Apple Computer Unveils the New iRack

 



[Hat Tip: Sunbeams from Cucumbers]

Canada's Role in Afghanistan

 
Kathy Gannon is a reporter who has been to Afghanistan and writes with clarity and authority. She recently gave a speech in Toronto at a lecture sponsored by the Atkinson Charitable Foundation. Joseph E. Atkinson is the former published of the Toronto Star newspaper.

You can read a summary of Gannon's speech at "Canadian efforts have backfired, writer says".

This is a complicated issue. She makes several points that need to be debated in order to decide whether Canada is doing any good in Afghanistan.

"What they have failed to do is make allies of Afghans. Instead they have made enemies of ordinary Afghans," says Kathy Gannon, an award-winning journalist who has worked in the strife-torn country for more than 20 years.

"That to me is the biggest error that has occurred, (and) it has occurred because they've gone in with a mixed mandate to reconstruct and rebuild as well as go on the offensive. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to do both."

This is a good point but it's one that's often overlooked, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it possible to win the hearts and minds of a people when you're killing them at the same time? Have we blown whatever chance we had to be their friends?

Gannon points out that the troops who are fighting a war against insurgents tend to see everyone as a potential enemy and they tend to be trigger-happy. This is not a criticism, it's quite natural under the circumstances. However, it does make it difficult to be friends and allies of the very people who may be harboring the insurgent who blew up your best buddy yesterday. Troop moral under those circumstances is very much an issue. Our Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, has just returned from Afghanistan in an attempt to show support for the troops. This overt support is increasingly necessary because the soldiers themselves are having doubts about their mission, according to Gannon.

Afghans don't trust foreigners. This seems so obvious when you write it down on paper—after all, they have a 500 year history of fighting foreign invaders. But the truth of the matter is that we often forget that simple fact. We figure we're somehow different than the British and the Russians and everyone else who failed to control Afghanistan in the past. That's very naive. In the eyes of Afghans we're no different that anyone else.

Afghanistan is ruled by warlords. Here's what Gannon says about that,

The Western countries that ousted the Taliban have also made a serious mistake in allowing vicious warlords back into power, said Gannon, who witnessed the collapse of communism, the rise of Osama bin Laden and the war that ousted him along with the Taliban in 2001.

Because of the return of the warlords who killed, raped and pillaged before the Taliban seized power, the Afghan government has lost credibility, Gannon said.

"The Afghans knew exactly who it was that was coming back to power. But ... they really believed the international community understood who they were. That (it) would keep them in line. That (it) wouldn't let them gain control and reduce the country to the anarchy that it was in before."

But, she said, the warlords "behaved exactly as they had the last time. They reduced the country to what it was before, and now you have all those international soldiers in the mix. They are halfway around the world in a completely alien environment to what they know."

There are two problems here. The first is that we are supporting a corrupt, useless, figurehead government that barely controls the capital city. That fact isn't going to win any hearts and minds in Afghanistan. It means that we have a huge uphill battle if we want to convince the average citizen that we're there to help make Afghanistan into a freedom-loving democracy. We look like hypocrites because we are hypocrites.

Second, there is no law and order because the place is controlled by warlords and tribal rulers. If the average citizen doesn't feel secure on a daily basis then a few squads of well-equipped foreign troops zipping through town in their APC's isn't going to make them happy. We aren't fighting the warlords, we're supporting them. And the warlords aren't making the people secure. Is this a good idea? I don't think so.

Finally there's Pakistan. Unless Pakistan controls its borders there's very little we can do to stamp out the one faction of warlords that we've decided to attack. It's a hopeless battle.

Gannon doesn't think the situation is hopeless. She says,

"You have to make allies of the Afghans. You have to stop using a mixed mandate, doing reconstruction as well as an offensive. You have to have better intelligence so you can go after specific individuals."

And, she said, the Canadian forces in Kandahar should find out information on the whereabouts of Afghan prisoners removed by American forces from areas where the Canadians are now posted: that would win them "goodwill from the entire village," she said.

