Last month's raid by U.S. special forces within Syria's undisputed, internationally recognized borders was but a small tip of a terribly sizable iceberg.

For perhaps a very first time, such an illegal military activity on the part of the U.S. within the ludicrous, broad context of the Global War on Terror(TM) put a bright, glaring and galling spotlight on the Bush Doctrine in action - especially its inherently criminal, destructively arrogant and short-sighted incompetent nature.

Then again, such a raid was not really surprising. For more than two years now, there has been numerous confirmed reports of instances whereby the U.S.-led N.A.T.O. ISAF in Afghanistan have bombed border villages within Pakistan and despite Pakistan's protestations - again, going against every precept of international laws with regards to the sanctity of borders and the sovereignty of nations.

Similarly, there has been numerous rumors, or at least as-yet-to-be fully confirmed reports, concerning secret U.S. "black ops" being run within Iran's borders - also for the better part of two years now, at least.

Well, it would seem that the complete extent of such Bush Doctrine-justified black ops is finally beginning to emerge - and such truth is every bit as outrageous as it is downright ugly (emphasis added):

US military conducts a dozen secret strikes in four years: report

US special forces have conducted about a dozen secret operations against Al-Qaeda and other Islamic militants in Pakistan, Syria and other countries under broad war-waging authority given them by the administration of President George W. Bush (...).

(Unnamed senior US officials) said the authority was contained in a classified order signed by then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in early 2004 with the approval of President Bush.

The order gave the military permission to attack Al-Qaeda and other hostile targets anywhere in the world, even in countries not at war with the United States, without any additional approval (...).

Under this authority, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected Islamic militant compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan in 2006 (...).

Another raid was conducted by US special forces in Syria last October 26 in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (...).

There is no information about the remaining secret military strikes, but officials made clear the list of targets did not include Iran (...) however, US forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.

About a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years because they were deemed too risky, too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence (...).

Before the 2004 order, the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days (...) but Rumsfeld was not satisfied with the status-quo and pressed hard for permission to use military power automatically outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan (...).

(The) 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states, where Al-Qaeda was believed to be operating or had sought sanctuary.

Not the best way to make friends, let alone inspire and spread goodwill, eh?

(Rogue Nation, anyone?)

Ah yes, that is the Bush Doctrine in action without a shadow of a doubt - including the typical landmarks of incompetence-driven arrogance, delusional (and false) moral high ground, and slavish need for expediency.

In other words - this is the exact, same mode of (non)thinking which ended up justifying renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions and indiscriminate domestic spying.

Indeed - upon closer reading of the Bush Doctrine, we even find the very same contorted and mendacious "double-speak" used in claiming that torture, renditions and indefinite detentions remained respectful of the Geneva Conventions, except this time around with regards to "respecting international laws" and other such quaint ideals. To whit (emphasis added):

(...) For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

(...) The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions.

Translation: we do what we feel needs to be done, and us alone, regardless of the previous thinking about sovereignty and international laws which we still respect. Trust us.

Or: do as we say, not as we do.

Reminds you of many, many other things, no?

But the galling irony, especially in light of such blatant unilateralism, lies with the following "noble" statements of principles in that very same Bush Doctrine (emphasis added):

No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action—direct or indirect—is warranted. We have finite political, economic, and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind:

• The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.
• The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.

To which one can only reply: Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? Syria? And who else?

And to this, one must never fail to remind (lame duck) President George W. Bush of his own words in order to expose his demonstrated shameless hypocrisy in such matters, as in pretty much everything else - to whit:

"We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small."

President Bush
Berlin, Germany
May 23, 2002

Justice.

Coercion.

Shared responsibilities.

One can't help but be reminded again of renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions, using military as police and indiscriminate domestic spying.

All of which, in turn, brings me back to the Q&A at the top of this post.

So thank you, President Bush, for making our world a definitely more dangerous and unstable one for decades henceforth.

May you and your infamous Doctrine be forever condemned and reviled by the present generation and all those to come thereafter.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed the idea that the Taliban is launching a new offensive in Afghanistan, saying Tuesday the mounting death toll and surge in violence are linked to the end of the annual poppy harvest.

