Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts

Monday, March 7, 2011

Libya: American President's 'Childish,' But Not 'Unilateral'

This isn't, as I've said before, a political blog. Not in the sense that I say that one person or party is the source of all that is good, just, and honorable: and that everybody who doesn't agree is a poo-poo head.

On the other hand, politics influences decision-making: here in America, at least.

Now, what this post is about:

Libya, America, 'the International Community,' and Who's in Charge

I've posted out Libya before:
Depending on who you listen to, Libya's Colonel is the victim of imperialists, a paragon of human rights, beloved by his people, or an autocrat whose subjects couldn't take it any more. I'm inclined to think that the Libyan pilots who defected, rather than bomb civilians, give a somewhat more accurate picture of the colonel.

But then, I don't use terms like "puppet warmongers" to describe folks who aren't sufficiently socialist.

It's not discussed much in the news, but Libya's a somewhat-socialist country.

The Libyan colonel came up with something he calls the Third Universal Theory. It's "a combination of socialism and Islam, derived in part from tribal practices and is supposed to be implemented by the Libyan people themselves in a unique form of 'direct democracy.' ("Libya," World Factbook, CIA (last updated March 1, 2011))

I think that goes a long way toward explaining why China, at least, isn't particularly anxious for Libya's boss to experience logical consequences for his actions.

Russia? That's anyone's guess. I'm still not sure - at all - why that country's leaders don't seem to mind Iran's Ayatollahs having nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the American president is 'threatening unilateral action against Libya - against the wishes of the international community.'

Except that's not how it's being said in the news. Russia and China don't seem ready to act against Libya's boss - and Libya was, the last I heard, in line for special commendation for its human rights record - but - - - here's the way the story goes in an America news source:
"NATO has launched around-the-clock surveillance flights of Libya as it considers various options for dealing with escalating violence in the war-torn country, America's ambassador to the organization told reporters Monday.

"Representatives of key Western powers also highlighted the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone in Libya -- part of growing campaign to break strongman Moammar Gadhafi's grip on power.

"British, French and U.S. officials were working on a draft text that includes language on a no-fly zone, diplomatic sources at the United Nations told CNN....

"...Any resolution on military intervention in Libya, however, would be subject to a vote by the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council. Such intervention could face sharp criticism from Russia and China, who rarely approve of such measures.

" 'The violence that's been taking place and perpetrated by the government in Libya is unacceptable," U.S. President Barack Obama said at the White House. Moammar Gadhafi's government 'will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there.'...

"...NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters in Belgium that the organization has no immediate intention to intervene in the Libyan civil war. But 'as a defense alliance and a security organization, it is our job to conduct prudent planning for any eventuality,' he said.

"Rasmussen stressed that it is important to 'remain vigilant' in light of 'systemic attacks' by Gadhafi's regime against the Libyan population. 'The violation of human rights and international humanitarian law is outrageous,' he said....

"...'We can see a strong wind of change blowing across the region -- and it is blowing in the direction of freedom and democracy,' he asserted.

"Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kasa lashed out the Western leaders, calling their response part of "a conspiracy to divide (and) partition the country.'

" 'The English are yearning for the colonial era" while Obama is acting 'like a child,' he said. 'Territorial integrity is sacrosanct and we will die for it.'

"U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, meanwhile, appointed a new special envoy to Libya to discuss the crisis with officials in Tripoli, the United Nations said in a statement Monday...."
(CNN)
The word "unilateral" doesn't appear in the article. Not once.

We do, though, get a good picture of how European leaders, NATO, and the United Nations are working, along with the United States, at the problem of how to deal with the fellow who's running Iraq. About that last point: Libya may very well be a "direct democracy" on paper, and the colonel may really believe it. But it's very hard to shake the impression that Libya has been a good old-fashioned autocracy since the colonel took over.

What President Obama is doing doesn't look all that different, to me, from what the former American president did before "unilaterally" invading Iraq. Along with a coalition of few dozen other countries. (August 9, 2007)

It's Different, When You're In Charge

I didn't vote for President Obama in the last election, and probably won't if he runs again. But I didn't have the fear of his becoming this country's chief executive that some folks seemed to.

Whatever I think of President Obama's policies political philosophies, I've never thought that he's particularly stupid. I've also assumed that he didn't want to go down in history as the president who destroyed this country.

Since he got sworn in, President Obama has been, it seems, a severe disappointment to the folks who expected him to remake America along loony-left lines. He may have disappointed folks who feared he would do so, too - and that is another topic.

Does this mean I'm 'for' Obama? No. I'm not 'against' him either. But in this case, I think he's doing the right thing: working with other national leaders with the good sense to recognized a threat, trying to develop a solution that will actually work.

Pretty much like the previous American president, I think.

More-or-less related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 12, 2010

Afghanistan: Diplomacy, Dialog, Cultural Sensitivity, and 4,000 Marines

BBC reports have been stressing the NATO aspects of an offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Understandably, since it's a British institution, and much closer geographically to Europe's NATO than to the country that grew out of those 13 colonies.

Nato, Diplomacy: and Marines

One of today's BBC articles on the developing situation in Afghanistan makes the military operation sound - well, military.
"Nato begins major Afghanistan offensive"
BBC (February 13, 2010)

"Thousands of US, British and Afghan troops have launched the biggest offensive in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

"Helicopter-borne forces are attacking the Taliban-held districts of Marjah and Nad Ali in Helmand province in a bid to re-establish government control.

"Nato says Marjah is home to the biggest community under insurgent control in the south and 400 to 1,000 militants.

"Many residents fled ahead of Operation Moshtarak - meaning 'together' in Dari.

"Nato had distributed leaflets in the Marjah area warning of the planned offensive in a bid to limit civilian casualties. Villagers said they warned Taliban fighters to leave the area or be killed...."

"...Operation Moshtarak is being led by the US Marine Corps, but a total of 4,000 British troops are involved on the ground and in support, supported by Danes and Estonians.

"The initial offensive in Marjah, in Nad Ali district, began early on Saturday.

"More than 4,000 US marines, 1,500 Afghan soldiers and 300 US soldiers moved in by helicopter under cover of night...."
What's a bit less obvious in leading news from Afghanistan is the sort of diplomacy that's going on before - and, quite possibly, during - the strictly military aspects of the operation.