I agree that Canada should find out where the prisoners are and we should stop turning over any more of them to the Americans. It's the last thing we should do before withdrawing our troops. I don't think we can "make allies of the Afghans" at this time. We've had five years and we've blown any opportunity we had after 9/11. Let the Afghans sort out their own problems, if they can. They'll do a better job of it if we get out of their way.

Innocent Man Released from Jail

 
Mahmoud Jaballah is called a "terrorism suspect." He has been in jail for five years but he's never been found guilty of anything. That means he's an innocent man according to my sense of justice and he'll remain innocent until proven guilty.

Yesterday he learned that he will soon be released. Today's Toronto Star has the story [Terror suspect ordered freed].

Toronto terrorism suspect Mahmoud Jaballah will be released on strict bail conditions after more than five years in jail without charges, despite government protests he remains a danger to Canada.

His release comes on the heels of last month's Supreme Court ruling that struck down an immigration law as unconstitutional and deals another blow to the government's handling of security cases involving non-citizens.

Sound the Alarm! Liechtenstein Invaded!

 
FOXNews reports on the invasion of Liechtenstein.

ZURICH, Switzerland — What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.

According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers from the neutral country wandered more than a mile across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.

A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story, but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion.

"We've spoken to the authorities in Liechtenstein and it's not a problem," Daniel Reist told The Associated Press on Friday.

Officials in Liechtenstein also played down the incident.

Interior Ministry spokesman Markus Amman said nobody in Liechtenstein had even noticed the soldiers, who were carrying assault rifles but no ammunition. "It's not like they stormed over here with attack helicopters or something," he said.

Liechtenstein, which has about 34,000 inhabitants and is slightly smaller than Washington, D.C., does not have an army.

Read this carefully. Liechtenstein doesn't have an army. The border wasn't marked. The Swiss soldiers had assault rifles but no ammunition. Only in Europe .... that's what a lack of religion leads to.

Canadian Parliament Scraps Anti-terror Laws

 
Given a choice between trusting the "soft-on-terror" Liberals and the "crack-down-on-crime" Conservatives, I go with the softies every time.

OTTAWA, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Canada's Parliament scrapped two contentious anti-terror measures on Tuesday, angering the minority Conservative government, which accuses opposition legislators of being soft on terror.

The House of Commons voted 159-124 not to renew the provisions -- which expire on March 1 -- on the grounds that they had never been used.

One provision allows police to arrest people suspected of planning an imminent terrorist attack and hold them for three days without charge. The other provides for investigative hearings in which a judge can compel witnesses to testify about alleged terrorist activities.

The measures were introduced by the then-Liberal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide attacks on the United States. In a bid to allay fears over human rights, Ottawa agreed the provisions would expire after five years.

The Conservative government controls just 125 of the 308 seats in the House and did not have the votes to extend the measures.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose Conservatives won power in January 2006 on a platform that promised to crack down on crime, says the Liberals of Stephane Dion are soft on terror and cannot be trusted to keep Canadians safe.

Canada Parliament scraps two anti-terror measures

Baghdad Burning

 
Would you like to read about the government of Iraq? You know, the one Dick Cheney props up as a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East?

See Baghdad Burning, a blog written by an Iraqi woman.

As expected, Al Maliki is claiming the rape allegations are all lies. Apparently, his people simply asked the officers if they raped Sabrine Al Janabi and they said no. I'm so glad that's been cleared up.

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

American Justice in Italy

 
Steve Watson was kind enough to supply me with two links that I otherwise would have missed. The first is to a column by Neil Macdonald on the CBC News website [Exceptions are U.S.]. Macdonald makes a point that Candians and Europeans are very familiar with; namely, the fact that America has little respect for the laws of other nations.

Here's the outline of the case. You'll have to read the rest of the column to see the outrage.

Nobody in the Italian government thought Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr was clean. The Italian police had for some time been building a case against the Islamic cleric for spreading extremism.

