A Spork in the Drawer

Remember Afghanistan?

Taking a brief break from all election all the time, it's worth noting that the Afghan War has spilled over into Pakistan.

This strikes me as being a bad thing.

.

Addlepated

The NYT's Gail Collins wonders why Barack Obama is going to Afghanistan and the Middle East when "anybody he needs to talk to would be happy to pick up a phone."

Uhh, because, Gail, neither your newspaper nor any other "news" outlet would devote time to a phone call? Maybe? Do ya think?

(And has Gail ever asked the question why George or any other president bothers to visit foreign countries? I think not.)

.

Remember Afghanistan?

The forgotten war:

More American and coalition troops died in Afghanistan last month than during any other month since the American-led invasion began in 2001, the latest evidence of a strengthening Taliban insurgency that has menaced NATO forces and reclaimed control over some southern and eastern parts of the country.

[...]

Still, American commanders in Kabul and military officials in Washington have said that coalition force levels remain too low. Before departing Afghanistan last month at the end of a tour as senior commander there, Gen. Dan K. McNeill called Afghanistan an “under-resourced war,” and he warned that Pakistan was not doing nearly enough to stem the flow of militant fighters across the mountain border it shares with Afghanistan.

General McNeill said the Afghanistan mission “needs more maneuver units, it needs more flying machines, it needs more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance units.”

And remember: Some people in high places want to start a third war.

.

Well Now

Isn't this interesting. The mercenary outfit Blackwater USA is being sued by the widows of three US Army soldiers who died when a transport plane operated by the company crashed in Afghanistan. Now Blackwater and its founder and ÜberChristian Erik Prince wants a change of venue for the suit:

The company, based in Moyock [North Carolina], doesn’t want the case heard in an American courtroom under American law: it wants the case decided by Shari’a, the Islamic law of Afghanistan.

That's right: This bunch of mercenaries who wear their Patriotism and Christianity on their sleeves wants - actually wants - Sharia law to apply. Why?

“Where did the crash occur?” Prince responded. “Afghanistan.”

“What you are saying is you don’t want to have this case heard by an American judge, by an American jury, under American law,” Drescher said. “We want it heard under Sharia law, under Islamic law?”

Prince said he would defer to his lawyers on the issue.

That is what I believe some would consider to be a non-answer. However:

In April, Blackwater asked a federal judge in Florida to apply Islamic law, commonly known as Shari’a, to the case. If the judge agreed, the lawsuit would be dismissed. Shari’a law does not hold a company responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their work.

One has to admit this is a novel argument: Since our system of adjudication doesn't automatically get the company off the hook let's pick some other legal system that does. That that alternate legal system happens to be the one belonging to our "enemies" matters not.

This doesn't just kill irony it brutally tortures it beforehand.

While I'm not fool enough to think that it would happen I'd love to see President Obama put these amoral creeps out of business. Of course, Blackwater would probably just have some snipers assassinate him.

Then again, it wouldn't suprise me if they did that anyway.

[Via Josh Marshall.]

.

Noted Without Comment

Grim:

The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said.

[...]

The Pentagon didn't dispute Insel's remark.

[Via C&L]

.

Simple Logic

Pfc. Monica Brown, an Army medic, risked her life to save fellow soldiers from a burning Humvee during a firefight in Afghanistan. For this she was awarded the Silver Star - the third highest combat decoration - and had it pinned on her chest by no less than Dick Cheney.

So a few days after the events in Afghanistan the Army did the logical thing - sent her somewhere safe because the law says No Gurlz Alowed in combat.

And yet the military is actively recruiting violent felons.

Logical, indeed.

.

Neat!

Oil paintings discovered in Afghanistan from centuries before Europeans "discovered" the technique:

Scientists found the murals in a network of caves where monks lived and prayed in the Afghan region of Bamiyan, according to a statement on the Web site of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, where the ancient paintings were analyzed.

Until 2001, two colossal 6th-century statues of Buddhas stood at the mouth of the caves. Then the Taliban, which then ruled Afghanistan, blew up the statues on the grounds that they were un-Islamic. The action drew international condemnation.

