards India, countenance such a challenge?
First, Pakistan will assert its legitimate interests in Afghanistan, no matter what it takes. Make no mistake about it. The Pakistani generals know what transpired when American and British top brass met in Britain last month to exchange notes on Afghanistan. The conclave assessed there were huge problems with the Karzai regime's performance and the war might last for another 30 years, which is a hopeless scenario, as "war fatigue" is setting in among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and the tide of public opinion is turning against the war. But that isn't all.
...though Indian rhetoric on Afghanistan is carefully couched in terms of countering terrorism, Pakistan doesn't see it that way. Instead, it views it in much larger terms as an Indian thrust, supported by the US, as the pre-eminent regional power in South Asia. In recent weeks, Pakistani military raised the ante along the Line of Control bordering the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The resurgence of tensions seems a calibrated move. Islamabad is sending some signals.
Nasim Zehra, a relatively moderate, sensible voice in the Pakistani strategic community, wrote recently, "It is time for Pakistan to categorically state: enough of Pakistan bashing, enough of vacuous Kantian moralizing in a Hobbesian world, enough of the do-more mantra and enough of partisan analysis, enough of selective perceptions, enough of double standards ... Pakistan will play 'as clean as the world around it'. Take it or leave it. There is no 'going it alone' for any of Pakistan's neighbors."
...The message is simple: If Pakistan goes down, it will take India down with it. There is no such thing as absolute security."
Indian meddling advances the interests of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan very little and, while Karzai may treasure India's engagement as a foil to Pakistan, it is Pakistan's help we need in Afghanistan.
Toppling Saddam was supposed to spark the spread of democracy through the Middle East. Instead it resulted in the ascendancy of fundamentalist Shiite influence from Iraq to Iran, Syria to Lebanon.
In its War (without end) on Terror, the United States has fractured Trans-Atlantic solidarity and undermined NATO unity. Bush has done a lot to try to mend fences over the past two years but it'll take a new American administration and an awful lot of diplomacy to restore those relationships.
Already faced with being eclipsed economically by an emerging China, the US has driven China and Russia into each other's arms through clumsy attempts at containment. This is not to say the Shanghai Cooperation Organization wouldn't have emerged otherwise but US efforts certainly gave it unhelpful impetus.
Then there's Afghanistan. We're busy trying to hold the Taliban and al-Qaeda at bay while the country literally rots beneath our feet. Fundamentalist Islamist warlords rule most of the country, barely tolerating a notional central government in Kabul that is both feeble and terminally corrupt. We're struggling to save the irredeemable.
We keep saying the key to stopping the Taliban is the neighbouring state of Pakistan. Then Washington gives Islamabad ample cause not to cooperate by encouraging rival India to expand its presence in Afghanistan. Bloody minded idiocy!
With warlords, drug barons, insurgents and a corrupt government and security service, what we all need now in Afghanistan is another source of conflict, especially a proxy battle between Pakistan and India. Yet that's exactly what's happening.
India has a history of meddling in Afghanistan to bring pressure on Pakistan's western front. As Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, reported in Asia Times Online, Indian-Pakistani rivalries are very much in play in Afghanistan:
"All through the painful twists and turns, Indian policy towards Afghanistan was steeped in pragmatism and remained largely Pakistan-centric. But things seem to be changing. The horizons appear to have vastly expanded. According to Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid, Kabul is "replacing Kashmir as the main area of antagonism" between India and Pakistan. The Pakistani security establishment has convinced itself that Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies are engaged in undermining Pakistan's security. American analysts say Afghanistan has explicitly become a theater of Pakistan-India adversarial relations. But there is a much larger dimension.
The Pakistani establishment is also sizing up the new geopolitical reality - the unprecedented pro-India tilt in the US's regional policy. It is having a hard time coping with the trilateral consensus between Kabul, Delhi and Washington, which pillories Islamabad as the "primary and near-exclusive trouble maker" in the region. The Pakistani establishment cannot accept that while Islamabad remains a key partner for Washington in the "war on terror", it is Delhi that is on the way to becoming a stakeholder in US global strategies.
...the Pakistani perspective sees the emerging regional equations as a dangerous slide toward Indian military superiority and regional "hegemony". How does the Pakistani military, weaned on adversarial feelings towards India, countenance such a challenge?
First, Pakistan will assert its legitimate interests in Afghanistan, no matter what it takes. Make no mistake about it. The Pakistani generals know what transpired when American and British top brass met in Britain last month to exchange notes on Afghanistan. The conclave assessed there were huge problems with the Karzai regime's performance and the war might last for another 30 years, which is a hopeless scenario, as "war fatigue" is setting in among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and the tide of public opinion is turning against the war. But that isn't all.
...though Indian rhetoric on Afghanistan is carefully couched in terms of countering terrorism, Pakistan doesn't see it that way. Instead, it views it in much larger terms as an Indian thrust, supported by the US, as the pre-eminent regional power in South Asia. In recent weeks, Pakistani military raised the ante along the Line of Control bordering the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The resurgence of tensions seems a calibrated move. Islamabad is sending some signals.
Nasim Zehra, a relatively moderate, sensible voice in the Pakistani strategic community, wrote recently, "It is time for Pakistan to categorically state: enough of Pakistan bashing, enough of vacuous Kantian moralizing in a Hobbesian world, enough of the do-more mantra and enough of partisan analysis, enough of selective perceptions, enough of double standards ... Pakistan will play 'as clean as the world around it'. Take it or leave it. There is no 'going it alone' for any of Pakistan's neighbors."
...The message is simple: If Pakistan goes down, it will take India down with it. There is no such thing as absolute security."
Indian meddling advances the interests of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan very little and, while Karzai may treasure India's engagement as a foil to Pakistan, it is Pakistan's help we need in Afghanistan.
Coming Soon - an Ice Free North Pole
We're getting accustomed to brief intervals where the Arctic Ocean is open for navigation, but the North Pole itself? Until recently those pesky, alarmist scientists were warning that the North Pole could be ice free in as little as 60-years. Now they're predicting that may be just five years off.
From The Guardian:
What really unsettles scientists, however, is their inability to forecast precisely what is happening in the Arctic, the part of the world most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. 'When we did the first climate change computer models, we thought the Arctic's summer ice cover would last until around 2070,' said Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University. 'It is now clear we did not understand how thin the ice cap had already become - for Arctic ice cover has since been disappearing at ever increasing rates. Every few years we have to revise our estimates downwards. Now the most detailed computer models suggest the Arctic's summer ice is going to last for only a few more years - and given what we have seen happen last week, I think they are probably correct.'
The most important of these computer studies of ice cover was carried out a few months ago by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Using US navy supercomputers, his team produced a forecast which indicated that by 2013 there will be no ice in the Arctic - other than a few outcrops on islands near Greenland and Canada - between mid-July and mid-September.
'It does not really matter whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for Arctic ice,' Maslowski said. 'The crucial point is that ice is clearly not building up enough over winter to restore cover and that when you combine current estimates of ice thickness with the extent of the ice cap, you get a very clear indication that the Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in five years. And when that happens, there will be consequences.'
This point was backed by Mark Serreze [of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado]. 'The trouble is that sea ice is now disappearing from the Arctic faster than our ability to develop new computer models and to understand what is happening there. We always knew it would be the first region on Earth to feel the impact of climate change, but not at anything like this speed. What is happening now indicates that global warming is occurring far earlier than any of us expected."
First Ossetia, Next Abkhazia? Georgia Reels.
Poor Mikheil Saakashvili. The Georgian president truly opened a can of worms when he launched a military attack on South Ossetia earlier this week.
What was he thinking? By firing an artillery and rocket barrage on the Ossetian capital, he brought Georgian forces into direct conflict with Russian forces monitoring a ceasefire between the Ossetians and Georgians.
It was a pretty blatant provocation of the Russians and was bound to inflame separatist fury among the Ossetians. It was also pretty obvious that Georgia's armed forces had no chance of holding their own against the Russian army.
Georgia has long had problems with two minority regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, problems that have seen periodic armed clashes. Now, with South Ossetia in open revolt and Georgian forces driven out by the Russians, Abkhazia is also ratcheting up its separatist demands. With Russian fighters and bombers in support, Abkhazia is moving to drive Georgian forces out of their territory and it appears to be succeeding.