I'd like to live in a world where outfits like the Taliban - particularly their leaders - would have a change of heart, decide that it's okay for women to drive cars, apologize for killing people they didn't approve of, and start being nice.

I think it's likely enough that some people who supported the Taliban out of fear or inadequate knowledge will be willing to abandon terrorism. But dedicated islamic terrorists? No, I think the odds are strongly against their deciding to be nice.
"Nato forces in Afghanistan to launch Helmand operation"
BBC (January 25, 2010)

"...But if there was a conversation before the operation between the Afghans and village leaders, he said, 'we often find the Afghans don't fight - but they will welcome you'.

"He pointed to an operation run in a similar way by Canadian forces to the west of Kandahar 'where not a shot was fired'.

"And in an operation by the Grenadier Guards in central Helmand province 'the same effect was created', he said....'
I'm reminded strongly of what the American-led coalition did in Iraq. (And, no, Bush wasn't "going it alone" - although admittedly a little under one in eight of Earth's 265 nations and other administrative units were in the coalition. (August 9, 2007))

Many Iraqis simply didn't know about foreigners, western or otherwise. As they discovered that these foreigners, when they weren't fighting Al Qaeda or Hussein holdouts, repaired and restocked hospitals, fixed sewer systems, and made themselves helpful in other ways - Al Qaeda propaganda started to be questioned.

Al Qaeda's efforts to win support by cutting off people's heads probably didn't help their popularity, either.

I doubt we'll hear much about the Anbar Awakening and related grass-roots movements in Iraq: That was, after all, Al Qaeda in Iraq, not the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Besides, America has a new administration now - but perhaps I'm being unfair.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Stephen Farrell's Rescue: 'It's Not Fair!' and Assumptions of Omnipotence

The death toll for the rescue of Stephen Farrell, a British journalist working for The New York Times, is now four. Besides a British commando and Sultan Munadi, an associate of Farrell, a woman and a child were killed.

For once, it isn't mostly the fault of the Americans. It's the fault of the British. Or NATO. According to an Afghan journalists' group, anyway.

Darkness, Bullets in a Pre-Dawn Raid

A CNN article filled in more details of what happened during the rescue, and what people felt about it.
"The British journalist recently freed in a NATO military operation described his Taliban hostage-takers as 'hopelessly inept,' and praised his Afghan colleague who died in the rescue.

"New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell described his four days in captivity in a blog on the newspaper's Web site, posted late Wednesday just hours after he was freed.

"Taliban militants kidnapped Farrell and Afghan journalist, Sultan Munadi, on Saturday. During a pre-dawn raid Wednesday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force plucked Farrell to safety, but did not retrieve the body of Munadi, who died during a fierce firefight between troops and Taliban militants. A British commando was also killed, as were a woman and child...."
(CNN)
From the sounds of it, soldiers with NATO weren't all that pleased about rescuing a journalist - Western or no.
"... International troops, including British forces, have expressed their unhappiness about having to extract a Western journalist from the area, a Western military source in Kabul told CNN. Meanwhile, NATO has come under fire from a coalition of Afghan journalists working for foreign news outlets who called the pre-dawn raid 'reckless and double-standard behavior.'

"The Media Club of Afghanistan issued a statement Thursday saying it 'holds the international forces responsible for the death of Mr. Munadi because they resorted in military action before exhausting other nonviolent means.'

" 'There is no justification for the international forces to rescue their own national, and retrieve the dead body of their own soldier killed in action, but leave behind the dead body of Sultan Munadi in the area. The MCA deems this action as inhumane.'..."
(CNN)
I can see the MCA's point. It would have been nice to recover Sultan Munadi's body. I'm sure that the Munadi family would have preferred it.

British, Yes: Omnipotent, No

Let's look at what was happening when Sultan Munadi was shot.
"...Someone loomed out of the dark. I lost my balance and fell back, my leg still somewhat impaired from the motorcycle accident.

It was Sultan, in the last minute of his life. He held out a hand, steadied me and asked if I had my contact lenses in, which I had. With him already in front we crouch-ran along a very narrow ledge of earth — less than a foot wide — along the outer wall of the compound.

It was dark. There were trees to our left and a high mud-brick wall to our right. We could see nothing more than a few feet in front of us.

We had no idea who was where, and there were bullets flying through the air...."

British commandos found Farrell, after he called out and signaled with a camera light.

"...I lay on the ground, gave my name and newspaper and pointed to where Sultan was lying behind me, telling them I thought he had been shot.

"The body was lying motionless in the ditch where I had seen him go down. I hoped he had dropped and was lying still. I knew it wasn't the case. They told me they had his picture and would look for him, then dragged me away past the house across a rutted field and toward the helicopter landing zone.

"It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life...."
(Stephen Farrell, At War Blog)
My guess is that the fallen soldier's comrades knew where he was when he was shot, and that he hadn't moved all that far afterward. That body would have been relatively easy to spot.

Sultan Munadi was 'somewhere out there,' in a ditch. It was dark, and bullets were flying.

I've been outside city limits at night. It's dark: not the hard-to-read-a-newspaper dark you get between streetlights; the can't-see-the-fence dark that makes getting around a chore. Never mind searching for a body while someone's trying to shoot you.

Even assuming that the commandos had night vision equipment, Sultan Munadi's body was a lump in a ditch. And he was in no condition to flash a light to show where he was.

There's a tendency to assume that policemen, mayors, soldiers, and others in positions of authority, have 'powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men' - and it just ain't so.

I'm quite willing to believe that the commandos searched for Sultan Munadi's body. Within the limits imposed on them by the situation. They didn't find it. That's sad.

The deaths of the woman and child, who presumably weren't involved in the firefight is sad, too. I grieve for the families.

But - blame the British? I'm sure we'd all be happier if "nonviolent means" had been successful - but I don't know enough to guess what the chances were of that. I do know that outfits like the Taliban have a less-than-stellar record for being nice to hostages: As Leon Klinghoffer found out, on the Achille Lauro. (August 5, 2007)

Related posts: News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Afghanistan, a Reporter and a Couple of Dead Guys, and the News

Every news service has to select which facts it publishes. It's not, I think, a cover-up, or some kinda plot.