Prosecutors in Milan believed he was a jihadist who had fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia, and, further, that he was in Italy recruiting fighters for radical Islamic causes. They intended to bring him to trial.

But the Americans were watching, and they had no patience with the pace and procedures of Italian law enforcement.

On Feb. 17, 2003, a squad of agents grabbed Nasr off a Milan street as he walked to a nearby mosque. He was, allegedly, taken to the U.S. air force base in Aviano, Italy, and flown to Germany, from where he was transshipped to his native Egypt. There, prison and the tender mercies of Egyptian interrogators awaited.

Nasr says he was tortured during his four years behind bars. Given the Egyptian government's pitiless attitude toward the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its many affiliates, that is not a claim many people doubt. The Nasr case was, say critics of the Bush administration, yet another case of America quietly subcontracting torture to deal with its enemies.

But two things happened last week to move this case out of the shadows: An Egyptian court freed Nasr, saying his imprisonment was "unfounded." And in Italy, a democratic U.S. ally, a judge indicted 26 Americans, most of them agents of the CIA, for kidnapping the cleric. The spies will almost certainly be tried in absentia. They've all left the country.

Australia: Dick Loves You, He Really Loves you!

 
Cheney praises Howard's loyalty.

The alliance between Australia and America was strong because both nations worked at it and respected each other as equals, United States Vice-President Dick Cheney said today.

In a major speech to the Australian-American leadership dialogue in Sydney, Mr Cheney said the deep affinity between the countries had grown into a great alliance over time.

"Australia and America share an affinity that reaches to our souls," he said.

"Over time, that deep affinity has grown into a great alliance.

You must be so proud. He never says that about Canada.

A Prelude to War

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stepping up the Bush administration's financial pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, the U.S. Treasury Department labeled three Iranian companies on Friday as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, banning U.S. transactions with them.

The Treasury, invoking an executive order recently used against Iranian state-owned banks, said it would also seek to freeze any U.S. assets of Kalaye Electric Co., Kavoshyar Co. and Pioneer Energy Industries Co.

It said the companies are either owned by, controlled by or acting for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the government agency that manages Iran's overall nuclear program.

"Treasury is taking this action to deny Iran access to the materials and services that support its nuclear ambitions," Stuart Levey, the Treasury's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in a statement. He added that the action was consistent with the U.N. Security Council's recent resolution aimed curbing Iran's nuclear program.

Bush Flubs the Message

 
The Washington Post reports considerable skepticism about the upcoming war against Iran. Apparently there are people who are suspicious about the latest propaganda effort [Skepticism Over Iraq Haunts U.S. Iran Policy].

They have every reason to be suspicious, especially since President Bush can't seem to stay on message.

In yesterday's White House news conference, Bush grappled with the issue head-on. "What makes you so certain," a reporter asked Bush, of the military's charge that "the highest levels of Tehran's government" are responsible for shipments of lethal weapons to Iraq for use against U.S. troops?

Bush contradicted the military's account, saying, "We don't know . . . whether the head leaders of Iran ordered" it.

"But here's my point," he added. "Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that [the weapons] they're there."

Oops. That's not the right answer, Dubya. Once you're coerced the military leaders into sticking their necks out you've got to back up the big lie. You were supposed to say that you have secret information linking Iran's leaders to the killing of brave American soldiers.

Dick will not be happy. Now he'll have to go on the Sunday talk shows and drop hints about what he learned when he visited CIA headquarters.

Can You Hear the Drums Beating?

 
The International Herald Tribune reports on how Bush defends buildup of pressure on Iran.

Under pressure to explain the buildup of American military and economic pressure on Iran, President George W. Bush said Wednesday that highly lethal explosives smuggled into Iraq had certainly come from an arm of the Iranian government, and that it did not much matter whether top Iranian government officials had sanctioned the smuggling.

Iran has WMD—weapons of minor destruction—and they're sneaking them into Iraq. Does this sound familiar? Who is providing this information about Iran? Is it the same people who told us about WMD's in Iraq and how Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda?