When Milosovich sent Serbian forces against Kosovo, NATO responded with a bombing campaign against the Serbs. When Saakashvili sent his forces to seize Ossetia, Russia responded with a bombing campaign against Georgian targets.
Did Saakashvili gamble that his attack on Ossetia would bring NATO or American military backing? If so he showed himself to be naive and dangerously naive at that. It was a reckless stunt with far-reaching consequences.
To several European nations, Saakashvili's rash actions will be seen as clear justification of their objections to Georgia's admission into NATO. They've already had their fill of "shoot'em up" cowboys in the White House and have no appetite for a mini-Bush in Tbilisi who could trigger a NATO/Russia showdown. Bush's warm embrace of Saakashvili won't cut much ice with the Europeans.
Will America send the cavalry to Georgia's rescue? It's hard to imagine Washington doing that. With its forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan the last thing the Pentagon needs is any military action that could ratchet up tensions with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Iran, maybe. Russia and China? Over Ossetia or even Abkhazia? Forget it.
I expect the best Washington can do at this point is to extract Georgia from this silliness as intact as possible. That may mean yielding sovereignty to South Ossetia and perhaps even to Abkhazia.
As for Saakashvili, it may be over for him, both at home and abroad. He precipitated an armed conflict with a resurgent, regional superpower that no one wanted and, worse, he lost, crying "uncle" within two days. He acted without the knowledge or support of his Western backers. He has severely undermined Georgia's prospects with NATO. If he loses even South Ossetia, Georgian opposition politicians will serve him up for dinner.
What was he thinking? By firing an artillery and rocket barrage on the Ossetian capital, he brought Georgian forces into direct conflict with Russian forces monitoring a ceasefire between the Ossetians and Georgians.
It was a pretty blatant provocation of the Russians and was bound to inflame separatist fury among the Ossetians. It was also pretty obvious that Georgia's armed forces had no chance of holding their own against the Russian army.
Georgia has long had problems with two minority regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, problems that have seen periodic armed clashes. Now, with South Ossetia in open revolt and Georgian forces driven out by the Russians, Abkhazia is also ratcheting up its separatist demands. With Russian fighters and bombers in support, Abkhazia is moving to drive Georgian forces out of their territory and it appears to be succeeding.
When Milosovich sent Serbian forces against Kosovo, NATO responded with a bombing campaign against the Serbs. When Saakashvili sent his forces to seize Ossetia, Russia responded with a bombing campaign against Georgian targets.
Did Saakashvili gamble that his attack on Ossetia would bring NATO or American military backing? If so he showed himself to be naive and dangerously naive at that. It was a reckless stunt with far-reaching consequences.
To several European nations, Saakashvili's rash actions will be seen as clear justification of their objections to Georgia's admission into NATO. They've already had their fill of "shoot'em up" cowboys in the White House and have no appetite for a mini-Bush in Tbilisi who could trigger a NATO/Russia showdown. Bush's warm embrace of Saakashvili won't cut much ice with the Europeans.
Will America send the cavalry to Georgia's rescue? It's hard to imagine Washington doing that. With its forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan the last thing the Pentagon needs is any military action that could ratchet up tensions with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Iran, maybe. Russia and China? Over Ossetia or even Abkhazia? Forget it.
I expect the best Washington can do at this point is to extract Georgia from this silliness as intact as possible. That may mean yielding sovereignty to South Ossetia and perhaps even to Abkhazia.
As for Saakashvili, it may be over for him, both at home and abroad. He precipitated an armed conflict with a resurgent, regional superpower that no one wanted and, worse, he lost, crying "uncle" within two days. He acted without the knowledge or support of his Western backers. He has severely undermined Georgia's prospects with NATO. If he loses even South Ossetia, Georgian opposition politicians will serve him up for dinner.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
This Won't Sit Well With Washington
The 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, says Russia's days as peacekeeper in South Ossetia are over. OSCE chairman, Finnish foreign minister Alexander Stubb is quoted by Reuters as saying, ""It is clear that there is no return to the status quo, to what was."
"Russian troops poured into South Ossetia on Friday, hours after Georgia launched a large-scale offensive aimed at restoring control over the region which broke away after a war in the early 1990s. A peacekeeping force with 500 members each from Russia, Georgia and North Ossetia monitored a truce in the region which broke down this week.
"...Stubb also said there was no question the current conflict was a war. "This is a war, no doubt about it. There is no reason to call it anything else."
He said Georgia's territorial integrity and the right to self-determination of South Ossetia were basic principles which would guide the OSCE throughout the conflict."
It's those last few words, the recognition of "the right to self-determination of South Ossetia" that will ruffle feathers in Washington as well as Tbilisi. The Georgians want to subjugate the Ossetians into assimilation. The South Ossetians want nothing to do with Georgia which is why they've turned to Russia for protection even before the reign of Catherine the Great. Self-determination would mean a Kosovo-style sovereignty for Ossetia and an outright repudiation of Georgia's dodgy claims to the territory.
The litmus test of South Ossetian loyalties has been apparent in the streams of refugees foreign reporters have observed streaming, not into Georgia, but straight into Russia.
Meanwhile Condoleeza Rice has called South Ossetia is "Georgian soil." Good luck with that, Condi.
"Russian troops poured into South Ossetia on Friday, hours after Georgia launched a large-scale offensive aimed at restoring control over the region which broke away after a war in the early 1990s. A peacekeeping force with 500 members each from Russia, Georgia and North Ossetia monitored a truce in the region which broke down this week.
"...Stubb also said there was no question the current conflict was a war. "This is a war, no doubt about it. There is no reason to call it anything else."
He said Georgia's territorial integrity and the right to self-determination of South Ossetia were basic principles which would guide the OSCE throughout the conflict."
It's those last few words, the recognition of "the right to self-determination of South Ossetia" that will ruffle feathers in Washington as well as Tbilisi. The Georgians want to subjugate the Ossetians into assimilation. The South Ossetians want nothing to do with Georgia which is why they've turned to Russia for protection even before the reign of Catherine the Great. Self-determination would mean a Kosovo-style sovereignty for Ossetia and an outright repudiation of Georgia's dodgy claims to the territory.
The litmus test of South Ossetian loyalties has been apparent in the streams of refugees foreign reporters have observed streaming, not into Georgia, but straight into Russia.
Meanwhile Condoleeza Rice has called South Ossetia is "Georgian soil." Good luck with that, Condi.
Why We All Have a Huge Stake in America's Election
Look at George Bush and South Ossetia. See any connection? Too bad because it's there.
One of the lasting scars we'll all have to deal with after the death of the BuCheney regime will be the enormous damage it's caused to global security. Answer a few questions.
Who drove the revival and spread of Islamist fundamentalism?
One of the lasting scars we'll all have to deal with after the death of the BuCheney regime will be the enormous damage it's caused to global security. Answer a few questions.
Who drove the revival and spread of Islamist fundamentalism?
Who has destabilized the once Sunni-dominated Middle East and precipitated the ascendancy of Shiite power in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Occupied Territories?
Who relentlessly pressed for the expansion of NATO right to the borders of Russia?
Who has undermined the strength and economic stability of the very nation the world has accepted for so long as the leader of the Free World, the United States itself?
Who has sparked and then fueled arms races around the world?
These are just some of the dregs of BuCheney that'll be left behind for others to deal with. The Frat Boy and his puppeteer have done their work. They don't see their administration as a failure if only because they managed to enact the social agenda they wanted, albeit with some setbacks such as the Social Security debacle.
George w. Bush meant it when, during his first term, he addressed a black-tie dinner and described the guests as "his base" calling them "the haves and the have-mores." To these people, this top sliver of American society, the Bush years have been grand indeed.
So, what's the connection between George w. Bush, Dick Cheney and South Ossetia? The White House has relentlessly pressured NATO to expand to the very borders of Russia. It was France and Germany that balked at admitting Georgia into the Alliance. America has encouraged Georgian adventurism and defiance of Russia, even backing a thug like Saakashvili (shown with Bush above) while he violently suppressed dissent in his country.