Partly, it's the fact that there isn't room in any newspaper, or enough patience among readers, to include every detail that reporters and researchers dug up. Also, I think, it's the fact that reporters and editors are people. They have a particular point of view, and have working assumptions about what their readers are interested in.

NATO, America, German Officers, Bombed Fuel Trucks

Real events are seldom all that simple.
"British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captives who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the commandos and a Times translator were killed in the rescue, officials said.

"Reporter Stephen Farrell was taken hostage along with his translator in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. German commanders had ordered U.S. jets to drop bombs on two hijacked fuel tankers, causing a number of civilian casualties, and reporters traveled to the area to cover the story.

"Two military officials told The Associated Press that one British commando died during the early morning raid. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the death had not been officially announced.

"The Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, 34, also was killed. Farrell was unhurt...."
(FOXNews) [emphasis mine]
That FOXNews story, attributed to the AP, is one of the few that emphasized that a soldier died in the process of freeing the reporter.

Sky News puts more emphasis on the death of a British commando - understandably, since it's a British publication.

Individuals Count: So Does the Big Picture

What happened in Kunduz, in my view, is not just about a British commando dying in an effort to rescue an American journalist; or the Munadi family's loss; or German officers ordering American pilots to bomb hijacked fuel trucks; or NATO killing innocent(?) civilians who were pilfering fuel. All of that is involved, and important - particularly to the people directly involved.

But the Taliban gives every indication of having an active interest in regaining control of Afghanistan. Understandably, since the country has become downright 'un-Islamic' by the Taliban's peculiar standards since they were pried out a few years ago.

Afghanistan's current government doesn't particularly want the Taliban back in power. I don't think Afghan's current leaders are so much 'pro-western' as they are aware that it isn't the eighth century any more.

NATO, and its member countries, have an interest in what happens to Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, that country served as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. I think European leaders have twigged that Islamic crazies are a real problem - more so when they've got the support of at least one national government.

Headlines, Story and Background

I've made the point before, that news needs to be studied, not just read.
Headline
Headlines pique your interest because they're designed to do just that.
Story
The story will tell you what an editor decided to select from information and impressions that a reporter collected. Even if it's more than one editor and several reporters, the principle is the same: you're reading a digest of an event, from a more-or-less limited point of view.
Background
The best news stories give some background, showing how events fit into what's happened before, and the assumptions and history of the people involved. I think it's a good idea for a reader to do a little checking, if for no other reason than to verify that the news service got their facts straight.

Happily, with the information technology we've got available these days it's fairly easy to do research. As I said earlier this year:
"...It's complex, and confusing. Anyone who tries to pay attention finds contradictory views, backed by various combinations of facts and wishful thinking.

"I love it...."
(January 30, 2009)
Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, September 5, 2009

NATO, America, Afghanistan, Common Sense and Congress

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."1

Remember yesterday's news? When NATO aircraft bombed fuel trucks hijacked by the Taliban? (September 4, 2009) And it looked like quite a few civilians got killed? Probably? It'll be harder sorting this out, because by the time a German military unit attached to NATO arrived, the bodies had been carried away.

My guess is that civilians actually were killed: and that "NATO" aircraft really were involved.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Today, it's America that killed all those people.
"...Key Senate Democrats signaled Friday that any push by the White House to send more troops to Afghanistan is likely to hit resistance. And their unease was fueled by another bombing, that left as many as 70 dead, including civilians who were killed when the U.S. blew up tanker trucks hijacked by the Taliban...."
(AP) [emphasis mine]
I think it's very likely that "the U.S. blew up tanker trucks" and that NATO dropped bombs on the hijackers. NATO is 28 independent countries, including Germany and the United States.

American aircraft, American pilots, working with NATO to keep Afghanistan from enduring more years of Taliban rule. That sounds complicated. It's so much easier to say "the U.S. blew up tanker trucks".

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Two years ago, America was 'going it alone, 'unilaterally' involved in Iraq - along with over two dozen other countries. (August 9, 2007)

Today, it looks like the current Administration is looking at taking action in Afghanistan: instead of politely allowing the Taliban to re-take the country. If successful, putting Afghanistan on its feet will benefit Afghanistan.

It wouldn't be exactly an altruistic act, though. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was a base of operations for Al Qaeda:2 making it easier for Al Qaeda to plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks. Most Americans, I think, would just as soon not see hijacked airliners running into buildings again.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

It's nice to want peace, love, and understanding. Unhappily, not everybody has quite that nice a view of the world.

These days, outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban seem downright determined to get peace on their terms; love for their rules;, and understanding that anyone deviating from their preferences will die; established around the world.

As I've written before, war isn't nice: but sometimes it's better than the alternative.

Also as I've written before: "Congress must decide who to protect Americans from". (August 5, 2007)

Somewhat-related posts: In the news:
1 Some people say, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Or, say it in French. ("Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.") The French novelist Alphonse Karr wrote it down (Famous Quotations & Authors), but my guess is that the proverb goes back further than that.

2 GlobalSecurity.org)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, September 4, 2009

NATO Kills Afghans Pilfering Fuel: War Isn't Nice

War isn't nice. Things get broken and people die.

A case in point:
"A NATO jet blasted two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, setting off a huge fireball Friday that killed up to 90 people, including dozens of civilians, Afghan officials said.

"The NATO command said a 'large number of insurgents' were killed or injured in the pre-dawn attack near the village of Omar Khel in the once-calm province of Kunduz. In Brussels, the alliance's chief said it was possible civilians died...."
(AP)
The same event, as reported by The New York Times:
"A NATO airstrike before dawn on Friday killed 80 people or more, at least some of them civilians, in a once-calm region of northern Afghanistan that has recently slipped under control of insurgents, Afghan officials said.

"NATO officials acknowledged that coalition aircraft had destroyed two hijacked fuel tankers in the tiny village of Omar Kheil, 15 miles south of Kunduz. They said they were investigating reports of civilian deaths, but stressed that the attack was aimed at Taliban militants...."
(NYT)
Yet again, from The Age in Australia:
"...Mahbubullah Sayedi, a spokesman for the Government in the Kunduz province, said about 90 people were killed - mostly militants.

"The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the strike killed a 'large number' of militants, and it was investigating reports of civilian casualties.