[...]

In 12 of 50 caves, the murals were painted using drying oils -- perhaps from walnuts and poppy seeds -- the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility said.

More:

Yoko Taniguchi of the Japan Center for International Cooperation in Conservation in Tokyo presented the findings at a recent international symposium held there.

The analysis showed the murals were painted using a structured, multilayered technique reminiscent of early European methods.

[...]

Not all of the cave murals contained oil-based paints, though, or used them in the same way.

"Some paintings from other caves were depicted with different materials and techniques," Japanese researcher Taniguchi said.

"This shows how different painting techniques were introduced in Bamian from different regions in different periods of time."

Ars longa, vita brevis, indeed.

.

Irony Of The Day

Submitted without comment:

Taliban insurgents urged the international community and right groups to stop Afghan President Hamid Karzai approving the execution of about 100 prisoners whose death sentences were approved by the supreme court.

.

John And Cindy McCain - Plagiarists At Large

Via Election Central, this can't be called an accident:

This past Sunday, Lauren Handel, an eagle-eyed attorney from New York, was searching for a specific recipe from Giada DeLaurentis, a chef on the Food Network. Yet whenever she Googled the different ingredients in the recipe, the oddest thing happened: not only did the Food Network's site come up, as expected, but so did John McCain's campaign site.

On a section of McCain's site called "Cindy's Recipes," you can find seven recipes attributed to Cindy McCain, each with the heading "McCain Family Recipe." Ms. Handel quickly realized that some of the "McCain Family Recipes," were in fact, word-for-word copies of recipes on the Food Network site.

At least three of the "McCain Family Recipes" appear to be lifted directly from the Food Network, while at least one is a Rachael Ray recipe with minor changes.

Perhaps Cindy's excuse will be that she's popping pills again.

Meanwhile, by way of Think Progress, it would appear that Mr. Experience has no clue about what St. Petreus's job is:

Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision...Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.

So now we can add the military to the long list of things about which McCain knows nothing.

3AM? More like 3 minutes to midnight.

.

The Wit And Wisdom Of Dick Cheney

After more than five years (and counting) and the deaths of more than 4,000 (and counting) American troops and hundreds of thousands (and counting) Iraqis just who does Dick feel sorry for?

The president carries the biggest burden, obviously[.]

So?

.

Your President

Honestly, what can one say?

U.S. President George W. Bush got an earful on Thursday about problems and progress in Afghanistan where a war has dragged on for more than six years but been largely eclipsed by Iraq.

[...]

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Would it be churlish to point out that when George was younger and not gainfully employed he did have a chance to help a young "democracy" succeed? To experience the romance of confronting danger? Y'know, a little place called "Vietnam"?

After 7+ years I'm still occasionally surprised by Little Boots' complete lack of self-awareness.

[Via Steve Benen.]

.

Fiction Vs. Fact

Fiction:

In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies, and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country. Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school, new roads and hospitals are being built, and people are looking to the future with new hope. These successes must continue, so we're adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan, where they will fight the terrorists and train the Afghan Army and police. Defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda is critical to our security, and I thank the Congress for supporting America's vital mission in Afghanistan. (Applause.)

Fact:

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.

Few even notice the lies anymore.

.

$1,500,000,000,000

The mind reels:

The economic costs to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far total approximately $1.5 trillion, according to a new study by congressional Democrats that estimates the conflicts' "hidden costs"-- including higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars.

[...]

The report argues that war funding is diverting billions of dollars away from "productive investment" by American businesses in the United States. It also says that the conflicts are pulling reservists and National Guardsmen away from their jobs, resulting in economic disruptions for U.S. employers that the report estimates at $1 billion to $2 billion.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

.

How to Win Friends and Influence People

Perhaps a copy of Dale Carnegie's famous book should be sent to Defense Secretary Bob Gates:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday questioned the commitment of some NATO allies to winning in Afghanistan, saying the outcome there is at "real risk" because some European nations are unwilling to provide enough troops and resources to the mission.

"In Afghanistan a handful of allies are paying the price and bearing the burdens," he told a conference of army leaders from 38 European nations organized by the chief of U.S. Army Europe.

