BC's Newest Arrivals - Giant Humboldt Squid

When they washed up in their hundreds on the beaches of Tofino in August most everybody thought it was some sort of fluke. How could the voracious Humboldt squid, denizen of
Mexico's Sea of Cortez and other tropical waters find their way en masse into the North Pacific? When they appeared again in droves in September it began looking as if they might just be here to stay.

CBC News reports that marine scientists are now planning to place tracking devices on some of these creatures to try to find out just what is going on:

...The Humboldt is a species of squid that, up to now, has been associated with waters warmer than those found off Vancouver Island.

"The whole town was talking about it — 'have you seen the squid, have you seen the squid?'" said marine biologist Josie Anderson of the Raincoast Education Society.

"And they were asking, 'what are these,' because most people, myself included, we had never seen them before."

...John Payne, a marine biologist with the Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking Project (POST), said the events show that oceans are changing. "And I think we're going to see a lot more strandings."

There's more than an academic interest in the squid's wandering ways. The animal is a voracious predator, said Payne, and fishermen off the Pacific coast are concerned about the impact of the squid on their fish catch.

"Hake trolls off the coast of Washington are catching 30 tonnes of squid, some of them as much as 80 tonnes," said Payne.

Hmm, we've got salmon stocks simply vanishing without a trace at the same time we're seeing the arrival of masses of new predator species migrating out of warmer, southern waters. Yes indeed, the oceans are changing and a lot more rapidly than anyone expected.

So what is the government of the day doing about it? Good question. I guess Steve might be roused from his perpetual nap when these things start attacking divers and swimmers. Attack? Yes, without hesitation. Scott Cassel of Escondido, California has been attacked repeatedly by Humboldts while filming documentaries. The nature of the Humboldt is evident in the outfit he's wearing:




...Cassell researched Humboldt squid for two years before he began diving with them. Humboldts, named for a current in the eastern Pacific, have a sharp beak, eight muscular arms and two retractable feeding tentacles that they use to attack their prey with more than 40,000 needle-sharp teeth at once.

“They shred you when they grab you,” Cassell said. “The fishermen in Mexico would rather fall into the water with a feeding frenzy of sharks than Humboldt squid.”

Cassell made his first dive with a group of Humboldts that were feeding off Baja California. The squid, which often grow to be 6 feet or longer, immediately attacked, Cassell said, pulling his right shoulder out of its socket, yanking him down so fast his right eardrum ruptured and cutting him so badly his wet suit was destroyed.

...“They're not just attacking you to scare you,” Cassell said. “They are attacking you to eat you, not necessarily to kill you. They don't care if you live or die as long as they get to eat.”



...Humboldts are the most alien-like creatures on the planet, Cassell said, because they have three hearts, blue blood that is copper-based, the ability to swim at about 24 mph and excellent problem-solving skills. They live in water as deep as 3,000 feet, are as smart as dogs and are able to communicate with one another by changing their skin color from white to various shades of red, he said.

Is It Really Just a Lack of Trust?

I'm no happier with the malaise that has beset the Liberal Party than anyone else. I genuinely hate what's happening now and what's been going on for the last several years.

So what happened? It's not just one leader, we've had two who have utterly failed to connect with the Canadian voting public. Worse yet, we've allowed a guy with the charisma of wet cardboard to get between the Liberals and those voters. What is going on?

I'm kind of wondering if there hasn't been a mutual loss of trust between the LPC and ordinary Canadians? The party doesn't trust them, they don't trust the party. Then again, why should they?

Just what does the Liberal Party really stand for? Don't ask me, I don't have a clue anymore. All I see is a party obsessed with reclaiming power. A party that seems almost indifferent to the public, their welfare and their concerns. A party that has allowed itself to drift out of touch with the very voters who elected this party to government so many times.