"ISAF said two fuel trucks were stolen and spotted several hours later on the banks of the Kunduz river. 'After assessing that only insurgents were in the area, the local ISAF commander ordered an air strike, which destroyed the fuel trucks, and a large number of insurgents were killed and injured,' a spokeswoman said...." (The Age)
It's almost certain that some number of people were killed. Differences in the numbers published is par for the course after an incident like this: everyone except reporters is more likely to be treating the wounded, putting out fires, cleaning up the mess and dealing with bodies: and less likely to be doing a methodical head count.

NATO and Afghanistan's Kunduz province government says many or most of the dead were with the Taliban. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid says 'were not!' I doubt he put it quite that way: but that's the gist.

'No Man is an Island' Had a Point

John Donne's "No Man is an Island" - a little excerpt plucked from a greater whole1 - points out that: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." Like the song says: "we're all in this together."
A Short Digression
That bit from Donne was repeated with variations over and over again in the sixties: but what Donne wrote some 385 years ago goes 'way beyond that period's groovy feelings planting seeds of friendship.

My religious beliefs require me to be "involved in mankind" - although I find it easier to care for people who are more-or-less like me. Like the folks living in Ziarat.

I can't see 'real Americans' as actual people; and foreigners as, well, foreigners. And, I can't be 'relevant,' or whatever it's called these days, and regard people and institutions as valuable and correct to the extent that they're not American.

I'm required to care about people.
Whew! That's Over: Back to Taliban, Medium Rare
From the news, I gather that the events went like this:
  • Two trucks carrying fuel from Tajikistan to NATO forces in Kabul were hijacked by Taliban fighters (insurgents, whatever)
    • And the drivers killed
  • The Taliban
    • Mired their prizes in mud, trying to cross the Kunduz River
    • Then
      • Dumped some of the fuel to lighten the load
      • Called people from Omar Kheil over to get free fuel
      • Some combination of the above
    • NATO aircraft fired on the trucks
      • Resulting in quite a few deaths
    • By the time German soldiers came to investigate the scene, Afghan soldiers had removed the bodies
I appreciate the tidiness of the Afghan military - and the feelings of people who may have lost loved ones in the attack. But removing evidence like that makes figuring out what happened more difficult.

Let the Blame Games Begin

I'm pretty sure that partisans from most sides will say that the other guy is to blame. I've got an opinion, myself.

Someone who's rather closer to the mess had a few words to say:
"...Mohammad Daud, 32, said the Taliban were trying to move the tankers across a river when one got stuck.

" 'So they [the Taliban] told villagers to come and take the diesel. Villagers rushed to the fuel tanker with any available container that they had, including water buckets and pots for cooking oil,' Mr Daud said. 'This was when they were bombed. Everyone around the fuel tanker died.'..."
(The Age)
Like I said, there are plenty of places to put blame:
  • American imperialism
  • Big Oil
  • President Bush
    • Either one
  • Failure to legalize marijuana
    • Blame doesn't have to make sense, I've learned
  • Islam, because
    • It isn't 'American'
    • It's an evil death cult
    • Muslims look funny
  • The Afghan people, for
    • Not being American
    • Letting the Taliban take over their country recently
  • NATO, for being puppets of Western imperialism
  • People in Omar Kheil who decided to carry fuel in open containers
  • The Taliban
Assuming that civilians were killed - and that isn't at all unlikely - NATO does bear some responsibility for their deaths.

Common Sense, Trustworthiness, and Carrying Petrol in a Pot

On the other hand, I rather doubt that the people living in Omar Kheil were "natives" in the old sense: none-too-bright nitwits with barely enough sense to come in out of the rain. Or, in this case, not carry volatile, explosive, liquids in open containers. With a really good chance that an air strike would happen before they got away. Of course, again assuming that some of the dead were civilians, they may not have been aware that there's a war on - or had an unwarranted level of confidence in the Taliban's trustworthiness.

Much of the responsibility, I'm inclined to think, belongs to the Taliban. They're the ones who hijacked the trucks, killed the drivers, and then - according to one account - called people over to get 'free fuel.'

NATO? I'm nowhere near 'sophisticated' enough to assume that they would deliberately kill innocent (if lethally imprudent) civilians. Considering the sort of criticism that brings, it just isn't good sense.

Although there may be mitigating circumstances, I'm inclined to blame the civilians a little: for being wildly incautious.

In a way, what happened is like those news items you see now and then, about a hapless burglar getting stuck in a chimney, or hurt when he falls through a skylight. Sure, you feel sorry for the cluck: but I don't get upset with the householder for having a narrow chimney, or the business owner for not providing safety rails and a ladder in the skylight.

Generations ago, the phrase 'poor but honest' became a cliche: and may have been a reaction to a notion that poor people were intrinsically dishonest.

For decades, some American subcultures have - to hear their claims - assumed that poor people are just natural thieves. And, that it's okay because they're oppressed. Me? I don't buy that.

Bottom Line: Lots of People Dead, and It'll Happen Again

One thing is sure: lots of people died, and more are wounded. I'm sorry about the deaths, and the suffering of survivors. Taliban, careless civilian: they're people.

On the other hand, I don't think that NATO should withdraw because people got hurt and killed. The Taliban didn't treat Afghans very well when they were running the country, and there's no reason to think they've changed.

Given time, and no resistance, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and like-minded outfits would see to it that men were given the choice of not wearing trousers or being shot; women allowed to live, unless a male relative had a snit; and anything not sufficiently Islamic was destroyed. I wouldn't like that. Not one bit.

War isn't nice. It's nasty. But, sometimes, it's necessary.

As for what's happening in Afghanistan? Yes, I think it's necessary: to keep the Taliban from reclaiming that country.

Of course, I'm one of those people who don't think 9/11 was an inside job, or that "high-level government officers had allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to occur." (AP) But that's a whole different topic.

Related posts: In the news:
1 "No Man is an Island" is a little excerpt from the acres and acres of John Donne's "Devotions."

"No Man is an Island" was really big in the sixties. Hollywood made a movie of it - sort of; Joan Baez sang it - again, sort of; until the changes had been rung. Over and over again. One of the songs actually used more than the first five words of the standard excerpt.