If you ask me other NATO countries are being smart. Why put their troops under the command of BushCheney?

Funny thing is the US had more than enough troops to stabilize Afghanistan all by itself.

Too bad certain people decided to invade and occupy another country which posed no threat.

.

Remember Afghanistan?

Well isn't this just grand?

The NATO force in Afghanistan does not have enough troops or equipment to secure advances made against Taliban insurgents and to guarantee a successful end to its mission, a lawmakers' report concluded on Friday.

[...]

"The NATO mission still suffers from a lack of personnel and assets," the assembly's Defence and Security Committee concluded after a six-day tour of allied operations last week which included talks with local and national Afghan officials.

Earlier this week:

In an interview billed as his first since leaving the top Pentagon post, Donald Rumsfeld calls Afghanistan "a big success," but says U.S. efforts in Iraq are hampered by the failure of Iraq's government to establish a foundation for democracy.

"In Afghanistan, 28 million people are free. They have their own president, they have their own parliament. Improved a lot on the streets," Rumsfeld says in the October issue of GQ magazine.

.

Speaking Of Iraq...

"Sinking fast":

Iraq now ranks as the world's second most unstable country, ahead of war-ravaged or poverty-stricken nations such as Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Congo, Afghanistan, Haiti and North Korea, according to the 2007 Failed States Index, issued yesterday by the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine.

Despite billions of dollars in foreign aid and the presence of more than 150,000 U.S. troops, Iraq has declined steadily over the past three years, according to the index. It ranked fourth last year, but its score dropped in almost all of the 12 political, economic, security and social indicators on which the index is based.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck of a job, Bushie!

.

Messenger Boy

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh on our new War Czar:

Lute, in other words, is being hired on as Bush’s messenger man—the guy who, theoretically, can deliver presidential demands to State or Defense that certain resources are to be delivered to certain places. But there’s the rub. The only way for Lute to be even marginally effective is if a president who has been consistently uninterested in the details of the Iraq conflict for the past four years—and in the nitty-gritty of Afghanistan for most of the last five years—starts obsessing over those details with just 18 months to go in his term. And that’s unlikely to happen. A leader who’s already poring over plans for his presidential library doesn’t start changing his governing habits this late in the game.

[...]

Doug Lute must now bridge not only the interagency divide in Washington. He must straddle a widening gulf between Iraq and Washington. Perhaps that is why so many retired four-star generals—at least four of them, by most accounts—turned down the job.

Hirsh leaves unsaid the obvious: That Gen. Lute will, if necessary, be the one to take the blame the next time some disaster happens in Iraq or Afghanistan. Additionally, once Lute is confirmed and in place the administration and its flunkies get to reset the clock. His appointment is just another way to drag out the wars and leave them for the next president to fix.

.

We Have A War Czar At Last!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

After a frustrating search for a new "war czar" to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ABC News has learned that President Bush has chosen the Pentagon's director of operations, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, for the role.

[...]

Filling the position had become a priority for the White House, after a handful of retired generals told the White House they did not want the job. Among them, retired Marine Corps four-star Gen. Jack Sheehan, who proved an embarrassment to the White House after he wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post saying there were "huge shortcomings" in the White House view of the strategy in Iraq.

Never mind that we already have a "war czar" - he's called the "Commander-in-Chief". But the White House needs someone to take the fall when the inevitable happens. So rather than congratulate Gen. Lute I instead offer him my sympathy.

[Via JMM.]

.

Paying The Bill

So the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are poised, together, to become the second most expensive war in US history (after WWII). WaPo:

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress has approved more than $609 billion for the wars, a figure likely to stand as lawmakers rework their latest spending bill in response to a Bush veto. Requests for $145 billion more await congressional action and would raise the cost in inflation-adjusted dollars beyond the cost of the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Though the spending for these adventures amount to less than1 percent of the gross domestic product (far less than previous conflicts) the situation is complicated by an inconvenient fact:

And this time, the war bill is going directly on the nation's credit card. Unlike his predecessors, Bush is financing a major conflict without raising taxes or making significant cuts in domestic programs. Instead, he has cut taxes and run up the national debt. The result, economists said, is a war that has barely dented the average American's pocketbook and caused few reverberations in the broader economy.