It burns my backside when I read and hear Liberals dismiss the public as too dumb to get it, to appreciate the Liberals and their oh so sophisticated leader. That's the mentality that is killing this party. They're not too dumb. You're too goddamned lazy and too goddamned arrogant and too goddamned indifferent to reach them. They were just fine when they were electing Liberal governments but now they're shits? People who talk like that or write that drivel or even think like that should be slung straight out of this party and that goes from the bottom to the very top. When I read that crap I wonder why anybody would vote for this party.

Look, Stephen Harper isn't still in power because he's good. He's not, he's bloody awful. Being unable to topple Harper these past 18-months is tantamount to being unable to punch your way out of a paper bag. But he's come through unscathed, stronger than ever it seems. Our Leader and his brain trust have fumbled and bobbled and botched every opportunity. Harper has turned the tables on them. Time and again Mr. Ignatieff has puffed himself up and made fearsome pronouncements only to see Harper call his bluff. How many times do you think a guy can do that before everyone catches on? What is a politician when he's flushed his own credibility down the drain?

One moment sticks with me from the Frost/Nixon interviews. Nixon was describing what real political leadership means. He portrayed it as the ability to persuade the public to support something generally unpopular, something they don't like. It is the ability to gain their confidence to the point they'll overcome their own reluctance and fears. That's the public placing their trust in a leader. That trust is so hard to earn and so easily lost.

It was Michael Ignatieff's job as freshly-minted leader to go out and earn the public's trust. He didn't do that. Instead he pursued grandiose blustering that did nothing but undermine his credibility. It certainly did nothing for the country nor did it do anything for the Liberal Party. Mr. Ignatieff is now hip deep in a hole he dug for himself. If it wasn't for the residual strength of the Liberal brand he might be in up to his neck.

I'm not sure that Michael Ignatieff can ever recover his credibility but it's best to treat that question as moot. Fixating on that isn't going to get the Liberal Party anywhere. He's the leader for now but it is time he started acting like a leader of this party. Everybody's clamoring for clear Liberal policy, something Ignatieff has been ducking at his and the party's expense ever since he took over. Enough of that nonsense.

To turn around this fiasco will take clear policy that engages the Canadian public and a leader of the sort described by Nixon. You have to have both. We can formulate all manner of really good policy but it'll be for naught unless the voting public is willing to place their confidence in Mr. Ignatieff. That's a huge challenge for the current leader but this Party deserves nothing less and it's his obligation to deliver.

So Michael, pull your thumb out of your ass and start acting like you're someone who deserves to be the leader of this party, someone the public can and should trust.

Your Long Weekend Giggle

This is from a truly hilarious blogger, Wendi Aarons.

An Open Letter to James Thatcher, Brand Manager, Proctor and Gamble

Dear Mr. Thatcher,

I have been a loyal user of your Always maxi pads for over 20 years, and I appreciate many of their features. Why, without the LeakGuard Core(tm) or Dri-Weave(tm) absorbency, I'd probably never go horseback riding or salsa dancing, and I'd certainly steer clear of running up and down the beach in tight, white shorts. But my favorite feature has to be your revolutionary Flexi-Wings. Kudos on being the only company smart enough to realize how crucial it is that maxi pads be aerodynamic. I can't tell you how safe and secure I feel each month knowing there's a little F-16 in my pants.

Have you ever had a menstrual period, Mr. Thatcher? Ever suffered from "the curse"? I'm guessing you haven't. Well, my "time of the month" is starting right now. As I type, I can already feel hormonal forces violently surging through my body. Just a few minutes from now, my body will adjust and I'll be transformed into what my husband likes to call "an inbred hillbilly with knife skills."

Isn't the human body amazing? As brand manager in the feminine-hygiene division, you've no doubt seen quite a bit of research on what exactly happens during your customers' monthly visits from Aunt Flo. Therefore, you must know about the bloating, puffiness, and cramping we endure, and about our intense mood swings, crying jags, and out-of-control behavior.

You surely realize it's a tough time for most women. In fact, only last week, my friend Jennifer fought the violent urge to shove her boyfriend's testicles into a George Foreman Grill just because he told her he thought Grey's Anatomy was written by drunken chimps. Crazy!