Here's that "No man is an island ... it tolls for thee" bit that you see in textbooks: with some of what comes before and after.
"...The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee. Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction...."
(Excerpt from XVII. Meditation. Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, John Donne: from a copy of Ann Arbor Paperbacks, the University of Michigan Press 1959 / Project Gutenberg)
That stuff about God wasn't considered 'relevant' in the sixties - and wouldn't have fit the lesson plan for some of the classes I took, back in the day.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, January 5, 2009

Taliban Triumphs and the Truth: Or, Never Tell a Little Lie

Wow! The Taliban, those Lions of Islam, killed 5,220 foreign troops in Afghanistan's quagmire (oops: quicksand) last year!

According to the Taliban.

That's about 20 times what the foreign oppressors say were killed.

The foreign oppressors are, of course, America which is 'unilaterally' 'brutalizing' Afghanistan, along with NATO and other forces.

I'm inclined to believe the western figures. Partly because I'm an American - but mostly because I know the west's almost obsessive attention to detail, when it comes to reporting its own casualties.

NATO's member countries, and NATO as a unit, report all troop deaths: complete with names, ages, hometowns, and how the soldiers were killed. America is the same way.

It's possible that the military of over a dozen countries would lie about death tolls: but soldiers have families, who probably would notice if their son or daughter dropped out of sight; and if the families didn't notice something odd, reporters routinely nose around war zones and the home front, looking for a story.

And discovering a systematic cover-up of thousands of American and European deaths would be news!

The Taliban has an answer to that: it's all a vast conspiracy. "The true damage inflicted on U.S. and NATO fighters over the last year has been 'repeatedly hidden by the enemy and they have controlled the media by using money, power and their lies,' the [Taliban] statement said."

If the Truth Doesn't Suit You: Substitute Your Own

One of the advantages the Taliban has, I think, is that they're playing to an audience whose members desperately want to believe that
  • America and western civilization is absolutely awful, and the cause of all their problems
  • The god of their own hand-rolled version of Islam will give them victory
  • Any inconvenient facts are part of a plot against them
Maintaining that sort of belief system is, I think, a lot easier than thinking: which may help explain the popularity of outfits like the Taliban - in some quarters, anyway.

Running Low on Funds and Suicide Bombers? Tout Your Triumphs!

If the triumphs aren't really as big as your marketing people say they should be: boost the numbers. But, be sure to say that western media, military, and governments are all involved in a big plot to hide your version of the truth.

The Associated Press article explained it this way:

"The insurgents' exaggerations are designed to boost morale inside the Taliban and to attract financing from donors sympathetic to their cause, a U.S. military official and a Taliban expert said.

" 'They put out this propaganda in order to raise capital to continue their operations,' said Col. Jerry O'Hara, a U.S. military spokesman.

"Vahid Mojdeh, the author of a book on the Taliban who continues to study the militia, said the exaggerated claims help the insurgents recruit new fighters.

" 'The Taliban needs volunteers to carry out suicide attacks, so they want to show they are killing a lot of people,' Mojdeh said...."

Of course: that's the Associated Press. And, according to the Taliban, they're conspiring with the American military to hide The Truth - Taliban style.

Related posts: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 24, 2008

"Quagmire's" Back: Georgia, Russia, NATO, Bush, and the Blame Game

Russia's stomping on the undersized country of Georgia was so outrageous that the United Nations started complaining.

Obviously, someone must be to blame.

Last week, the intellectual world's Monday morning quarterbacks were deciding where the fault lay.

Lesser minds might have thought that Georgia was at fault, for trying to reclaim some of its territory, or that Russia was at fault, for a massively disproportionate response.

But Boston University's Professor Andrew J. Bacevich rose above such plebeian imaginings. In the August 15, 2008, issue of The Christian Science Monitor, he revealed the 'real' culprits.

Russian Invasion NATO's Fault: And Bush is Wrong

Professor Bacevich's belief makes perfect sense, when you see things his way.

"Russia's payback"
The Christian Science Monitor (August 15, 2008)
"NATO disrespected Russia for too long. Now the Alliance must regroup."

"Boston - Poke a bear often enough and you're likely to get bitten. As the crisis over Georgia continues, this describes where the West finds itself today in its relations with Russia.

(I put some relevant excerpts from the article below.)

The professor seems to believe that Russia's invasion of Georgia was NATO's fault: and I think he's right, sort of.

I think this is a fairly good paraphrase of the professor's argument:
  • NATO offered NATO membership to Russia's old Soviet satellite states
  • Russia didn't like it, and complained
  • NATO persisted in 'disrespecting' Russia by treating its neighbors like independent nations
  • Obviously, NATO should have done what Russia wanted
  • Therefore, it's NATO's fault that Russia invaded Georgia
It should be no surprise that America's president Bush is involved.

Georgia, Bush, Iraq, and the Triumphant Return of "Quagmire"

Professor Bacevich becomes almost lyric as he describes the folly of NATO, America, and the Bush administration.

"...As the old saying goes: The sky grows dark with chickens coming home to roost. Russia's brutal treatment of Georgia is payback for the West's disdainful treatment of Russia back when it was prostrate. Western weakness in responding to this challenge reflects the folly of allowing NATO to lose sight of its core mission, which is to protect Europe, not pacify Central Asia. Meanwhile, the Bush administration, despite America's vaunted military power, can do little more than protest, remonstrate, and offer Georgia symbolic assistance. Still trying to extricate itself from the quagmire of Iraq, the US already has more than enough military commitments to keep itself busy...." [emphasis mine]

It may be just me, but that "despite America's vaunted military power" seems to have a bit of "neener, neener" in the subtext.

The Bush administration, it seems, is being cast in an unfavorable light, for being unable to "do little more than protest, remonstrate, and offer Georgia symbolic assistance."

Perhaps professor Bacevich believes that America is wrong to use diplomacy in the Georgia-Russia situation, and would have done better to attack, had it been possible to launch a massive military offensive against Russia.

Somehow, though, I doubt it.

Then, the good professor used this phrase: "...Still trying to extricate itself from the quagmire of Iraq...."

Back in the sixties and seventies, "quagmire" was an excellent metaphor. It evoked images of the swampy land of Vietnam, and reminded people of how America was mired in an 'unwinnable' war.

When applied to Iraq, however, "quagmire" loses some of its power. There are very few rice paddies in the country. In fact, a great deal of Iraq is desert. "Sand trap" might be a better metaphor: although it does not have the historic panache of "quagmire."