Georgia was no place for clumsy meddling. The Ossetia issue has been around since at least 1922 when the South Ossetia Autonomous region came into being. In fact the Russians have been backing Ossetian autonomy since the reign of Catherine the Great. Since 1925 there has been a movement to unite South and North Ossetia. Georgia moved on South Ossetia in 1989 declaring it no longer autonomous and trying to force assimilation by measures such as declaring Georgian the official language. Fighting between the Ossetians and Georgians has been an on and off reality since 1991.
When America, despite the wishes of the Europeans, moved to consolidate its influence with Georgia, it emboldened Saakashvili to the point where he thought he could execute a coup de main while everyone was distracted with the Beijing Olympics.
America's puerile foreign policy has played a direct role in the current fighting and has been reflected in Condoleeza Rice calling for Russia but not Georgia to withdraw entirely from Ossetia. Her rank stupidity and complete disregard for the historical realities at play in Ossetia has been nothing short of breathtaking.
We can only hope that we'll see a new face of America after the November elections.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Georgia Calls for American Intervention in Ossetia
Georgian strongman president Mikhail Saakashvili is pleading for American intervention against the Russian incursion into South Ossetia.
Saakashvili gambled that he could roll up the Ossetian separatists and drive Russian peacekeepers out of the breakaway province but opened up a hornets' nest instead. The Georgian president escalated tensions by bombarding the Ossetian capital with rockets, artillery, tank fire and aerial bombardment.
Moscow, instead of retreating has retaliated with its own airstrikes and has sent tank columns pouring into Ossetia in support of the separatists. Cossacks from North Ossetia are likewise heading south to help oppose the Georgian forces.
The situation somewhat resembles the Kosovo problem. Ossetians are ethnically different than Georgians and, like the Kosovor Albanians, have been attacked by the larger, parent state. Where NATO intervened on behalf of the Kosovors against the Slavik Serbs while Russia had to sit by and watch, this time it's the Slavik Russians coming to the aid of the Ossetians while the West, taken by surprise, has been sidelined, at least for now.
The idea of a direct Russian-American military showdown over Ossetia seems improbable but, then again, there's always the Cheney wild card.
America Out of Iraq by 2011?
This one sounds hard to believe. McClatchy news service reports that the Iraqi and American governments are nearing completion of a status of forces agreement that provides for the withdrawal of all US combat troops by 2011:
"The tactical team is finished and it's a closed deal, but remember that we've been through this before and every time we close a deal it's reopened," said a senior [Iraqi] official who's been participating in the talks.
The official said that the deal, once completed, would be perhaps the most restrictive agreement the United States had with a country where it had troops.
"We've seen all the status of forces agreements with other countries," the official said. "This is the best that the Americans have conceded."
The official asked not to be identified because the deal is still being negotiated.
Another official, Ali al Adeeb, a senior member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party, said he'd been briefed on the negotiations and he confirmed the details.
The latest deal is said to also provide for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraqi cities by next July. It sounds remarkably similar to the British withdrawal of its forces from Basra last year in preparation of their departure from Iraq.
What remains to be seen is whether the United States actually abandons its plans to nearly double the number of American military bases in Iraq from the existing 32 to a total of 60. The Pentagon has long identified a strategic need for a major, permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region from which it can dominate the Middle East oil fields. Leaving Iraq would also relieve Iran of the pressures of strong American forces in Iraq on one border and Afghanistan on the other side. If the US proceeds with the expansion of its Iraqi bases it will be pretty obvious that it has no real intention of leaving anytime soon and certainly not by 2011.
To encourage al Maliki to cement a withdrawal deal, Muqtada al Sadr is now offering to disband his Mahdi Army militia once a fixed withdrawal date is set. There could also be an enormous amount of intrigue lurking behind that promise.
"The tactical team is finished and it's a closed deal, but remember that we've been through this before and every time we close a deal it's reopened," said a senior [Iraqi] official who's been participating in the talks.
The official said that the deal, once completed, would be perhaps the most restrictive agreement the United States had with a country where it had troops.
"We've seen all the status of forces agreements with other countries," the official said. "This is the best that the Americans have conceded."
The official asked not to be identified because the deal is still being negotiated.
Another official, Ali al Adeeb, a senior member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party, said he'd been briefed on the negotiations and he confirmed the details.
The latest deal is said to also provide for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraqi cities by next July. It sounds remarkably similar to the British withdrawal of its forces from Basra last year in preparation of their departure from Iraq.
What remains to be seen is whether the United States actually abandons its plans to nearly double the number of American military bases in Iraq from the existing 32 to a total of 60. The Pentagon has long identified a strategic need for a major, permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region from which it can dominate the Middle East oil fields. Leaving Iraq would also relieve Iran of the pressures of strong American forces in Iraq on one border and Afghanistan on the other side. If the US proceeds with the expansion of its Iraqi bases it will be pretty obvious that it has no real intention of leaving anytime soon and certainly not by 2011.
To encourage al Maliki to cement a withdrawal deal, Muqtada al Sadr is now offering to disband his Mahdi Army militia once a fixed withdrawal date is set. There could also be an enormous amount of intrigue lurking behind that promise.
Russia Invades Georgia
The Guardian reports that Russian forces have invaded Georgia in support of the breakaway Ossetia rebels. The situation is confused but Georgia has admitted attacking two military convoys that had come from Russia and were heading toward the capital:
Whatever the precise battle details, it was clear that a serious conflict had broken out only hours after President Saakashvili promised a unilateral Georgian ceasefire and offered South Ossetia the chance of broad autonomy within Georgia. The number of casualties was unclear but likely to be high.
All eyes were on Russia and its peacekeeping contingent in the area, which Georgia accuses of supporting the separatists. The Russian peacekeepers said the Georgians were targeting their positions and they had lost some men. In Moscow, Russia's security council was due to meet in an emergency session today.
Georgian forces appear to have the upper hand and the element of surprise at the moment but they could soon find themselves fighting on two fronts, as another separatist region, the Black Sea enclave of Abkhazia, announced its troops were moving towards the Georgian border. Cossaks from Russia said they were also ready to go to the aid of the South Ossetians, many of whom have Russian citizenship.
In Tskhinvali, Kokoity was meeting Teymuraz Mamsurov, the leader of North Ossetia, which is just over the border in Russia. The North Ossetians have also promised help to their South Ossetian brethren.
Mamsurov said a convoy of lorries carrying humanitarian aid from his region was attacked by Georgian war planes during the night.
Whatever the precise battle details, it was clear that a serious conflict had broken out only hours after President Saakashvili promised a unilateral Georgian ceasefire and offered South Ossetia the chance of broad autonomy within Georgia. The number of casualties was unclear but likely to be high.
All eyes were on Russia and its peacekeeping contingent in the area, which Georgia accuses of supporting the separatists. The Russian peacekeepers said the Georgians were targeting their positions and they had lost some men. In Moscow, Russia's security council was due to meet in an emergency session today.
Georgian forces appear to have the upper hand and the element of surprise at the moment but they could soon find themselves fighting on two fronts, as another separatist region, the Black Sea enclave of Abkhazia, announced its troops were moving towards the Georgian border. Cossaks from Russia said they were also ready to go to the aid of the South Ossetians, many of whom have Russian citizenship.
In Tskhinvali, Kokoity was meeting Teymuraz Mamsurov, the leader of North Ossetia, which is just over the border in Russia. The North Ossetians have also promised help to their South Ossetian brethren.
Mamsurov said a convoy of lorries carrying humanitarian aid from his region was attacked by Georgian war planes during the night.
Georgian forces shelled the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, in an act seen by experts as a deliberate provocation intended to humiliate Russia and timed to coincide with the opening of the Beijing Olympics when world attention was distracted. The Georgians seem to be gambling that they can quickly overrun the 1,000-strong Russian force in the breakawa region but Moscow now seems determined to push back with reinforcements.
The Globe and Mail reports that the Georgian shelling hit a barracks being used by Russian peacekeepers, killing 10 and wounding 30. Georgia also claims at least one of the Russian convoys it is attacking is made up of tanks, not trucks.
Afghanistan War - Version 7.5
Seven years into the faltering war in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has a new idea - more of the same.
Seven years.
Washington, apparently flummoxed by how poorly that miserable conflict has been going, has decided the solution might be to double the size of the Afghan National Army and a quiet absorption of NATO forces under direct American command.