The point is, sir, you of all people must realize that America is just crawling with homicidal maniacs in capri pants. Which brings me to the reason for my letter.

Last month, while in the throes of cramping so painful I wanted to reach inside my body and yank out my uterus, I opened an Always maxi pad, and there, printed on the adhesive backing, were these words: "Have a Happy Period."

Are you fucking kidding me?

What I mean is, does any part of your tiny middle-manager brain really think happiness-actual smiling, laughing happiness-is possible during a menstrual period? Did anything mentioned above sound the least bit pleasurable? Well, did it, James? FYI, unless you're some kind of sick S&M freak girl, there will never be anything "happy" about a day in which you have to jack yourself up on Motrin and Kahlúa and lock yourself in your house just so you don't march down to the local Walgreens armed with a hunting rifle and a sketchy plan to end your life in a blaze of glory.

For the love of God, pull your head out, man. If you just have to slap a moronic message on a maxi pad, wouldn't it make more sense to say something that's actually pertinent, like "Put Down the Hammer" or "Vehicular Manslaughter Is Wrong"? Or are you just picking on us?

Sir, please inform your accounting department that, effective immediately, there will be an $8 drop in monthly profits, for I have chosen to take my maxi-pad business elsewhere. And though I will certainly miss your Flexi-Wings, I will not for one minute miss your brand of condescending bullshit. And that's a promise I will keep. Always.

Best,

Wendi Aarons
Austin, TX

This is Beyond Twisted

Just when you thought you knew how twisted, mean and despicable the far right can be, along comes something to warn you we really don't know how creepy these bastards can be.

The Huffington Post has a story about the anti-abortion lobby in Oklahoma and their compliant state government that thinks it's just fine - mandatory even - to publish online full particulars of every woman obtaining an abortion.

The new law requires that every woman who obtains an abortion in the state disclose to the Secretary of State (who will post it online) the following information.

Date of abortion
County in which abortion performed
Age of mother
Marital status of mother (married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
Race of mother
Years of education of mother (specify highest year completed)
State or foreign country of residence of mother
Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Number of pregnancies that ended in live births
Number of pregnancies that ended in miscarriages
Number of pregnancies that ended in induced abortions

The only thing women won't have to reveal is their names--but, if you are a woman in a small community in Oklahoma, your neighbors (and anti-abortion forces) will likely be able to easily identify you anyway. That's probably the point.

The intimidation factor in this is obvious. I wouldn't be surprised to learn Harper is pencilling this one in just in case he manages to win a majority.

Screw the Polls, Let's Talk

Well the Liberals are certainly down and, judging from the sudden paucity of posts from Liberal bloggers, that has them down too.

Many respected Liberal bloggers are now calling for Iggy to begin releasing policy statements but his advisers, brilliant folks I'm sure, want him to wait for an election campaign. I have a couple of problems with that.

I think Ignatieff is overestimating his prowess if he thinks he can sell a complete policy platform in the brief span of an election campaign. He can't do it, he's just not that good in connecting with the Canadian public. He's better than Dion but not that much better.

Worse yet, I think if Ignatieff runs true to form, his policy platform will probably remain centre-right glossed over with a bag full of platitudes. Besides, who says an inexperienced, annointed party leader has the right to dictate party policy?

Unfortunately Mr. Ignatieff has shown that his judgment is fundamentally flawed. His position on Gaza, for example, was prematurely taken, naive and utterly inconsistent with Liberal tradition. In an awful conflict in which there were no clean hands, Ignatieff firmly lashed the Liberal Party to one side, absolving them of what turned out to be some pretty nasty war crimes.

Iggy was wrong on the Iraq war when he enthusiastically endorsed that hopelessly illegal invasion. I can understand that. He was then living in America and the mood at that time was pretty overwhelming. What troubles me is the character Ignatieff showed in changing his mind, in admitting he was wrong. He couldn't do it without trying to denigrate those who opposed the war from the outset as being disingenuously opposed, motivated mainly by a hatred of George w. Bush. Is this guy still stuck in high school? 15-year old kids do that sort of thing, not leaders of national parties.