The use (and, arguably, misuse) of "quagmire" is something I've discussed before ("Another Fortnight, and Still No Quagmires " (May 28, 2008))

The professor's use of the tried-and-true term, "quagmire," however, is a minor point. The word appears only once, after all.

Russian Imperialism is Okay?!

Professor Bacevich has a remarkably tolerant view of Russia's actions in Georgia:

"...Russia is not our friend, but it need not be our enemy. The Kremlin's ambitions are not ideological but imperial. Putin is not a totalitarian; he is a nationalist, intent on ensuring that Russia be treated with respect and, within the area defining its 'near abroad,' even deference. Yet beyond its immediate neighborhood the danger posed by a resurgent Russia is a limited one, in no way comparable to the threat once posed by the Soviet Union....."

I think a reasonable summary of that paragraph is: 'Don't worry: all Russia wants is a little empire to call its own.'

If that argument sounds familiar, it should.

Russia and Georgia: Been There, Done That?

Back in 1938, quite a few of the best and brightest in England believed that the treaty of Versailles had been unjust to Germany. I think they had a point.

They also seemed to believe that if Germany was allowed to acquire a few little countries, the German leadership would feel better, and Europe would enjoy peace.

This was, in a way, a very enlightened policy. It allowed British leaders to demonstrate that they understood the German position regarding Czechoslovakia: in particular the part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland, where ethnic Germans complained about the way they were treated.

The wisdom which Chamberlain and other showed in the Munich meeting has been disputed, particularly considering how Chancellor Hitler's Germany behaved a little later.

However, at the time recognizing Germany's imperial aspirations, and allowing Germany to have control of a few little countries in eastern Europe, may have seemed quite reasonable.

I don't know if Russia's coming to the, ah, defense of ethnic Russians in South Ossetia is quite parallel to Germany's acquisition of Sudetenland. For starters, Russia is a whole lot bigger than Germany.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

Although the focus of professor Bacevich's article is how NATO should have shown Russia more respect, he couldn't seem to resist taking a swipe at the Bush administration.

"...Meanwhile, the Bush administration, despite America's vaunted military power, can do little more than protest, remonstrate, and offer Georgia symbolic assistance...." It's Bush's fault, of course, for getting America involved in the "quagmire" of Iraq.

In a way, I see the professor's point. America's efforts at dealing with the invasion of Georgia have been diplomatic, rather than military, in nature.

But has the professor considered the alternatives?

Here are responses which America might have taken, with how the 'intelligent' people on campus would probably react:
  1. Ignore the crisis
    • Apathetic!
  2. Use non-violent diplomacy:
    protest, remonstrate, offer symbolic assistance
    • Ineffectual!
  3. Send in the Troops
    • Militaristic, imperialistic warmongering!
  4. Combine diplomacy and military force
    • America says 'peace' but wages war!
At this point, America is pursuing option #2. And the professor complains of America's ineffectiveness. But somehow I don't think that he'd approve of any American actions. At least, not as long as the current president is in the White House.

Ironically, professor Bacevich, with his assertion that consideration should be given Russia's imperialistic ambitions, has published a brand-new book: "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism."
Excerpts from
"Russia's payback"
The Christian Science Monitor (August 15, 2008)
"NATO disrespected Russia for too long. Now the Alliance must regroup."

"Boston - Poke a bear often enough and you're likely to get bitten. As the crisis over Georgia continues, this describes where the West finds itself today in its relations with Russia.

(Back to top)

"Amid conflicting reports of Russia's commitment to a cease-fire, one thing is clear: Moscow scored a crushing geopolitical victory this week. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that the US must choose between a "virtual project" with Georgia, or a real partnership with Russia.

"After days of evident disarray, only now is the West cobbling together a response: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit Georgia in a symbolic show of support, US Air Force cargo jets are delivering small amounts of humanitarian aid, and NATO ministers will meet Tuesday to consider the crisis. When they do, they should remember how we got to this point...."

(Back to top)

"...NATO, a military alliance founded to contain Soviet power, embarked upon an aggressive program of eastward enlargement, incorporating into its ranks former Soviet satellites such as Hungary and Poland and former Soviet republics such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Although the Kremlin objected vociferously, the West ignored these protests...."

(Back to top)
Background:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, June 20, 2008

Afghanistan's Arghandab District and the Taliban: It Must Have Been a Plot!

Afghan and NATO forces, responding to a report of hundreds of Taliban fighters invading the Arghandab area, driving the Taliban out and securing the strategically important area near Kandahar.

NATO is saying that there weren't nearly as many Taliban fighters in the area as the Afghans said (and say) there were.

I see at least two ways of approaching this:
  1. Accept the possibility that Afghan officials over-estimated the strength of Taliban forces in Arghandab, and be happy that a major Afghani city isn't likely to fall into Taliban hands.
  2. Raise a hue and cry about how Afghan officials duped NATO into attacking Arghandab, claiming that Big Grape wanted the pomegranates, almonds, apricots, figs, and melons that grow there. And, of course, the Ayta grapes.
If #2 sounds silly, you haven't been keeping up with American politics. The idea that They plotted to sell the invasion of Iraq to get oil is alive and well, and living in quite a few people's heads.

I think that #1 is a more sensible approach. It lacks the drama of the Big Oil scenarios, but it seems to have a better fit with reality.

Finally, I think that the Afghan authorities over-estimated the size of the Taliban force, as NATO has indicated. That doesn't imply a conspiracy, though. Considering what Afghanistan has been through, I think it's understandable if the current government accepted high-side estimates of the enemy's strength.