Where is Dick Cheney?

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
                                                   George W. Bush 2002

"Senators nail problem, flub solution"

 
I still haven't read the Senate report on Afghanistan so I'm only guessing at what it said based on yesterday's Toronto Star article. Thomas Walkom has read the report and he writes an excellent column in today's edition of the Toronto Star [Senators nail problem, flub solution]. Here are some excerpts,

There is a bizarre disjunction in the Senate defence committee's useful – and remarkably frank – analysis of Canada's military role in Afghanistan. It's as if the 11 senators on the committee, having successfully outlined the near insurmountable problems associated with the Afghan war, couldn't bring themselves to accept the logical conclusion of their own analysis.

On the one hand, their 16-page report convincingly paints a picture of a war that cannot be won. The Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, it states bluntly, routinely shakes down its own citizens. Its army and police are, in the words of committee chair Colin Kenny, "corrupt and corrupter."

The real Afghanistan, they write, is backward, illiberal and hostile to foreign invaders. Ordinary Afghans may have found the former Taliban regime excessive in the way it enforced its brutal moral rules. But at least it had moral rules. "The word moral is probably the last word that comes to an ordinary Afghan's mind when describing the new (Karzai) government," the senators write.

They quote one former Canadian ambassador as saying that it would take five generations to make a difference in Afghanistan. They cite Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, commander of Canadian land forces, as saying the Afghan military mission alone would take 20 years.

To ask these questions is to answer them. Most Canadians will not agree to a war that takes decades to prosecute yet produces no results. And if, as the senators conclude, this is the prognosis, then the last five years of Canadian involvement – and Canadian deaths – have been pointless.

Given this bleak but frank assessment, it would have been logical for the senators to recommend that Canada end its military involvement in Afghanistan. But that is not quite what they do.

Instead, they recommend more of the Band-Aids and non-solutions they've just dismissed as naive. They call for 250 more Canadian Forces instructors and 60 police trainers. They call on the Canadian government to spend more money on Afghan police uniforms and salaries even though, as Kenny acknowledged in a press conference yesterday, a good chunk of that will be skimmed off by corrupt local officials.

Senate Report Questions Canada's Mission in Afghanistan

 
The Canadian Senate Defence Committee has just issued a report on Afghanistan. I haven't seen the original but here are some comments from an article in today's Toronto Star [Senate report blasts mission].

The report, titled "Taking a Hard Look at a Hard Mission," is short – just 16 pages – but blunt and stands in stark contrast to the more rosy assessments touted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet ministers.

"Our troops need more than patriotic bumper stickers. They deserve thoughtful assessments," reads the report, obtained by the Toronto Star.

Canada has about 2,600 soldiers in Afghanistan, most based in the Kandahar region. Since the mission began in 2002, 44 soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

"There are all kinds of problems to be solved if the Canadian deployment to Afghanistan is to achieve what any reasonable person would define as `success,'" the report says.

For starters, it says Canada's effort to win the "hearts and minds" of the local population has been badly undermined by civilian casualties caused by NATO air strikes and a development program that has little to show for its big budget.

"The combination of too many lives being lost and too little development assistance ... contributes to making life bleak and dangerous in the Kandahar region," it reads. For that reason, it says development dollars should be given to the Canadian military – $20 million a year – to make progress quickly until aid organizations are able to function safely in the region.

"We may have something more and better to offer than the Taliban, but we don't have much time to prove it," the report says.

Sounds okay up to here. Things are going badly and we're not winning the hearts and minds of the people. I agree with that. The obvious conclusion is to get the hell out and let Afghanistan solve its own problems.

But that's not what the report says. Instead it advocates escalation. More troops and more money—that's the ticket.

The report takes aim at NATO allies for doing more "saluting" than "marching." If more troops and equipment aren't delivered – as repeatedly demanded by local commanders – Canada should rethink its promise to stay in Kandahar until February 2009, it says.

"It is ... doubtful that the mission can be accomplished given the limited resources that NATO is currently investing," it says.