On foreign policy, Mr. Ignatieff sees a "robust" role for the Canadian Forces, more peacemaking than peacekeeping. We've had a decade to see how well this peacemaking thing works out - in Iraq and Afganistan. Should a Liberal leader, one acclaimed to the post, be steering the party away from its traditional posture on this?

Ignatieff has been flat out wrong on his position on the Tar Sands. He claims to see Athabasca as the beating heart of the Canadian economy throughout the 21st century and has even proclaimed bitumen a key to national unity. What is this man thinking? Does he not know what's happening to our planet? Is he ignorant of what's already happening to the Athabasca region? If he mentions that at all, he glosses over it with empty platitudes.

On the environmental front Mr. Ignatieff has shown no spine, none whatsoever. He declared carbon taxing as dead, twisting the last election as a referendum on Dion's Green Shift. No need to talk about that any more, the public have spoken. That was a total and intellectually dishonest dodge.

Harper is going to the Copenhagen climate change summit with empty hands. He's done squat on global warming and our opposition leaders have been just fine with that. They've given him a pass, happy to duck the controversy themselves. That's leadership?

So, maybe it's time rank and file Liberals voiced their views on the issues of the day, stated their opinions on what the party policy ought to be. Why not right here, right now? Let's begin with the climate change conundrum.

What do you think Liberal policy should be on climate change? What would you expect of a Liberal government in terms of action on global warming?

It's 19/51 All Over Again!

I only wish that was true, but it's not. Ekos shows Iggy's approval rating at 19% while his disapproval rating is over two and a half times that at 51%.

When you're only getting one in five to approve of the job you're doing, you're not doing the job people need you to do. Fortunately, I suppose, the party's approval rating continues to hover above that of its Leader. Out of that one in five, how many do you think really approve of Michael Ignatieff? How many of them are just holding their noses? How many are whistling past the graveyard?

Maybe it's time for the Liberal Party to become liberal again. Even if there was merit to Mikey's right of centre posturing (and there's really none), he's not been able to sell his vision to the Canadian public. If these numbers mean anything he's not been able to sell it to a lot of Liberals either.

Maybe we should hope for an early election to put this mess out of its misery.

Sarkozy Cabinet Minister Liked (Really Liked) Boys

"I got into the habit of paying for boys

All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market,

all that excited me enormously

The abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys

put me in a state of desire"

- French culture minister, Frederic Mitterrand

And, having written that in his tell-all memoir, minister Mitterrand can't understand why critics are demanding his resignation or why they're indignant over his defence of Roman Polanski.

The 62-year old Mitterrand admitted in his autobiography to paying for boy sex in Thailand - a lot. But his attitude seems to be "that was then, this is now." Let bygones be bygones.

It's unimagineable how a guy who has openly admitted this monstrous abuse could have been allowed into Sarkozy's cabinet in the first place.

Que sera, sera?

Blaming the Victim - Mountie-Style

Robert Dziekanski was derided as a "whackjob" by the lawyer for Kwesi Millington, the RCMP constable who tasered Dziekanski to death at Vancouver airport.

Ravi Hira, the lawyer for Const. Kwesi Millington, stressed witness accounts that paint Dziekanski as a "whackjob" and an "unusual passenger" and made constant reference to potential alcoholism.

"It's relevant to perhaps the cause of death. It's relevant to perhaps his actions. It's relevant to why he acted the way he did," Hira said after commissioner Thomas Braidwood questioned his approach during closing submissions.

All the while, a heartbroken Cisowski twisted and turned in her seat at every remark and had to be restrained at times by her victims' services handler.

"Oh my God," she cried. "Oh my gosh."

Public observers at the inquiry offered their support to the grieving mother, who confessed listening to the remarks was "so upsetting."

So that's what it's come down to. The officers' defence is going to be that Dziekanski got what he had coming to him. His death was his own doing. Isn't that the same thing they said about Ian Bush when they blew his brains out with a bullet to the back of his head while in police custody?