What's that you say, NATO being transformed into America's Foreign Legion? Bingo!
For the past gloriously successful seven years, we Infidels have been arrayed in two groups - the strictly American, Operation Enduring Freedom (or something jingoistic like that), and the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, under the auspices of NATO, or whatever members Brussels can scrape up to send troops to Afghanistan. ISAF has operated under NATO command with the top jobs rotating among the participating nations - i.e. Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, etc.
Gates wants to put an end to that with a unified command. In terms of military science, unifying the command makes sense, in fact it's long overdue. Five years overdue at least. Back when the White House decided to pull a big hunk of its forces out of Afghanistan so it could play in the sandbox of Iraq, the OEF/ISAF forces should have been restructured. A bit late now.
There are serious problems with Gates' latest proposal. The first is that he's not proposing to put the OEF American forces under NATO command. He wants the NATO/ISAF force to enlist with the American force. What's wrong with that is that Britain, Canada and the Dutch have a much different point of view on how the Afghan conflict should be fought. We're not on the same page with the bomb'em, shell'em, obliterate'em Americans. That, of course, would be resolved once we started marching to the Pentagon's tune.
Another problem is that this would damage the already weakened and wobbly NATO alliance. It would be superseded by a de facto "coalition of the willing" a lot like the one that really didn't work out very well in Iraq. The potential ramifications of that could reach far beyond Afghanistan. On the other hand, it would give some of the NATO members now reluctantly in Afghanistan a perfect excuse to leave. They only signed on to serve under NATO command, not the Pentagon's. Oh dear.
Gates is clearly on to that little sticking point. It came through in the astonishingly contradictory explanation proffered by the Pentagon spokesman as reported in The New York Times:
“General McKiernan is in the best possible position to most efficiently and effectively deploy all of the resources to the benefit of the overall mission,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “This creates one commander in country and in charge of all forces, and establishes a structure to deploy them as best suits the mission and to improve synchronization among all military assets.”
In the months ahead, NATO and the United States will nevertheless continue to pursue somewhat different missions in Afghanistan, Pentagon officials said, and the new command structure will not result in a merger of the two missions [yeah, right].
Pentagon policy makers said one goal of the command restructuring would be to allow the movement of American and allied troops — including the British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers who participate in a full range of combat missions — to support one another in a more seamless fashion. It remains unclear if the change will persuade the militaries operating under restrictions to take on additional battlefield responsibilities.
The command reorganization implies that an American officer will be in charge of the NATO and American missions for the foreseeable future.
Now expanding the Afghan National Army probably makes sense but only if it's done in conjunction with a top-down housecleaning of the Kabul and provincial governments. Not much point in building a bigger army to serve the feckless and corrupt Karzai government. If the ANA is to have any hope of surviving as a national institution after we're gone (and I presume we'll all be gone at some point, right?) then the country has to purge its troublesome warlords. Until they're gone, stripped of their powers, the Kabul administration can never truly govern as a national government. And, until Kabul stands as a viable, national government, the size of the Afghan National Army is essentially irrelevant. Without a strong, central government the Afghan National Army will remain at risk of dissolving into the traditional, ethnic militias once we take our leave. Take a look at what happened to the previous Afghan National Army when the Soviets pulled out.
The ultimate flaw in Gates' proposal is that it's a purely military response to a situation that has no military solution. It's so fraught with gaps and pitfalls that, in the long run, it could do vastly more damage than good - to the United States, to NATO and to Afghanistan.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
A Lot of My Favourite People are Dead
It's true. An awful lot of the good ones, the best ones are gone. In fairness so are a lot of the bad ones although there always seem to be plenty of newcomers to take their places.
One of the good ones now gone was once known as George Carlin. As that great Canadian blog MetaBall reminds us, Carlin had a good eye for what was coming:
"...There is another take on this whole save the planet thing, from an excerpt from "The Planet is Fine" by George Carlin, God bless his lovely soul. (Warning profanity) "We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?
"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminium cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
"We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away."
I guess George just jumped the line and got there ahead of us.
http://metaball.ca/2008/ball_Jul-08/0708_04.html
John McCain Gaffe of the Day
Poor old, very old, John McCain has done it again, right on schedule. He just made a public appearance, wife Cindy at his side, when he told the assembled crowd he was urging her to enter the Sturgess bike rally Miss Buffalo Chip Beauty Pageant. McCain quipped she could be a first - an American First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip. Seems McCain's handlers didn't tell him the pageant is a topless contest.
To take your mind off Cindy's plight, here's a little McCain "straight talk" from BraveNewFilms.org:
To take your mind off Cindy's plight, here's a little McCain "straight talk" from BraveNewFilms.org:
Now It's "Obama the Anti-Christ"?
With a deranged zealotry that would make a diehard Wahabist jealous, some American fundamentalists are floating the image of Obama as the Anti-Christ of their fondest dreams. From the Times of London:
"Really. Just because their own candidate is a teeny bit dull, that's no reason for US republicans to start linking poor old Obama to the feared coming of the Antichrist. But Hal Lindsey, a leading figure in U.S. apocalyptic Christian circles,has written on WorldNetDaily that Obama’s recent overseas tour blazed a trail that the Antichrist was sure to follow. Faithworld explains that in apocalyptic circles "Antichrist is often portrayed as the leader of a world government who will probably emerge from the United Nations or some other multilateral institution loathed by the right.
“… the Bible says that such a leader (the Antichrist) will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won’t be Barack Obama, but Obama’s world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive,” wrote Lindsey,“He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin.”
On the other hand, nowhere that I can find in the Apocalypse mentions that the Beast or Antichrist wears natty tailored suits and a grin. It takes a bit of a stretch to see Obama as "a beast coming up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. ... and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion."'
So the born-again weasels aren't exactly saying Obama is the Anti-Christ, just that he looks like the evildoer.
Hal Lindsey may be shrewdly dancing around the issue but his point will undoubtedly strike a chord with the like minded.
"Really. Just because their own candidate is a teeny bit dull, that's no reason for US republicans to start linking poor old Obama to the feared coming of the Antichrist. But Hal Lindsey, a leading figure in U.S. apocalyptic Christian circles,has written on WorldNetDaily that Obama’s recent overseas tour blazed a trail that the Antichrist was sure to follow. Faithworld explains that in apocalyptic circles "Antichrist is often portrayed as the leader of a world government who will probably emerge from the United Nations or some other multilateral institution loathed by the right.
“… the Bible says that such a leader (the Antichrist) will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won’t be Barack Obama, but Obama’s world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive,” wrote Lindsey,“He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin.”
On the other hand, nowhere that I can find in the Apocalypse mentions that the Beast or Antichrist wears natty tailored suits and a grin. It takes a bit of a stretch to see Obama as "a beast coming up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. ... and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion."'
So the born-again weasels aren't exactly saying Obama is the Anti-Christ, just that he looks like the evildoer.
Hal Lindsey may be shrewdly dancing around the issue but his point will undoubtedly strike a chord with the like minded.
A Scandal With a Pedigree
Most political scandals are based on "anonymous sources." This one comes via a couple of very prominent sources - Nigel Inkster, former assistant director of Britain's MI6 intelligence service, and Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British intelligence.
The Times Online reports that both Inkster and Dearlove have confirmed American author Ron Suskind's account that, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion of 2003, Tony Blair sent a top spy to the Middle East who reported back that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The information was relayed to the White House where it was summarily dismissed:
Suskind's book, The Way of the World, claims, "...that the former Prime Minister sent a top British spy to the Middle East in 2003 — three months before the invasion — to dig up enough intelligence to avoid war but that President Bush and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, dismissed any claims or possible evidence that would stop military action.
In [the book], the Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind also claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter purportedly from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam. The letter, which came to light nine months after the invasion, was meant to demonstrate a link between the Baathist regime and al-Qaeda.
The forgery, adamantly denied by the White House, was passed to a British journalist in Baghdad and written about as if genuine by The Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003. The article received significant attention in the US and provided the White House with a new rationale for the invasion, Suskind claimed. The White House called the allegation absurd.
Suskind said that at the beginning of 2003 MI6 sent one of its top agents, Michael Shipster, to the region. Mr Shipster held secret meetings in Jordan with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the head of Iraqi Intelligence. The meetings were confirmed by Nigel Inkster, former assistant director of MI6.