And let's not forget that, like the credit card in your wallet, interest is accruing. As is expected, BushCo™ turn to faith-based economics:

Administration officials say those payments will be easier to afford because Bush's tax cuts strengthened the economy and boosted tax collections. But even many conservative economists are skeptical. Some worry that the bill for Iraq will come just as the baby-boom generation starts retiring, further straining a budget that will require deep cuts, higher taxes or bigger deficits.

[...]

To help pay for World War II, by far the nation's most expensive, Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the number of taxpayers from 4 million to 42 million, tripled tax collections as a percentage of GDP and slashed spending on his treasured New Deal programs. As the military budget devoured more than a third of the economy, Roosevelt also called for mass sacrifice, rationing food and gasoline, capping prices and wages and exhorting Americans to spend any money they could spare on war bonds and stamps.

Imagine that! Actually paying for a war.

Bush, in contrast, has allowed domestic spending to rise and cut taxes repeatedly since taking office, adding more than $3 trillion to the national debt. He signed a huge stimulus package two months after marching on Baghdad in March 2003. A few months later, he signed legislation to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the biggest expansion of the federal health program for the elderly since its creation in 1965.

[...]

"This may be the first war in history -- in the history of the world -- in which there was a tax cut rather than a tax hike," said Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton University economist who was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve in the Clinton administration.

Again, faith-based economics. But here's the point:

"It's actually turning out to be a very expensive war," Stiglitz said. But "it has been designed to be a war the American people don't feel."

Indeed, we're all supposed to go shopping.

In the end, George will do what he always does: walk away from the mess he created. But instead of a few shareholders being left to clean up it will be all of us.

.

Remember Afghanistan?

Hearts and minds:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai declared Wednesday that his government can "no longer accept" civilian casualties caused by U.S.-led operations, shortly before news spread that as many as 51 civilians may have died during clashes this week in far western Afghanistan.

Civilian deaths are "becoming a heavy burden and we are not happy about it," Karzai told reporters here.

Yes, I know, civilians are killed in wars. However, when the war in question hinges almost entirely on gaining support from those same civilians killing them isn't a very good idea.

Although opinion polls show that most Afghans do not support the Taliban or other violent guerrilla groups, analysts here say the issue of civilian deaths is being manipulated by insurgent leaders to foment anger against both the Karzai government and the foreign forces who were once widely welcomed here.

"The casualties are an easy propaganda tool for the Taliban to use in the affected areas," said Nader Nadery, vice president of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. "People feel under attack by both sides. This does not win hearts and minds. If we want to win the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the coalition must take precautionary measures to prevent more civilian casualties."

And why is the Taliban still an issue? Could it be because BushCheney failed to adequately secure Afghanistan? However could that have happened?

.

Nope

Try again:

"Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world," Bush told the allied military officers, linking the "war on terrorism" to the 20th century fights against fascism and communism.

Al Qaeda terrorists "murder the innocent to advance a focused and clear ideology," he said. "They seek to establish a radical Islamic caliphate so they can impose a brutal new order on unwilling people, much as Nazis and communists sought to do in the last century."

Here we go again. The Nazi Germans and the Soviets had large, mechanized, and well-trained modern armies (the latter having nukes, as well). al Qaeda and al Qaeda-wannabes have bomb belts and little organization. That George and the cultists who still follow him (hello, Rick Santorum!) still haven't figured this is a good indicator that they're people not worth taking seriously.

Even if terrorists were to acquire some form "WMD's" any destruction, however deadly, would be localized. This isn't to say that there is no threat; just that the threat is considerably different - and less - than than the apocalyptic visions offered by the modern American rightwing.