First Came Acid Rain, Now It's Acid Sea

Will the Arctic Ocean turn into a corrosive stew? Researchers now warn that parts of the Arctic Ocean could reach corrosive levels within a decade. From The Sunday Observer:

"This is extremely worrying," Professor Jean-Pierre Gattuso, of France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, told an international oceanography conference last week. "We knew that the seas were getting more acidic and this would disrupt the ability of shellfish – like mussels – to grow their shells. But now we realise the situation is much worse. The water will become so acidic it will actually dissolve the shells of living shellfish."

Just as an acid descaler breaks apart limescale inside a kettle, so the shells that protect molluscs and other creatures will be dissolved. "This will affect the whole food chain, including the North Atlantic salmon, which feeds on molluscs," said Gattuso, speaking at a European commission conference, Oceans of Tomorrow, in Barcelona last week. The oceanographer told delegates that the problem of ocean acidification was worse in high latitudes, in the Arctic and around Antarctica, than it was nearer the equator.

"More carbon dioxide can dissolve in cold water than warm," he said. "Hence the problem of acidification is worse in the Arctic than in the tropics, though we have only recently got round to studying the problem in detail."

About a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by factories, power stations and cars now ends up being absorbed by the oceans. That represents more than six million tonnes of carbon a day.

Editing Jesus

A gaggle of Christian conservatives is fed up with Jesus and all his silly, liberal ways. So they're writing a new Bible, one in which Jesus is edited into one of them, a conservative.

Screw biblical inerrancy, Jesus was wrong. That line, "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Never should've said it. Doesn't belong in a conservative Bible at all. It's gotta go. From AlterNet:

In an effort to rid the Good Book of "liberal bias," the group has set up the Conservative Bible Project, which aims to rewrite the Bible from a modern, conservative perspective.

"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations," the project's Web site asserts.

...The "forgive them father" quote "is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible," Conservapedia states.

And evidently many of Jesus' other teachings -- from the "turn the other cheek" lesson, to his disdain for profiteering -- will also no longer be acceptable in the conservative Bible.

"Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification," the Web site states -- a strange assertion, given that English versions of the Bible date back at least to the 16th century, while socialism as a concept was formed in the 18th century.

..."The insane hubris of this really staggers the mind," writes Rod Dreher at Beliefnet. "These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology."

I think this is wonderful. The nutty Christian Right tacitly admitting Jesus, the man they worship, call Son of God, and vow to obey, was plainly a liberal. So instead of changing their ways to be closer to God, a liberal, they're going to change God (or at least his son) to reflect their image.

It was bound to happen. This sort of thing inevitably happens when you let crazy people loose, especially crazy fundamentalists (of any faith).

Are the Days Numbered for the Greenback?

There's a plot afoot to dump the United States dollar as the standard currency for pricing world oil deals. Robert Fisk writes in The Independent that the Gulf States are plotting with Russia, China, Japan and France for a new scheme whereby oil will be priced by a basket of currencies.

...Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

...The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy.

...Ever since the Bretton Woods agreements – the accords after the Second World War which bequeathed the architecture for the modern international financial system – America's trading partners have been left to cope with the impact of Washington's control and, in more recent years, the hegemony of the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency.

..."These plans will change the face of international financial transactions," one Chinese banker said. "America and Britain must be very worried. You will know how worried by the thunder of denials this news will generate."

The First Failed State in America - California

It's the stuff of legends - magnificent beaches and mountains, movie stars and Rodeo Drive, exotic cars and perfect tans - and now it's virtually broke. According to The Guardian, California is on the verge of becoming America's first failed state:

From its politics to its economy to its environment and way of life, California is like a patient on life support. At the start of summer the state government was so deeply in debt that it began to issue IOUs instead of wages. Its unemployment rate has soared to more than 12%, the highest figure in 70 years. Desperate to pay off a crippling budget deficit, California is slashing spending in education and healthcare, laying off vast numbers of workers and forcing others to take unpaid leave. In a state made up of sprawling suburbs the collapse of the housing bubble has impoverished millions and kicked tens of thousands of families out of their homes. Its political system is locked in paralysis and the two-term rule of former movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger is seen as a disaster – his approval ratings having sunk to levels that would make George W Bush blush.