Mr Habbush was put on the White House’s list of most-wanted Iraqis but according to Suskind he was paid by the CIA in October 2003 to write the forged letter to Saddam, dated July 1, 2001, saying that the putative September 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had trained for his mission in Iraq. This was the letter publicised in The Sunday Telegraph."
So what is the significance of these revelations? Most likely it'll be little to none. What this information does is merely confirm the steadily growing body of evidence that the conquest of Iraq was a war crime, an entirely illegal war of aggression, quite wilfully perpetrated by a gang of radicals who used every contrivance at their disposal to manufacture justifications for their acts.
Speaking of war crimes, a panel of six anonymous US military officers has unanimously found Gitmo inmate Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time chauffeur, of providing material support for terrorism. The jurors, who may not be identified, reached their career-saving verdict following a closed trial that featured secret evidence.
The Times Online reports that both Inkster and Dearlove have confirmed American author Ron Suskind's account that, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion of 2003, Tony Blair sent a top spy to the Middle East who reported back that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The information was relayed to the White House where it was summarily dismissed:
Suskind's book, The Way of the World, claims, "...that the former Prime Minister sent a top British spy to the Middle East in 2003 — three months before the invasion — to dig up enough intelligence to avoid war but that President Bush and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, dismissed any claims or possible evidence that would stop military action.
In [the book], the Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind also claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter purportedly from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam. The letter, which came to light nine months after the invasion, was meant to demonstrate a link between the Baathist regime and al-Qaeda.
The forgery, adamantly denied by the White House, was passed to a British journalist in Baghdad and written about as if genuine by The Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003. The article received significant attention in the US and provided the White House with a new rationale for the invasion, Suskind claimed. The White House called the allegation absurd.
Suskind said that at the beginning of 2003 MI6 sent one of its top agents, Michael Shipster, to the region. Mr Shipster held secret meetings in Jordan with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the head of Iraqi Intelligence. The meetings were confirmed by Nigel Inkster, former assistant director of MI6.
Mr Habbush was put on the White House’s list of most-wanted Iraqis but according to Suskind he was paid by the CIA in October 2003 to write the forged letter to Saddam, dated July 1, 2001, saying that the putative September 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had trained for his mission in Iraq. This was the letter publicised in The Sunday Telegraph."
So what is the significance of these revelations? Most likely it'll be little to none. What this information does is merely confirm the steadily growing body of evidence that the conquest of Iraq was a war crime, an entirely illegal war of aggression, quite wilfully perpetrated by a gang of radicals who used every contrivance at their disposal to manufacture justifications for their acts.
Speaking of war crimes, a panel of six anonymous US military officers has unanimously found Gitmo inmate Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time chauffeur, of providing material support for terrorism. The jurors, who may not be identified, reached their career-saving verdict following a closed trial that featured secret evidence.
Tony Clement - All-Canadian Embarrassment
Tony Clement, just another one of Harper's subprime ministers, has done it again.
Ignoring reality altogether, this jackass showed up yesterday in Mexico City to repeat the groundless and disproven claim that safe-injection clinics aren't a mode of harm reduction but, in fact, a form of "harm addition." Even the term he coined is - well, it's stupid.
Now here's the kicker. From The Globe & Mail:
"While the minister's views on Insite are well known, Mr. Clement repeated them Tuesday at an event where he was endorsing and promoting a new WHO “how-to” guide on battling the epidemic, which promotes needle exchange and safe injection sites. The Health Minister's comments left officials from the agency flummoxed and red-faced.
"Teguest Guerma, associate director of the HIV-AIDS department at the WHO, who was clearly uncomfortable about the exchange between the minister and reporters about the apparent contradiction in Canada's position, would only say: “The WHO supports harm reduction.”'
"Apparent contradiction?" C'mon, really, this is a stooge minister from Canada's first-ever, red-meat, neo-con federal government. The very notion of hypocrisy and contradiction never made it into their playbook.
Besides Subprime Tony is, as the name suggests, subprime - a dull and awkward little creature given to babbling nonsensically but always ready to parrot the official line no matter how stupid.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Damn It, Just Stop Killing Us!
This is to all you drivers out there who aren't motorcyclists. Please stop killing us making left-hand turns across traffic.
Seriously, that's about the most common cause of motorcycle deaths from crashes.
Here's the typical scenario. The car/truck/SUV jockey is waiting impatiently for a break in the oncoming traffic in order to make a left turn onto a side street. At long last he spies a break in the long line of traffic ahead. Just enough room if he guns it to finally get on his way.
Now he goes through a process of focusing on the car at the beginning of the gap, timing his move on that approaching vehicle. His eyes are on that vehicle. His attention is on that vehicle. When it gets close enough he makes his move, hit the gas and turn the wheel to the left.
Seriously, that's about the most common cause of motorcycle deaths from crashes.
Here's the typical scenario. The car/truck/SUV jockey is waiting impatiently for a break in the oncoming traffic in order to make a left turn onto a side street. At long last he spies a break in the long line of traffic ahead. Just enough room if he guns it to finally get on his way.
Now he goes through a process of focusing on the car at the beginning of the gap, timing his move on that approaching vehicle. His eyes are on that vehicle. His attention is on that vehicle. When it gets close enough he makes his move, hit the gas and turn the wheel to the left.
Sound familiar? You've probably been in that very situation yourself. That you haven't already wiped out a motorcycle may be nothing more than luck.
You may not even see the motorcycle behind the car/truck/SUV you were keyed on or at least you may not see it before you smash into it. Even if you do spot it, you've already got your foot on the gas and it may be impossible to stop in time.
You see, the problem is you don't actually know what might be in that gap you want to exploit. All you see are the vehicle at the front of the gap and the one following. It's a very shallow angle that limits your view of the gap itself to little or nothing. You just assume that it's empty space waiting for you and you alone to slide through.
This little rant was inspired by a report out of Calgary today. A woman passenger on a bike was killed by - you guessed it - a left-turning SUV. CTV reports that police are trying to determine whether the SUV driver saw the motorcycle before hitting it.
Here's a little home truth. Car drivers roam the streets with tunnel vision. They see what they're looking for, what the're expecting to see - other cars, trucks and SUVs. They're not looking for motorcycles and often don't spot them until they're very close. Holiday motorists are even worse. Ask your local deer population. City visitors aren't used to deer on their streets and aren't expecting to see them on ours. We know summer has arrived when we start seeing the deer carcasses on the side of the highway.
Now I'm not laying all the blame on you car drivers. I have a 10-year old little gas miser that I use when I must and I know how infuriating some bikers can be. Some are reckless, others are just plain incompetent. Motorcycling is inherently somewhat risky and these jokers compound their odds of running out of road.
If you're a motorcyclist, please, please use your head. Don't tailgate. That just makes you disappear to oncoming traffic. Leave plenty of space and get out by the dividing line where you can be seen by oncoming traffic and especially that guy impatient to make that left hand turn. The one who sees you isn't the one who's going to kill you.
Summer is here and with it the lure of two-wheeling along the mountain and coastal twisties of this awesome island.
And you, the one with that SUV. Don't think I haven't spotted you. I've encountered you in every major city I've ridden through and you stand out like the proverbial sore thumb: ridiculously cute, hair and makeup done up just right, sporting a tennis visor, driving the biggest damned SUV in our half of the Galaxy and chattering away on that damned cell phone. Damn it, stop trying to kill me! Enough already.
Wall Street Journal - John McCain is "Loopy"
The Wall Street Journal, broadsheet voice of America's Uber Right, can't bite its tongue any longer. The Rupert Rag has come out questioning whether the Republican presidential candidate has the intellectual mojo to run for dogcatcher.
WSJ editorial page writer Dan Henninger gave McCain both barrels in his Wonder Land column:
"Is John McCain losing it?
On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."
This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.
...What I'm asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn't abandoned by his own voters?
It's not just taxes. Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable." What!!?? In a later interview, Mr. McCain said he hadn't read "all the specifics" of the Gore plan and now, "I don't think it's doable without nuclear power." It just sounds loopy.