I recently finished reading Ann Hagedorn's excellent Savage Peace: Hope and Fear in America, 1919. Much of the book deals with the first Red Scare and how an ephemeral - dare I say existential? - threat was immediately used to persecute anyone "we" didn't like. African Americans, unionists, Socialists, immigrants, you name it were transformed into "Bolsheviki" and Anarchists who at any any moment would rise up and overthrow the government, abolish churches, seize homes, make women communal property and empower blacks unless the utmost vigilance was maintained. Free speech and Habeas Corpus were abolished and mass arrests, mass deportations, false imprisonment, and torture became the norm. The President, the Attorney General, Senators, Representatives, and a young, ambitious man named J. Edgar Hoover all used these for political advantage and instilled fear in the populace.

Using many of the same techniques - though maybe more subtle - George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their followers have been trying to return us to those days. Perhaps, though, like in 1920-21, 2006-07 will show that the American people have regained a sense of collective sanity and reject these would be authoritarians. And perhaps 2008, like 1922 will bring us - and I hesitate to use this term - a "return to normalcy."

.

Help Still Wanted

One of those approached for the proposed "War Czar" position, retired Marine General John J. Sheehan, explains why he turned down the position:

What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. In my view, there are essentially three strategies in play simultaneously.

[...]

It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.

I don't mean to put words into Gen. Sheehan's mouth but it's pretty clear that the creation of a "War Czar" is intended to deflect blame from the administration when it comes time to admit things aren't going so well in Iraq. "Don't ask me, ask the War Czar!"

And it should go without saying that we have a Secretary of Defense, a Secretary of the Army, a Secretary of the Navy, and someone who repeatedly insists on being called the "Commander-in-Chief." We're already knee-deep in War Czars.

Another War Czar. Remember what happened to him.

.

War President No More

NYT editorial:

We have long suspected that there is no one in charge of the Iraq war. How else can you explain four years of multifront failures, including President Bush’s most recent plan to order even more American troops to risk their lives there without demanding any political sacrifice or even compromise from Iraq’s leaders? So we were not surprised to hear that White House officials are looking for someone to oversee both Iraq and the faltering Afghanistan war— and not surprised that they were having a tough time filling the job.

[...]

The immediate question, of course, is why Mr. Hadley and his team didn’t figure that out a long time ago, preferably when there was still some chance of fixing Iraq’s problems. For that matter, isn’t that what the president’s national security adviser is supposed to be doing in the first place?

The Constitution provides for a Commander-in-Chief - the sought after "War Czar" - but apparently the position is vacant. So who exactly is occupying the Oval Office?

.

Human Costs

On the Army tour extensions:

"It flat-out sucks, that's the only way I can think to describe it," said Pvt. Jeremy Perkins, 25, who works in an engineering battalion that clears roadside bombs in the embattled city of Baqubah, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. "I found this out today from my squad leader. I still haven't told my wife yet. I'm just trying to figure out exactly how I'm going to break it to her that 'Honey, uh, yeah, might be home before our next anniversary. Sorry I missed the last one.' "

[...]

"This is tough news; it's upsetting news for the families," said Mindy Shanahan, whose husband, Col. Dan Shanahan, is commander of the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade and has been in Taji since October. His first deployment in Iraq was for 12 months in 2004 and 2005.

"It's another Christmas without my husband, and that's hard when you have young kids," said Shanahan, who lives at Fort Hood, Tex., the country's largest Army installation, with her sons, Patrick, 9, and Kevin, 7.

[...]

When the news of Gates's announcement broke, officials of Killeen Independent School District, where 52 percent of the 36,500 students are the children of Fort Hood soldiers, immediately sent e-mails to the school counselors to be "extra sensitive" to children and their mood on Thursday.

[...]

"I was mad before I even heard about the 15 months. I don't want to be here. I don't think you need to sit here an extra three months to help people do what they don't want to do for their dadburn selves," said Sgt. Shawn Miller, 30. "To me, if you've been here four years and the country ain't straight, why extend another three months? Why don't we just go?"

“I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume.”

-George W. Bush

.

More For The Charnel House

King George's War:

US troops will now serve up to 15 months in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of the usual 12-month tours under new Defense Department rules.

[...]

"Effective immediately, active army units now in the Central Command area [Iraq and Afghanistan] and those headed there will deploy for not more than 15 months and will return home to home station for not less than 12 months," [SecDef Robert Gates] said.