More, in the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, June 16, 2008

Afghanistan's Arghandab District and the Taliban: More Than a Spot of Trouble

Over in Afghanistan, a bunch of "militants" have taken over some villages in the southeastern part of the country. Some news reports are cautiously admitting that there might be a connection between the Taliban jailbreak some days ago and today's actions:
  • "Taliban fighters take over several Afghan villages"
    CTV.ca (June 16, 2008)
    • "...NATO spokesperson Mark Laity said NATO and Afghan military officials are sending troops to the district to 'meet any potential threats.'
    • "Laity seemed to link the jailbreak with the Taliban push into Arghandab.
    • " 'It's fair to say that the jailbreak has put a lot of people (rebels) into circulation who weren't there before, and so obviously you're going to respond to that potential threat,' he said...."
      [emphasis mine]
Other news services are a little more up-front with what's happening:
  • "Taliban fighters take over several Afghan villages near Kandahar city"
    The Calgary Sun (June 16, 2008)
    • "KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Taliban fighters swarmed the doorstep of Afghanistan’s second-largest city Monday, bombing small bridges and scattering landmines to keep Canadian and international troops at bay.
    • "The president of the Kandahar provincial council and brother of President Hamid Karzai said the rebels claimed a handful of villages and were rumoured to be seeking a bigger target: Kandahar city.
    • "Canadian soldiers, U.S. special forces, and the Afghan army were deployed to the area to keep them from advancing, said Ahmed Wali Karzai. But landmines and bombed-out culverts stood in NATO’s path, he said.
    • "Karzai said rebels had nabbed control of several villages along the Arghandab district - just next door to Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban....
  • "Hundreds of Taliban occupy Afghan villages"
    CNN (June 16, 2008)
    • "KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Hundreds of Taliban fighters have taken over several villages in the same southern Afghanistan province where about 400 Taliban militants recently escaped from prison, local officials and police said.
    • "About 400 to 500 Taliban militants were seen streaming into the Arghandab district of the Kandahar province late Sunday night on motor bikes and pickup trucks, said Haji Aka Jan, a tribal elder in the district.
    • "Abdul Wali Karzai, younger brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and head of the provincial council, also said a large number of militants entered the district, and Afghan and NATO forces were preparing to come into the area.
    • "Reports varied on how many villages were taken. Taliban fighters have taken at least 5 villages and could have taken as many as 13, locals said.
    • "The villages area is about 20 km (12 miles) north of Kandahar, a former stronghold for the Taliban, and close to the prison escape....

Taliban or Not, Does the Fate of Arghandab Matter?

Yes. Certainly to the people living there. And, sooner or later, it will matter to people living in Indonesia, Kenya, and Minnesota.

The Taliban, and the other jihandist Islamic groups, have demonstrated that they're not particularly tolerant of those who don't follow their flavor of Islam exactly. Back when the Taliban was in charge, Afghanistan lost the Bamiyan Buddhas, and other irreplaceable archaeological treasures, when the big Taliban boss, Mullah Mohammed Omar, said that all 'idolatrous' images should be destroyed.

The Taliban weren't any easier on people they didn't approve of.

There Isn't Any Real Threat, Right?

It wouldn't take too much effort to look at the situation in Arghandab as a matter for local law enforcement to take care of: Just
  • Ignore a tribal elder's story that "400 to 500 Taliban militants were seen streaming into the Arghandab district of the Kandahar province late Sunday night on motor bikes and pickup trucks"
  • Forget about the terrain
  • Don't mention the enemy's habits
  • Dismiss what's at stake as some sort of plot by Big Oil, or some other bogey man
If this bunch of Islamic enthusiasts gets a foothold in Afghanistan, there's a chance they could take over again.

That doesn't seem all that unlikely, given the terrain there. "A tribal leader from the region warned that the militants could use the cover from Arghandab's grape and pomegranate orchards to mount an attack on the provincial capital itself.

" 'All of Arghandab is made of orchards. The militants can easily hide and easily fight,' said Haji Ikramullah Khan. ("Taliban fighters take over several Afghan villages near Kandahar city" The Calgary Sun (June 16, 2008))

Plus, there's the charming habit that Islamic terrorists have of using civilians for cover.

" 'It is extremely difficult to chase these guys out of the villages when they are not wearing uniforms that say "I am the Taliban," ' MacDonald1 said. 'They can just put down their guns and blend in. NATO may have to decide to bomb and that could bring civilian casualties.' " ("Hundreds of Taliban occupy Afghan villages" CNN (June 16, 2008))

In the (I trust unlikely) event that Afghanistan falls back into the hands of the Taliban, radical Muslims will have regained a major base of operations. For people who have gotten used to allowing their women to get groceries without an escort, and not do exactly what their imam tells them to, the world that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar organizations have in mind wouldn't be very pleasant.

I harangued a bit about this, in "International Law Under a Global Caliphate: Think About It" (October 10, 2007).

Although the most serious changes under the rule of radical Islam's notion of sharia law would be social, like removing women from the voting roles and enforcing a no-trousers policy for men, America would lose some landmarks, too.

It's hard to believe that the Caliph of America would allow blasphemous images to remain in his domain: like the

Yes, Arghandab Matters

It's not considered 'tolerant' to say things like this, but the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and like-minded jihadist Muslims are doing bad things. They very likely will continue to do bad things on a larger and larger scale, until they are stopped by force. And, it will be easier to stop them before they re-establish their old bases, and create new ones.

Related post:

"Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Taliban, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
(June 16, 2008)
1 Norine MacDonald is the Senlis Council's president: The Senlis Council is a think tank based in the Kandahar province.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, January 25, 2008

Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima

I've been wondering how long this would take.

"Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told" "The Guardian," January 22, 2008.

For over six decades, ever since August 6, 1945, the west in general and America in particular have been on a sort of guilt trip over the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The period of self-flagellation may be nearly over. We've got quite a few outfits to thank for this change in attitude:
  • Al Qaeda
  • the Taliban
  • Other Islamic activists
  • Iran and its "civilian" nuclear program
  • Russia
  • North Korea
The Islamic contribution should be obvious, after that little series of incidents on September 11, 2001.

What Islamic terrorists may have thought would be a crippling blow to the decadent west didn't do much more than:
  1. Kill several thousand innocent people
    (Professor Churchill's views notwithstanding)
  2. Close the New York Stock Exchange for about a week
  3. Put a crimp in airline industry growth for a while, and
  4. Encourage American and other Western leaders to take a fresh look at how they deal with lethal threats
Including Russia in that list may seem like an atavistic reversion to America's McCarthy era. However, the world may have been safer with the Soviet Union's comparatively civilized nuclear doctrine. The current regime has made it quite clear that they'll use nukes if they think they're threatened. Considering how little it takes to convince Russian commanders that they're threatened 1, everyone dealing with Russia should be concerned.

About North Korea: I'd like to believe that Kim Jong Il's on-again/off-again nuclear program is simply a tool for extorting goods and services from western nations. It's hardly unthinkable, though, that "Dear Leader" might decide to use or export nuclear weapons.