...The one thing -- arguably the only thing -- the McCain candidacy has going for it is a sense among voters that they don't know what Barack Obama stands for or believes. Why then would Mr. McCain give voters reason to wonder the same thing about himself? You're supposed to sow doubt about the other guy, not do it to yourself.
Yes, Sen. McCain must somehow appeal to independents and blue-collar Hillary Democrats. A degree of pandering to the center is inevitable. But this stuff isn't pandering; it's simply stupid. Al Gore's own climate allies separated themselves from his preposterous free-of-oil-in-10-years whopper. Sen. McCain saying off-handedly that it's "doable" is, in a word, thoughtless.
...Why as well shouldn't the Obama camp exploit all of this? If Sen. Obama's "inexperience" is Mr. McCain's ace in the hole, why not trump that by asking, "Does Sen. McCain know his own mind?"
At one level I like John McCain, the McCain of 2000 before he abandoned his core values in his desperate bid for the presidency. The John McCain of 2008 is a hapless caricature of the old McCain, an attempt to stuff a plainly declining mind into the psyche of a George w. Bush.
The guy is terrible on his feet. He's trying to follow a previous administration's playbook even when it runs roughshod on McCain's own principles. I've watched a lot of the Obama/McCain coverage and I get embarrassed for McCain when he shows, repeatedly, that he doesn't grasp an important issue or badly needs someone to tell him what to say. McCain, after all, is the guy who touts his experience as the main (only) reason he should win over Obama. There's just something so very sad about it all.
WSJ editorial page writer Dan Henninger gave McCain both barrels in his Wonder Land column:
"Is John McCain losing it?
On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."
This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.
...What I'm asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn't abandoned by his own voters?
It's not just taxes. Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable." What!!?? In a later interview, Mr. McCain said he hadn't read "all the specifics" of the Gore plan and now, "I don't think it's doable without nuclear power." It just sounds loopy.
...The one thing -- arguably the only thing -- the McCain candidacy has going for it is a sense among voters that they don't know what Barack Obama stands for or believes. Why then would Mr. McCain give voters reason to wonder the same thing about himself? You're supposed to sow doubt about the other guy, not do it to yourself.
Yes, Sen. McCain must somehow appeal to independents and blue-collar Hillary Democrats. A degree of pandering to the center is inevitable. But this stuff isn't pandering; it's simply stupid. Al Gore's own climate allies separated themselves from his preposterous free-of-oil-in-10-years whopper. Sen. McCain saying off-handedly that it's "doable" is, in a word, thoughtless.
...Why as well shouldn't the Obama camp exploit all of this? If Sen. Obama's "inexperience" is Mr. McCain's ace in the hole, why not trump that by asking, "Does Sen. McCain know his own mind?"
At one level I like John McCain, the McCain of 2000 before he abandoned his core values in his desperate bid for the presidency. The John McCain of 2008 is a hapless caricature of the old McCain, an attempt to stuff a plainly declining mind into the psyche of a George w. Bush.
The guy is terrible on his feet. He's trying to follow a previous administration's playbook even when it runs roughshod on McCain's own principles. I've watched a lot of the Obama/McCain coverage and I get embarrassed for McCain when he shows, repeatedly, that he doesn't grasp an important issue or badly needs someone to tell him what to say. McCain, after all, is the guy who touts his experience as the main (only) reason he should win over Obama. There's just something so very sad about it all.
Monday, August 04, 2008
We're Not in Flanders Any More
When a person is diagnosed with cancer, physicians spring into action with aggressive therapies. When a country is afflicted with cancer, we throw on a bandaid. What gives?
The country is Afghanistan. The malignancy is what the Royal Institute, aka Chatham House, describes as the "nexus" of the Afghan government, the country's warlords and its drug trade. You see, they're all linked together and operate in defiant collusion right in front of our gunsight-weary eyes. Hamid Karzai's own brother, Ahmed, is routinely linked to the opium trade. It's no coincidence that the Karzai government hasn't apprehended a single drug baron. Curiously enough, the government is linked to the opium trade and so is the insurgency, the Taliban.
It's not surprising that our fiercely "law and order" Harpo government openly insists on turning a blind eye to Afghanistan's drug trade. Our Furious Leader and his DefMin have made it perfectly clear they want nothing to do with that little hornets' nest, no sir. This weekend our illustrious Foreign Affairs Minister, turncoat extraordinaire David Emerson said, "We all agree with the fundamental need to deal with this problem and I know Canada is prepared to step up and be part of a solution."
"Does it necessarily mean going out burning crops – or whatever the latest technique is – I'm not sure about that." Emerson claims that destroying opium fields would simply turn the peasants against us.
We even pretend that it's the poor farmer who'll suffer from poppy eradication when, in reality, it's large landowners and their protectors in the government itself.
Hmm, let's see. How are we doing with all those lofty goals we set for ourselves in going to war in Afghanistan? Women's rights? No, sorry, in the tank. How about democracy? No, the warlords have restored their own brand of fundamentalist, medieval tribalism through the country. That one's out, sorry again. Putting down the insurgency? Keep guessing. No, they're stronger than they have been since 2001 and, far from being discouraged, they think they've already tipped this scrap their way.
You see, we don't have enough resources to do the life-saving surgery needed to "save" Afghanistan. All we can do is throw on a few bandages and act like we don't know about the spreading tumours. If we acknowledged the scope and severity of Afghanistan's mortal problems we would have to admit how grossly understrength is the force we've deployed there and we can't admit that just in case someone noticed that we've been wasting the lives of the soldiers we've sent there to mark time in a minefield.
Astonishing. We cannot get it through our heads that there are no real Afghans, just Pashtun, Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara, Baloch and Turkmen tribes indulging in a centuries-old tradition of alliances, intrigue, betrayal and warfare.
Here's the bottom line and, when the dust clears, it's the only one that matters: we're in Afghanistan shoring up an entrenched criminal enterprise, one in which the good guys and the bad guys resemble nothing so much as warring Mafia families.
Is this really worth the lives of Canadian soldiers?
The country is Afghanistan. The malignancy is what the Royal Institute, aka Chatham House, describes as the "nexus" of the Afghan government, the country's warlords and its drug trade. You see, they're all linked together and operate in defiant collusion right in front of our gunsight-weary eyes. Hamid Karzai's own brother, Ahmed, is routinely linked to the opium trade. It's no coincidence that the Karzai government hasn't apprehended a single drug baron. Curiously enough, the government is linked to the opium trade and so is the insurgency, the Taliban.
It's not surprising that our fiercely "law and order" Harpo government openly insists on turning a blind eye to Afghanistan's drug trade. Our Furious Leader and his DefMin have made it perfectly clear they want nothing to do with that little hornets' nest, no sir. This weekend our illustrious Foreign Affairs Minister, turncoat extraordinaire David Emerson said, "We all agree with the fundamental need to deal with this problem and I know Canada is prepared to step up and be part of a solution."
"Does it necessarily mean going out burning crops – or whatever the latest technique is – I'm not sure about that." Emerson claims that destroying opium fields would simply turn the peasants against us.
We even pretend that it's the poor farmer who'll suffer from poppy eradication when, in reality, it's large landowners and their protectors in the government itself.
Hmm, let's see. How are we doing with all those lofty goals we set for ourselves in going to war in Afghanistan? Women's rights? No, sorry, in the tank. How about democracy? No, the warlords have restored their own brand of fundamentalist, medieval tribalism through the country. That one's out, sorry again. Putting down the insurgency? Keep guessing. No, they're stronger than they have been since 2001 and, far from being discouraged, they think they've already tipped this scrap their way.
You see, we don't have enough resources to do the life-saving surgery needed to "save" Afghanistan. All we can do is throw on a few bandages and act like we don't know about the spreading tumours. If we acknowledged the scope and severity of Afghanistan's mortal problems we would have to admit how grossly understrength is the force we've deployed there and we can't admit that just in case someone noticed that we've been wasting the lives of the soldiers we've sent there to mark time in a minefield.
Astonishing. We cannot get it through our heads that there are no real Afghans, just Pashtun, Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara, Baloch and Turkmen tribes indulging in a centuries-old tradition of alliances, intrigue, betrayal and warfare.
Here's the bottom line and, when the dust clears, it's the only one that matters: we're in Afghanistan shoring up an entrenched criminal enterprise, one in which the good guys and the bad guys resemble nothing so much as warring Mafia families.