Wanna bet that in 12 months that bit will be forgotten?

"I think that what this recognises, though, is that our forces are stretched," Mr Gates said.

No kidding.

.

Mighty Big Of Them

All of America should be grateful:

In an about-face by the U.S. government four years into the war in Iraq, America's fallen troops are being brought back to their families aboard charter jets instead of ordinary commercial flights, and the caskets are being met by honor guards in white gloves instead of baggage handlers with forklifts.

That change — which took effect quietly in January and applies to members of the U.S. military killed in Afghanistan, too — came after a campaign waged by a father who was aghast to learn that his son's body was going to be unloaded like so much luggage.

Look, you all know the score by now. These people - and I use that word loosely - running this clusterfuck don't give a damn about who dies for their fantasies. Americans, like Iraqis and Afghanis, are merely "collateral damage."

That for years now Our Beloved Overlords has seen fit to dump our soldiers and Marines into baggage - with the Samsonites - comes as no surprise.

They shit on the troops and they shit on the Constitution.

"I said, ‘That's not going to happen with my son. That's not how my son is coming home,'" said Holley, an Army veteran from San Diego whose son, Spc. Matthew Holley, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2005. "If it was ‘expeditious' to deliver them in garbage trucks, would you do that?"

Put a "I Support the Troops" ribbon-magnet on your car.

Yeah, that makes it all better.

.

Vile Sub-Human

VA Secretary Jim Nicholson:

WOODRUFF: You have mental disorders — 73,000; diseases of nervous system — 61,000; symtpoms, signs of ill-defined conditions — 7,000; diseases of musculoskeletal system — 87,000. These are numbers beyond the 23,000.

NICHOLSON: A lot of them come in for dental problems, others come in for a lot of the normal things that people have. We’re providing their healthcare. Some I suppose are because of their service over there. But they weren’t evacuated for that.

WOODRUFF: But they got some kind of injury, some kind of problem because of the war.

NICHOLSON: That’s possible, yes.

"That's possible, yes."

Everyone associated with this administration ought to be chucked into prison for the rest of their lives.

Video at link if you can stomach it.

.

Wednesday Boot

Well well well, this week Max is feeling the weight of the world on his shoulders. Given that there's a lot of invading and occupying to do he's sad that our allies - especially Perfidious Albion - just don't have that martial spirit:

TONY BLAIR'S decision to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq is understandable. The prime minister had to make a difficult decision about where to allocate Britain's scarce resources, and he decided, reasonably enough, that the top priority was to send reinforcements to Afghanistan, where 5,500 British troops are struggling to hold back a Taliban onslaught.

The tragedy is that he had to rob Peter to pay Paul because Britain can't maintain 7,000 troops in Iraq and 7,000 in Afghanistan. Those are hardly huge numbers for a country of 60 million with the fifth-largest national economy in the world. Yet even as Britain has continued to play a leading role in world affairs, it has allowed its defenses to molder.

[...]

Even worse hit is the Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France.

Y'see, Max, the UK is no longer an empire. They don't need a huge military. Unless Argentina invades the Falkland Islands again it's unlikely the Brits will go to war except out of some misguided loyalty to the US.

This shortfall has serious repercussions not only for those countries but for the United States. With about 165,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and more on the way, we are seriously overstretched ourselves. We need as much help as we can get, but there isn't much more that our allies could do, even if they wanted to.

[...]

Unless the other NATO members are willing to step up their spending — and what are the odds of that? — there is scant chance that their gripes about American unilateralism will ever be rectified. We act alone, or almost alone, not out of choice but out of necessity.

Our armed forces are "seriously overstretched" because of one man's daddy issues. That's a job for a psychologist not the Royal Army. And the complaints about American unilateralism have more to do with our imperial ambitions than with "necessity."

But shoulders slumping and a great weight on his mind Max soldiers on alone...so alone....

.

Remember Afghanistan?

Delusional Dick not blown up in Afghanistan.

Less importantly, more than a dozen killed and dozens more wounded.

Maybe we should call Cheney "Dick of Death."