We're living in a world where Islamic warriors, jittery Russians, and a lobster-chomping dictator are jostling for first place in the 'who scares us most' race.

Five very senior western military officers and strategists put their heads together:
  • General John Shalikashvili
    America:
    • Former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff
    • Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe
  • General Klaus Naumann
    Germany:
    • Former top soldier
    • Ex-chairman of NATO's military committee
  • General Henk van den Breemen
    The Netherlands:
    • Former Dutch chief of staff
  • Admiral Jacques Lanxade
    France:
    • Former French chief of staff
  • Lord Inge
    The United Kingdom
    • Field marshal
    • Ex-chief of the general staff and the defense staff
They say that there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world". Because of this, a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" for NATO, the European Union, and America.

This reminds me of the time, about seven centuries back, when gunpowder was a cutting-edge military technology in Europe. There were well-meaning efforts to ban or at least contain the spread of this new weapon: but they failed. Switching cultural gears, once a genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to get the critter back in.

I applaud that committee of five for taking a hard look at an unpleasant situation. And, for publicly saying something that's not very popular.

Eventually there will be a choice between using nuclear weapons to stop an attack, or accepting horrendous losses - on all sides. My guess is that an Islamic group with nuclear weapons and America will be the two major players.

My hope is that whoever is leading the west when that happens will have the guts to make the same decision that America's President Truman made, back in 1945.

What happened to those two cities was terrible. But the policies of the Empire of Japan could not be tolerated - and ending the war by a conventional invasion would have involved massive losses on both sides, along with much more widespread destruction than the obliteration of two cities.

I'm one of the people who is alive today because of Truman's decision. My guess is that quite a few people in Japan also are aware of forebears who would not have survived to be their grandparents and parents, if Truman had taken a 'no nukes' approach. And, all of us owe much of our current prosperity to the way that World War II ended.

So: I think it's long past time for the west and America to stop apologizing for saving thousands (tens of thousands?) of lives - Japanese, American, and other - and get on with dealing with the problems of the 21st century.
1 Korean Air's Flight 902 in 1978 and Flight 007 in 1983 are rather dramatic examples of Russia's response to threats real and imagined in the days of the Soviet Union. I'm not convinced that much has changed since then.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!

Given Vice President Cheney's statements in 2001 and 2004 that he would never run for president, this will probably be the first presidential election since 1928 without an incumbent running in the primaries for president, and the first since 1952 without an incumbent in the general election.

That may explain why so many ambitious politicos in both major parties are swarming around their party's nomination so early, and so excitedly.

I try to keep this blog as non-political as possible, but until the election is over, I'm likely to bring up issues that I believe are both important, and touch on the war on terror.

With so many passionately-held beliefs in play, odd things are likely to be said, and believed.

It's already happened. America was "going it alone" and being "unilateral" for quite a while, until someone bothered to see how many nations were involved in the coalition involved in Iraq as of August, 2006:
  • Albania
  • Armenia
  • Australia
  • Azerbaijan
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Bulgaria
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • El Salvador
  • Estonia
  • Fiji (though UNAMI)
  • Georgia
  • Hungary (through NATO or UNAMI, and may never have sent troops before 'withdrawing' them in 2004)
  • Iceland (through NATO, a training mission)
  • Japan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Macedonia
  • Moldova
  • Mongolia
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Singapore
  • Slovenia (through NATO, a training mission)
  • South Korea
  • Turkey (through NATO, a training mission)
  • the Ukraine
  • the United Kingdom
As more Americans became aware of how many nations were involved in America's "unilateral" action, the 'u-word' faded from use.

"Quagmire" was very, very popular a few years ago, and still is in occasional use I was waiting for some politico or pundit to cry out against so many draftees dying in the rice paddies of Iraq. I've used that crack before. Twice before, in fact. Better give it a rest.

I hope that people with think with their brain instead of their endocrine system, and will make decisions based on fact, not on catchwords.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Taliban: Down Two Leaders, Up One Propaganda Claim

"Nato airstrike kills senior Taliban leaders" is how the UK's Telegraph headlined the news. A NATO airstrike seems to have killed at least two or more senior Taliban leaders in territory that's nominally part of Afghanistan: Mullah Rahim and Mansoor Dadullah, and maybe others.

I was grimly amused to note that the self-defined uber-Muslims were killed while watching a public execution. They were hanging some people they said were government spies.

This was a targeted strike. One of the targets was Mansoor Dadullah, Taliban commander for southern Afghanistan. This hasn't been a good year for the Dadullah family. Mansoor took over as Top Taliban terrorist in his territory in May when his older brother, Mullah Dadullah Akhund, was killed by the Special Boat Service. The Telegraph article doesn't say how many Dadullahs are still in line.

It sounds like the Taliban lost a great leader in Mansoor Dadullah's death. The current Dadullah, interviewed on British television last week, promised a wave of kidnappings targeting foreigners in his province. Child executioners were going to behead his victims.

There's no indication of what will happen to Mansoor Dadullah's planned corps of kiddie killers, now that he's dead.

Predictably, there are claims of massive civilian injuries. An excerpt from the Telegraph article:

Nasibullah, one of the injured, said the bomb hit a crowded market killing dozens of civilians and that no Taliban were in the area.

One military source, who did not wish to be named denied allegations of civilian casualties.

"We are 100 per cent clear that this was entirely Taliban. Those in hospital are fighting age males. This is the Taliban trying to cover the fact that they got caught out."

A statement put out by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan last night said that it had targeted two "notorious Taliban commanders": "During a sizable meeting of senior Taliban commanders, coalition forces employed precision-guided munitions on their location after ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area."

This is a familiar pattern. As I remember, a remarkable number of hospitals and markets were hit during the two wars in Iraq: at least according to supporters of Saddam Hussein's regime and presumably-Iraqi militants.

Since I think these claims are made more because of their propaganda value than because they are true, I believe we can learn something about Middle Eastern society and culture by the nature of these claims.

Since, to the best of this news-nut's memory, there have been no claims that of casualties at a nursing home or orphanage, we may consider this possibility: Such institutions do not exist in that part of the world. If they did, I'm sure that orphans and nursing home residents would have been claimed as victims of American aggression.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.