CanWest - Tits Up - Files for Bankruptcy Protection

The Fat Lady has sung. CanWest Global has thrown itself on the mercy of the bankruptcy court.

The Winnipeg-based company has filed for protection under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act. The CCAA is a vehicle for insolvent companies to have the court shelter them from the claims (and claws) of creditors while they try to reach a settlement with the major, secured creditors. Wee, little, insignificant ordinary creditors are toast.

If the company comes up with an "arrangement" satisfactory to the court it can emerge as a functioning, operating entity conveniently shed of those little creditors and with the majors pared down. If the court doesn't like what it sees, it's over - bankruptcy.

What remains to be seen is what happens to the Aspers, their equity in CanWest and their future role in the management of the company.

Way to go David. Way to go Lenny. Way to go Terry and Jonathon and Lorne and all the rest of you hacks. Here's a tip. Make up your mind whether you're going to produce a newspaper or toilet paper. If it's the latter, you'll do better if you leave out the ink.

Rethink Afghanistan

Watch this and then ask yourself, "Just what are we doing in Afghanistan?"

More Rethink Afghanistan

Why Grow a Hopeless Cause?



The Civilian Cost of Afghanistan



The Women of Afghanistan

McChrystal's "Lose-Lose" Strategy for Afghanistan

The US general responsible for the West's forces in Afghanistan is already a media celebrity. General Stanley McChrystal has even been given the gushing approval of 60 Minutes. And, while he may not have much of a grip on the Taliban and tribal insurgency, he's got the Obama administration in a headlock.

McChrystal wants Obama to sweep eight years of Pentagon and NATO failure under the carpet and, instead, start over. He wants a do-over. He wants his chance to wage this war just as each of his predecessors had their turn. And, the very best part, he wants to hang the political risk for his strategy around Obama's neck.

The general and his boss, even bigger general David Petraeus, have Obama in a box. Someone on their side leaked McChrystal's report calling for more forces for Afghanistan or else failure. There it is. Give us another 40,000 troops Mr. President or we'll make our failure your failure but, if you do give us those extra troops, we're still not on the hook to win. We may even be back for more, a lot more.


McChrystal wants more troops so that he can stage a tactical retreat. He's proposing to yield control of the countryside to the insurgent/rebels and, instead, concentrate on defending population centres. Any way you cut it, that's a retreat.


The Petraeus/McChrystal tag team are falling back on the cities. They're presenting this as a strategy when, in fact, it's not their strategy but the other side's that's behind this. The insurgent/rebels now pose a genuine threat to Afghanistan's cities, notably Kabul and Kandahar city. If those centers fall, it is indeed over and everyone knows it. The insurgent/rebels will gain a critical mass at which point our side's warlords, in the time-honoured Afghan tradition, will begin to defect. The insurgent/rebel leaders are trying to force the West into the same untenable position previously occupied by the Soviets - a foreign army propping up a nub government at war with all the tribes.


It doesn't help that Obama's key general has aspirations of someday winning the Republican presidential nomination. In my opinion Petraeus has a pretty direct interest in making sure that, when the music stops, he's not the one who winds up without a chair.


If the insurgent/rebels succeed in forcing the White House and Pentagon to accept urban warfare in Afghanistan it hands them several powerful victories. It's an enormous victory in the Taliban's war, the political war, the war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The public perception, right or wrong, will be that the Western forces have been driven to retreat.


Undermining the public's confidence in the willingness and ability of the government and government forces to protect them is the Holy Grail of the insurgent/rebel's political war. The West's problem is made all the worse by the inability or unwillingness of the central government to establish itself as viable, effective and honest. We're propping up an unnecessarily unpopular and hopelessly corrupt regime and we don't have the means to change that.