Is this really worth the lives of Canadian soldiers?
Saturday, August 02, 2008
How We Got So Far, So Fast
My Dad was born on a small farm in southwestern Ontario. He was born in the farmhouse, on the kitchen table to be exact. No hospital, no birthing classes, none of that stuff we now take as absolutely essential.
My Dad grew up in a house where you pumped your water, by hand. Heat came from a wood stove, light from coal oil lamps. No electricity, no indoor plumbing. Certainly no telephone. When those things arrived, they were revolutionary. His life was a succession of revolutionary advances.
He remembered quite clearly his father's first car, a revolutionary advance over the horse drawn wagon. He remembered quite clearly seeing his first airplane and his first airplane ride at a county fair. He remembered the ice box giving way to the electric refrigerator. Revolutionary.
In the span of his lifetime almost everything changed as revolution begat revolution. The way we produced and distributed food changed. We became estranged from the farm and umbilically connected to the grocery store. The way we travelled and travel itself underwent revolutionary change. The way we communicated was a succession of quantum advances. Relationships among individuals, with communities, societies and governments were radically transformed.
My Dad was born into a world with few creature comforts. In several respects the world at his birth more closely resembled the world of previous centuries than the world of today, just decades later. His was a primarily agrarian society. Industrialization had taken hold but the fruits of it had barely reached the stage of mass consumption. He was born long before the world population first reached 2-billion.
The great majority of all the scientific developments in the history of mankind occurred during my Dad's lifetime. Medical breakthroughs led to the most massive expansion of longevity in man's history. Mechanization was brought down to the level of the individual to the point of a near total dependency on everything from computers to cellular phones, lawnmowers to power tools to kitchen appliances.
Now these advances seem to be running out of steam or maybe it's just that their inevitable side-effects and repercussions are beginning to catch up. Now we stand poised to reap the whirlwind of our revolutionary advances and excesses - overpopulation, pollution, desertification, species extinction, resource exhaustion and the depletion of renewables, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and, of course, global warming.
In my Dad's lifetime we developed the means to create truly existential threats. Nuclear Armageddon, cataclysmic global warming. We have perched ourselves at the edge of this precipice and we did it without thinking, almost inadvertently. We have abruptly come to realize that the mantra of growth that we embraced for so long may have failed us. The challenge for the coming decades may be to make sense of all these revolutionary changes and retake the control over our lives that we surrendered to them.
My Dad grew up in a house where you pumped your water, by hand. Heat came from a wood stove, light from coal oil lamps. No electricity, no indoor plumbing. Certainly no telephone. When those things arrived, they were revolutionary. His life was a succession of revolutionary advances.
He remembered quite clearly his father's first car, a revolutionary advance over the horse drawn wagon. He remembered quite clearly seeing his first airplane and his first airplane ride at a county fair. He remembered the ice box giving way to the electric refrigerator. Revolutionary.
In the span of his lifetime almost everything changed as revolution begat revolution. The way we produced and distributed food changed. We became estranged from the farm and umbilically connected to the grocery store. The way we travelled and travel itself underwent revolutionary change. The way we communicated was a succession of quantum advances. Relationships among individuals, with communities, societies and governments were radically transformed.
My Dad was born into a world with few creature comforts. In several respects the world at his birth more closely resembled the world of previous centuries than the world of today, just decades later. His was a primarily agrarian society. Industrialization had taken hold but the fruits of it had barely reached the stage of mass consumption. He was born long before the world population first reached 2-billion.
The great majority of all the scientific developments in the history of mankind occurred during my Dad's lifetime. Medical breakthroughs led to the most massive expansion of longevity in man's history. Mechanization was brought down to the level of the individual to the point of a near total dependency on everything from computers to cellular phones, lawnmowers to power tools to kitchen appliances.
Now these advances seem to be running out of steam or maybe it's just that their inevitable side-effects and repercussions are beginning to catch up. Now we stand poised to reap the whirlwind of our revolutionary advances and excesses - overpopulation, pollution, desertification, species extinction, resource exhaustion and the depletion of renewables, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and, of course, global warming.
In my Dad's lifetime we developed the means to create truly existential threats. Nuclear Armageddon, cataclysmic global warming. We have perched ourselves at the edge of this precipice and we did it without thinking, almost inadvertently. We have abruptly come to realize that the mantra of growth that we embraced for so long may have failed us. The challenge for the coming decades may be to make sense of all these revolutionary changes and retake the control over our lives that we surrendered to them.
A Global Warming Denialist's Field Guide
It's not easy to believe that global warming is a hoax or just bad science. It takes a lot of hard work not to get it and that chore is getting harder by the day. However, if you're willing to shoulder this Herculean burden, here are a few tips to help you on your way.
1. Don't Look Up. This is the most important rule. Look down and only down. Don't look up and, in particular, don't look around. You'll need to put on the blinders and stuff your ears with cotton if you're to have any hope of avoiding the contamination of legitimate science and the rapidly mounting research on global warming.
If you stare directly at your feet you'll probably find no discernible evidence whatsoever of global warming. But, be careful - you might not be so lucky if you look up, even briefly. If you look up you might get a glimpse of those places where global warming is already going full bore - places like central Africa, the eastern Mediterranean, the American south, most of Australia and Europe and Asia. You don't want to look at those places and you really don't want to even take a quick peek at the Arctic.
2. Don't Be Too Fussy. Another important rule. There are people and organizations out there that'll tell you what you want to hear - that the whole global warming thing is a crock or a conspiracy by the worldwide scientific community. They will assure you that the science is inconclusive or that greenhouse gas emissions aren't the problem or that this has all happened before or even that we're entering an era of global cooling. They'll fill your mind with whatever they can manage to pack in there but - and remember this - don't be too fussy about what they're telling you or who it's coming from.
Aren't you getting tired of all this "peer review" nonsense? Truth is truth after all, whether it's peer reviewed or not. Just because the experts you want to hear can't come up with any research that's actually been reviewed (i.e. "tested") by other experts in their field doesn't mean that they're giving you a big load of hooey. Remember, after all, that global conspiracy by the scientific community.
Don't waste your time looking into the background of these experts. Just because they previously worked for Big Tobacco in spreading doubt about the link between cigarettes and cancer and just because they now take funding from Big Oil to spread doubt about the link between fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, that's sheer coincidence. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
3. Stand Your Ground. Sooner or later you'll be pressured by someone from the Looney Left - and that includes all governments and their militaries, all national institutes of science, most industries, the environmentalists, you know, the entire "fringe" group - to learn a bit about anthropogenic global warming by reading the latest research and studies and environmental news. Don't do it. They're only trying to knock you off balance.
Stick with Fox News or NewsMax or the open mouth talk shows - the lower the better. They'll feed you their message until you can't hear any more. If they can't spin something away, they'll just make something up. Either way, you'll get what you were looking for.
4. Be Strong. These past ten years have been tough on Denialists. Truth alone has taken a huge toll on their ranks. Many of the mere "doubters" have already defected leaving only the hard core deniers to man the barricades. The True Unbelievers now tend to be the shills and the cranks but, hey, everyone is entitled to his opinion, eh?
So hang tough, the next decade promises to be so much harder than the last one.
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Rocky Road to 2010
Tuesday night's massive rockslide near Porteau Cove is a timely reminder of the endless problems associated with British Columbia's "Sea to Sky" highway, the road that will serve as the transport artery for the 2010 Olympic games in Whistler.
Scratch a roadway and rail bed out of the side of a mountain and you can expect problems like this. And they're nothing new either. This is one treacherous stretch of highway and it's been that way since it was built. The main culprits have been falling rocks and washouts. Add to that the inevitable mix of drunk, reckless or incompetent motorists and you've got endless fodder for the local papers.
The BC government, "Liberal" in name only, has been busy choking off essential services (closing hospital beds, etc.) while ponying up $600-million (critics claim it'll be more than $800-million) for improvements to the Olympic roadway. Now this.
It's not that the rockslide created an insurmountable problem. The whole thing is expected to be cleared within five days. The problem is that this slide has put the provincial government behind an 8-ball. Now it has to survey the entire route, searching for and fixing potential flaws. That could become an enormous expense that would swell the already engorged Sea to Sky budget.