Canada has placed significant political and military pressure on other NATO nations to help bolster the mission in southern Afghanistan but with little success.

The report also pokes at the Afghan government, led by President Hamid Karzai, for the systemic corruption it says runs rampant through the country's institutions. It says the Karzai government should be pressed to develop a "comprehensive, transparent and effective plan" to reduce corruption as a condition of Canada's long-term commitment.

Hmmm ... we're not succeeding and the government we support is corrupt and ineffectual. What should we do? I know, let's send in more troops and give them more money. Ridiculous.

The report is based on the testimony of dozens of witnesses to the Senate committee as well as their own visits to Afghanistan, most recently in December. The report, which was unanimously adopted by the Liberal and Conservative senators on the committee, was tabled Thursday.

The report praises soldiers for their bravery, commitment and optimism.

"Like other Canadians, we want our troops to succeed and we want them to return home safely," it says.

Oh yes, the obligatory praise for the troops. We certainly can't have anyone thinking that we don't support the troops, can we?

Look, it's time we left. The soldiers who have died already have died in vain. More of them are going to die before we realize that we're wasting our time. You don't support our troops by getting them killed in a hopeless cause.

While federal New Democrats have called for troops to be withdrawn, the Senate defence committee says there are good humanitarian and strategic reasons for Canada to remain there.

Noting that "venomous" extremists still make their base in Afghanistan, the report says "neither Canada nor its allies should acquiesce to that threat."

Most of the extremists are based in Pakistan. Should we continue to acquiesce to that threat?

But the report says the key to lasting stability in the troubled nation is the ability of the Afghan National Army and police forces taking on more of the security role for themselves.

That's why the report's key recommendations urge NATO nations to provide additional troops to help train the Afghan army. As well, Canada should send 250 more of its own troops to serve as trainers, it says.

The report also says Ottawa should dispatch 60 more Canadian police officers – up from the 10 now there – to boost training of Afghan police. It also suggests the federal government "significantly augment" the $10 million contribution already made to provide uniforms and in the future improve benefits and salaries.

"Most police are untrained, illiterate and don't even know what the law is," the report says in a bleak assessment of Afghan officers.

We've been "training" these police for five years now and they don't know what the law is? What does that tell us?

The report also suggests Canada, along with NATO and the Afghan government, establish a "defensible" buffer zone along the Pakistan border to stop the infiltration of Taliban fighters.

"As long as the Taliban have access to hideouts beyond the reach of our forces, our mission has little hope of success," the senators say, urging "robust action" to save the Canadian mission from being undermined.

Translation from political doublespeak: the mission is hopeless as long as the government of Pakistan refuses to cooperate against terrorists and the government of Afghanistan is too corrupt to care. However, we should continue to sacrifice Canadian soldiers because if we don't we might have to admit that we've lost. It's much better to admit defeat five years from now when things are much worse.

Joan Baez and Friend

 

Joan Baez: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

 
I think you have to be over 50 to remember her and what she stood for.

Dick Cheney's Logic

I watched Wolf Blitzer interview American Vice President Dick Cheney last weekend. There were lots of things the Vice President said that really puzzled me so I've asked my friends and colleagues to explain the Cheney logic. None of them were able to come up with a satisfactory response so I thought I'd ask you to help me out.

Here's Cheney's response to questions about the failed strategy in Iraq.

Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is, we've made major progress, we've still got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of provinces in Iraq that are relatively quiet. There's more and more authority transferred to the Iraqis all the time.

But the biggest problem we face right now is the danger that the United States will validate the terrorist strategy, that, in fact, what will happen here with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq, with the pressures from some quarters to get out of Iraq, if we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task --

Do you see my problem? Is he saying that we can't stop killing Iraqis and destroying their country because that's what the terrorists want? Is he saying that once he and Bush make a bonehead mistake they can't reverse course because they've got to show those terrorists just how pigheaded they can be?

Is there a rational argument in there that I'm missing?

Someone else seems to have a problem with Cheney Logic ....