As Western forces fall back on the population centers, so does Afghanistan's central government. Kabul's already tenuous grip on the countryside, without which it cannot become viable, is lost.


If Obama gives McChrystal the additional 40,000 troops already demanded, his generals will probably be back for more before long. Why's that? Look to David Petraeus for the answer to that one. He commanded the brain trust that wrote the US military's new counterinsurgency manual, FM3-24. One of the pearls of that collected wisdom is the observation that successful counterinsurgency requires a force of one counterinsurgent (soldier) for every 25-50 of the civilian population. Afghanistan has a population of nearly 30,000,000. To secure that population in these highly difficult circumstances would require, by Petraeus' formula, a force of not less than 600,000 soldiers. That's what you need to win, not 60,000 here and another 40,000 there.


The insurgent/rebel's second victory in forcing the Western forces to fall back on population centers is that it negates much of the West's heavy firepower superiority. Tanks don't work well in a labyrinth of narrow city streets. You can't call down artillery barrages and air strikes on the friendly locals in downtown neighbourhoods. You're left with the very sort of battle best suited to the insurgent/rebels. It's the sort of battle that allows them to inflict the level of casualties that destroys public support at home.

I suspect that Stan McChrystal knows that he's inherited a load of stable sweepings. The Pentagon must feel that, in Afghanistan, it's been placed behind the eight ball by the neglect and hapless leadership of the Bush administration in the years immediately after the Taliban were run out, the years when Bush & Co. were distracted by Iraq. I'm guessing that the Pentagon sees this as a political betrayal and wants to stick the blame on the political classes, even if that means the successor to George w. Bush. I'd bet they're all too ready to stick Obama with this fiasco.

Burying Healthcare Reform with Money

It's war. America's healthcare industry has launched a legion of lobbyists to overrun, even overwhelm Congress to block public medical insurance and thwart other reforms.

Sounds like hyperbole? Not really. What else can you call it when Big Med is waging its campaign with six lobbyists for every member of Congress? From The Guardian:

The industry and interest groups have spent $380m (£238m) in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totalling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law.

...Drug and insurance companies say they are merely seeking to educate politicians and the public. But with industry lobbyists swarming over Capitol Hill ‑ there are six registered healthcare lobbyists for every member of Congress ‑ a partner in the most powerful lobbying firm in Washington acknowledged that healthcare firms' money "has had a lot of influence" and that it is "morally suspect".

Right, and can anyone guess just how much "education" a senator can get with $1.5m of Big Med money in his pocket?

A primary target of criticism is Senator Max Baucus, the single largest recipient of health industry political donations and chairman of the finance committee that drafted the legislation criticised by Woolhander.

The committee this week twice voted against including public insurance in the legislation, with Baucus opposing it both times.

Baucus took $1.5m from the health sector for his political fund in the past year. Other members of the committee have received hundreds of thousands of dollars. They include Senator Pat Roberts, who last week tried to stall the bill by arguing that lobbyists needed three days to read it.

Baucus holds dinners for health industry executives at which they pay thousands of dollars each to be at the table, and an annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in his home state of Montana that lobbyists pay handsomely to attend. They have included John Jonas, who represents healthcare firms for Patton Boggs, widely regarded as the top lobbying firm in Washington. Jonas, who formerly worked on the congressional staff, acknowledges that political contributions are intended to buy influence and says it works.

Bush Blamed for Russia-Georgia War

It was no surprise this week when an independent EU fact-finding commission reported that Georgia started its 5-day war with Russia in August, 2008. But a member of that commission, writing in The New York Times, says their report left out the role George w. Bush played in the outbreak of that conflict and in failing to bring Georgia's Saakashvili to heel:

...the report has a major flaw. It fails to thoroughly analyze the decisive role that the United States played before, during and after the conflict. Only a detailed assessment of President George W. Bush’s Georgia policy and its failures can fully explain the outbreak of the war and help the E.U. and President Obama shape new policies toward Russia and Georgia.