.

I Can't Imagine How This Happened

Delusional Dick is concerned:

Vice President Dick Cheney warned Monday that al-Qaeda is "regrouping" in Pakistan's remote border region and sought President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's help in a stiffened push against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants, Musharraf's office said.

al-Qaeda is regrouping? Didn't we invade Afghanistan and pressure Pakistan to put an end to the group? Back in 2001? And al-Qaeda is still an issue? I can't imagine why.

Oh, right...

.

Number Of The Day

$245,000,000,000

.

The Buck Stops...

...somewhere else:

With significant policy details left to be worked out this weekend, the administration is nonetheless moving ahead on several personnel changes. It is set to announce that Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who gained fame for his early success in training Iraqi troops and securing a volatile city in northern Iraq, will replace Gen. George W. Casey Jr. as commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, officials say.

The administration also intends to nominate Navy Adm. William J. Fallon to head the Central Command, replacing Gen. John P. Abizaid as the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East. Some military officials consider Fallon an unusual choice, because he is a naval officer in charge of the Pacific Command with limited experience in the Middle East and would be in charge of two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, sure. Keep replacing commanders and ignore the fact that the strategy is what's at fault.

And appointing an admiral to run two (for now) ground wars? Swell idea.

On the diplomatic side, the White House will appoint veteran U.S. diplomat Ryan C. Crocker, the current envoy to Pakistan, who began his career in the 1970s in Iraq, as the new ambassador to Baghdad. The controversial current ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, will be nominated to become the top U.S. envoy at the United Nations, replacing John R. Bolton, U.S. officials say.

George is appointing a Muslim to be UN Ambassador? Considering his base ("al Qaeda" in Arabic) wet their beds at the idea of a Muslim Congresscritter this ought to make their heads explode.

.

Remember Afghanistan?

Thanks, George:

The conflict in Afghanistan has entered a dangerous phase, and the next three to six months could prove crucial in determining whether the United States and its NATO partners can suppress a revitalized enemy — or will be dragged into another drawn-out and costly fight with an Islamic insurgency, according to senior military and security officials and diplomats.

"I think we are approaching a tipping point, perhaps early in the new year," said a Western diplomat in the region, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation publicly.

[...]

Militants have built a network of bases in the tribal hinterlands that straddle the frontier with Pakistan. Over the last year, a growing number of mobile encampments on the Afghan side of the border have given the insurgents greater self-sufficiency, military officials say, although the guerrillas still draw heavily on logistical support and weaponry funneled from the Pakistani side.

"They can come and go pretty much undetected," acknowledged U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Michael T. Harrison Sr., who is overseeing the training and equipping of the struggling Afghan national army.

Observers point to an inexorable upward trend in violence that includes suicide attacks, roadside bombs and border clashes. "We have a bona fide war going on," Harrison said.

[...]

"We should be careful that we don't overstate this militarily unconventional challenge," U.S. Marine Gen. James L. Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander, told reporters last week in Riga, Latvia, where the alliance's leaders were meeting. "We will not be defeated militarily by the Taliban." NATO has 32,000 troops in the country, backed by formidable airpower.

We won't be defeated militarily. That's swell but irrelevant. It's their country and all they have to do is wait us out. Perhaps if Lameduck George had devoted resources to building-up Afghanistan rather than divert everything to Iraq we wouldn't be on the cusp of losing in a second country.

James Buchanan helped bring on the Civil War. Richard Nixon tried to establish an imperial presidency. George W. Bush has managed to combine these traits and lead us into the worst foreign policy - and domestic policy - this nation has ever seen.

Unforunately, the only punishment he's likely to ever face is located in his conscience - if he has one.

.

LameDuck George Throws A Fit

Allies not being compliant enough:

US President George Bush has berated Nato members reluctant to send troops to Afghan hotspots, demanding they must accept "difficult assignments".

Speaking ahead of a Nato meeting in Latvia, Mr Bush said members must provide the forces the alliance needs.

Perhaps any reticence is because, aside from a few domestic mouth-breathers, nobody has any confidence in George anymore?

Just a thought.

.