Oh dear. You can almost hear those hospital doors slamming shut.
Scratch a roadway and rail bed out of the side of a mountain and you can expect problems like this. And they're nothing new either. This is one treacherous stretch of highway and it's been that way since it was built. The main culprits have been falling rocks and washouts. Add to that the inevitable mix of drunk, reckless or incompetent motorists and you've got endless fodder for the local papers.
The BC government, "Liberal" in name only, has been busy choking off essential services (closing hospital beds, etc.) while ponying up $600-million (critics claim it'll be more than $800-million) for improvements to the Olympic roadway. Now this.
It's not that the rockslide created an insurmountable problem. The whole thing is expected to be cleared within five days. The problem is that this slide has put the provincial government behind an 8-ball. Now it has to survey the entire route, searching for and fixing potential flaws. That could become an enormous expense that would swell the already engorged Sea to Sky budget.
Oh dear. You can almost hear those hospital doors slamming shut.
A Killer Who Took the Easy Way Out or An Innocent Man Driven to Suicide?
American anthrax scientist, Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, has died at his own hand. According to the Washington Post, Ivins' death comes just as a federal grand jury was about to indict the scientist for murder in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and terrorized the country.
"Prosecutors were considering whether to seek the death penalty against Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who worked at an elite U.S. Army bioweapons laboratory in Fort Detrick. Ivins died Tuesday in an apparent suicide.
Ivins died Tuesday at Frederick Memorial Hospital, according to an obituary published in the Frederick News-Post. The Los Angeles Times first reported in today's editions that a federal grand jury in Washington had been gathering testimony about Ivins's alleged involvement in the attacks, and that Ivins had been notified that criminal charges were looming.
Fort Detrick, located 50 miles north of Washington, has been a focus of Justice Department and FBI investigators for nearly six years, since anthrax-laced letters arrived at media organizations and Senate offices shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The anthrax mailings killed five people, including two postal workers at the Brentwood Road facility in the District, and sickened 17 others, spreading fear on Capitol Hill and across the country only weeks after hijacked jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
For the past several months, the grand jury had been hearing testimony from scientists who worked alongside Ivins at Fort Detrick, performing research on inhaled anthrax spores, according to the Times report. While the Times report said Ivins worked in the elite biodefense lab since 1990, the News-Post obituary said he had been a scientist at Fort Detrick for 36 years.
The mailings, sent to then-Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), network television offices in New York and the company that owns the National Enquirer, gripped the nation and disrupted correspondence. In addition to the two D.C. postal workers, a Florida photographer, a New York hospital worker and an elderly Connecticut woman died after being exposed to the powder. "
Mending the Broken Harness of Democracy
Trust the New York Times' David Brooks to put a highly spun gloss on a clearly stated problem. This time the columnist weighs in on the undoing of the cohesion that once marked the major democracies:
"...Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest.
This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action. In practice, this new pluralistic world has given rise to globosclerosis, an inability to solve problem after problem.
...the Doha failure comes amid a decade of globosclerosis. The world has failed to effectively end genocide in Darfur. Chinese and Russian vetoes foiled efforts to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. The world has failed to implement effective measures to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The world has failed to embrace a collective approach to global warming. Europe’s drive toward political union has stalled.
In each case, the logic is the same. Groups with a strong narrow interest are able to block larger groups with a diffuse but generalized interest. The narrow Chinese interest in Sudanese oil blocks the world’s general interest in preventing genocide. Iran’s narrow interest in nuclear weapons trumps the world’s general interest in preventing a Middle East arms race. Diplomacy goes asymmetric and the small defeat the large.
Moreover, in a multipolar world, there is no way to referee disagreements among competing factions. In a democratic nation, the majority rules and members of the minority understand that they must accede to the wishes of those who win elections.
But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy.
And so the globosclerosis continues, and people around the world lose faith in their leaders. It’s worth remembering that George W. Bush is actually more popular than many of his peers. His approval ratings hover around 29 percent. Gordon Brown’s are about 17 percent. Japan’s Yasuo Fukuda’s are about 26 percent. Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi have ratings that are a bit higher, but still pathetically low.
This is happening because voters rightly sense that leaders lack the authority to address problems.
So, what would Mr. Brooks have us do? He endorses a League of Democracies, an idea conceived by several Democrats and embraced by John McCain. Like-minded nations unite to use their collective will to shape world events. What Brooks won't say is that he sees his nation, the United States, as entitled to the mantle of "world leader" it formerly enjoyed.
Washington, having made a horrible mess of its experiment in unipolar world dominance, now wants to invite its old friends to sign on to something resembling one side of the old Cold War. Let bygones be bygones. Return to the default mode. Brooks hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
"There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy."
Brooks is inadvertently describing his own nation. America has persistently rejected multilateralism, particularly through institutions such as the UN and the International Court of Justice, and has held itself above all others, including its traditional allies.
Before there can be any genuine, effective League of Democracies, America is going to have to step down from that undeserved, unearned perch. Washington is going to have to acknowledge that the order, even among democracies, has been permanently altered - that the economy of the European Union is far greater than its own and that the role of consensus is now greater than ever. If Washington chooses to lead, it can only do that with the consent of the others and it is going to have to earn that consent. A key to that is to regain the trust of the fellow democracies it treated with such disdain for the past eight years.
In other words, if Washington does want a new, meaningful and effective alliance with like-minded states, it has an awful lot of work to do to rebuild the essential foundations. If it continues to treat its political, diplomatic and international deficits as irrelevant, it will only perpetuate the disharmony that Brooks complains of.
"...Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest.
This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action. In practice, this new pluralistic world has given rise to globosclerosis, an inability to solve problem after problem.
...the Doha failure comes amid a decade of globosclerosis. The world has failed to effectively end genocide in Darfur. Chinese and Russian vetoes foiled efforts to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. The world has failed to implement effective measures to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The world has failed to embrace a collective approach to global warming. Europe’s drive toward political union has stalled.
In each case, the logic is the same. Groups with a strong narrow interest are able to block larger groups with a diffuse but generalized interest. The narrow Chinese interest in Sudanese oil blocks the world’s general interest in preventing genocide. Iran’s narrow interest in nuclear weapons trumps the world’s general interest in preventing a Middle East arms race. Diplomacy goes asymmetric and the small defeat the large.
Moreover, in a multipolar world, there is no way to referee disagreements among competing factions. In a democratic nation, the majority rules and members of the minority understand that they must accede to the wishes of those who win elections.
But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy.
And so the globosclerosis continues, and people around the world lose faith in their leaders. It’s worth remembering that George W. Bush is actually more popular than many of his peers. His approval ratings hover around 29 percent. Gordon Brown’s are about 17 percent. Japan’s Yasuo Fukuda’s are about 26 percent. Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi have ratings that are a bit higher, but still pathetically low.
This is happening because voters rightly sense that leaders lack the authority to address problems.
So, what would Mr. Brooks have us do? He endorses a League of Democracies, an idea conceived by several Democrats and embraced by John McCain. Like-minded nations unite to use their collective will to shape world events. What Brooks won't say is that he sees his nation, the United States, as entitled to the mantle of "world leader" it formerly enjoyed.
Washington, having made a horrible mess of its experiment in unipolar world dominance, now wants to invite its old friends to sign on to something resembling one side of the old Cold War. Let bygones be bygones. Return to the default mode. Brooks hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
"There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy."
Brooks is inadvertently describing his own nation. America has persistently rejected multilateralism, particularly through institutions such as the UN and the International Court of Justice, and has held itself above all others, including its traditional allies.
Before there can be any genuine, effective League of Democracies, America is going to have to step down from that undeserved, unearned perch. Washington is going to have to acknowledge that the order, even among democracies, has been permanently altered - that the economy of the European Union is far greater than its own and that the role of consensus is now greater than ever. If Washington chooses to lead, it can only do that with the consent of the others and it is going to have to earn that consent. A key to that is to regain the trust of the fellow democracies it treated with such disdain for the past eight years.
In other words, if Washington does want a new, meaningful and effective alliance with like-minded states, it has an awful lot of work to do to rebuild the essential foundations. If it continues to treat its political, diplomatic and international deficits as irrelevant, it will only perpetuate the disharmony that Brooks complains of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