...After 9/11, ...President Bush changed the policy toward Georgia, introducing two elements that developed into serious strategic disadvantages. Mr. Bush not only made Georgia into a partner in the “war on terror,” but he promoted Mr. Saakashvili and Georgia into a centerpiece of his “promotion of democracy.” In Tbilisi in 2005, Mr. Bush proclaimed Mr. Saakashvili’s Georgia “a beacon of liberty.”

Even as President Bush became increasingly aware that he needed the Kremlin’s help in Iran and for other American interests, he was kept a prisoner by this exaggeration of Georgia’s importance for U.S. foreign policy.

Senior officials of the Bush administration claim they warned Mr. Saakashvili against using force against Russia. But having invested so much ideological importance in the Georgian president, Mr. Bush couldn’t warn him publicly — or, as it turned out, stop him. Having become so dependent on Mr. Saakashvili’s success, the United States lost the political influence to stop him.

Once the war broke out on the night of Aug. 7, President Bush decided against any U.S. military action, and instead to encourage President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, then holding the E.U. presidency, to seek a cease-fire. That was also a strategic mistake: Only the United States had the political clout to negotiate and enforce a serious peace agreement with Russia.

A foreign policy failure of the Bush administration? That'd be one for the record books, wouldn't it? Jörg Himmelreich's assessment does make sense. It explains why, when Russia snapped back and counterattacked into Georgia, Saakashvili appeared genuinely surprised that the United States didn't send forces to rally to his support. He really believed that, even if Western Europe didn't go to war with Russia in defence of Georgia, America would.

Dalai Lama - Afghanistan Is A Failure

He accepts that war is sometimes necessary as in the Second World War and Korea. But, to the Dalai Lama, both Bush's Iraq adventure and the war in Afghanistan are failures.

At a press conference in Calgary he was asked about the tar sands. He responded indirectly by saying that in a choice between, "destruction of environment or losing money, then we have to choose losing money."

Hmm, I wonder if there's still time for Iggy to become a Buddhist?

Earth to Obama

It's not enough for Barack Obama to negotiate a climate change deal with China. It's Earth that matters, not China. However the approach Obama is taking virtually guarantees we're all going to fail in the fight against global warming. From The New Republic:

It's been a long year--Barack Obama has faced, in rough order, John McCain, global financial collapse, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Blue Dogs, the Progressive Caucus, the Gang of Six, Glenn Beck, Representative Joe Wilson (R-Hissy), and the third of Republicans convinced he was born somewhere else. Of course, minus the birth certificates, roughly the same has been true for Hu Jintao and Nicolas Sarkozy, for Angela Merkel and Manmohan Singh. That's what politics is--a series of challenges, which are rarely won or lost completely. You get part of what you wanted (everyone with health insurance), and maybe you leave other stuff for another day (the public option). That's why we call politics the pursuit of the possible.
And it's why the next big issue on the agenda is totally, scarily different. Assuming that the health care fracas eventually ends, Washington will tackle the president's other great priority for his administration--energy and climate. The House has already approved the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, and a Senate version is expected at month's end. Even if Congress drags its feet, Obama will visit China in mid-November to likely conclude a bilateral pact that will set the stage for the huge Copenhagen climate conference in December. It promises to be one more big fight.

But, throughout the process, as industry and environmentalists, Chinese and Indians, Americans and Europeans push and prod each other, another more important negotiation will be going on behind the scenes. That negotiation features human beings--led more by Obama than anyone else on the planet--against physics and chemistry. It's not going to be enough to strike a deal with Beijing or Delhi, to meet in the middle on some mutually plausible scheme. A deal has to be struck with the climate itself, and the climate is unlikely to haggle.

The logic is inescapable. Unless you negotiate within a "never exceed" emissions framework, all you'll accomplish is to negotiate yourself right past a tipping point where the planet's natural carbon dioxide and methane emission mechanisms are triggered. If you don't negotiate to stay well within that threshold, your negotiations are disastrous to the point of potentially lethal.