MacKay said suicide attacks that have seen more than 40 people killed in recent days and the death Sunday of another Canadian soldier are likely tied to the conclusion of the lucrative trade that funds Taliban activities.

"The so-called spring offensive very often does lead to an uptick in insurgency attacks,'' he said Tuesday after a funding announcement in Halifax.

"This effort by the Taliban coincides with the end of the poppy harvest so there are more young individuals subject to being bought and paid for by the Taliban to involve themselves in the insurgency."

In other words, the Afghan upswing of violence of late is nothing more than a seasonal phenomenon.

Well, la-dee-da.

(Oh, and if such blatant denial of reality sounds somewhat familiar, then you are right: according to President G.W. Bush, this only has been a "tough month", is all ...)

Let's see:

Nothing seasonal here.

But incompetents like Defense Minister McKay just keep on viewing the grim reality through political and ideological rosy spectacles:

MacKay said the grim statistics don't tell the whole story of Afghanistan, which has seen its per capita income double across the country since 2002, while more than 80 per cent of Afghans now have access to basic health care, compared with only nine per cent in 2004.

That's right - but here is my question: any hard data to actually support such grand claims?

Especially in light of the rank corruption of the Afghan government, the still inefficient and embattled police force, and the simple fact that Afghanis were among the poorest of the planet before the launch of the Afghanistan war in 2001?

Hell, living allowances supposedly being dished out by the Afghan government are in fact being put in the pockets of corrupted officials - consequently pushing more destitute and frustrated young men to join the continuing and amplifying, flourishing Taliban insurgency - while one in five Afghan soldier drops out of their fledging, poorly trained and paid army - care to guess what these deserters will become?

And that is not taking into account the recent revelation that the civilian death toll resulting from the fighting between insurgents and security forces has soared by 60% in the first half of this year alone (one recent example of why and how this is happening - h/t).

In the meantime, both U.S. (h/t) and Canadian (h/t) military remain silent of such civilian deaths.

Anyone care to guess what is likely to become of surviving family members, friends and neighbors?

For indeed, Afghans have been facing a grim choice for quite a long time now: who is the bigger nightmare - the Taliban or the N.A.T.O. forces?

But all of this is apparently poppycock, if one would hang onto the words of the shining brand new Canadian "Top Soldier" - Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk - like one hangs onto the Gospels as an article of faith: according to him, there is no sign that the Taliban is regaining its strength and Canadian troops will definitely leave Kandahar in 2011.

Such blatant "toeing the talking point" of the good general's own boss (Defense Minister McKay) flies in the face on not only the facts and numbers mentioned above, but likewise contradicts the truth of the situation to which the Americans, even the incompetent Bush administration, are finally becoming aware of - a few headlines as cases in point:

Taliban flourishing, Pentagon reports (h/t);

Is This the Year of the Taliban?

Taliban attacks up 40 percent in east Afghanistan: US general;

Losing On The Forgotten Front;

NATO's Lost Cause;

Remember the other war?

Gates voices worry over Afghanistan (h/t);

Turmoil puts Afghanistan at epicenter of White House campaign;

US warns Taliban to step up fight in new Afghan areas;

Hunkering Down in Afghanistan;

Get Ready For The Surge 2.0 - This Time In Afghanistan;

Pentagon extends tour of Marines in Afghanistan;

Bush considers sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Yes, yes, yes indeedy - there is progress in Afghanistan, or so we keep on hearing again and again and again and again and again.

And hey - Canada is now helping to build walls (h/t) around university campuses and rebuilding prisons broken into by the Taliban, and may even help protect a brand new oil pipeline over there!

(Which in turn makes me wonder how much money will be wasted to fill the greedy pockets of those corrupted corporations who keep fleecing government monies tagged for Afghan reconstruction - like these others keep doing in Iraq?)

Ah, yes ... Afghanistan has been a big success so far and the Taliban is losing (yet again).

Welcome to Magical Ponies Land - where people and soldiers have died, still die and will continue to die, for nothing more than what in the end has amounted to a needless and ludicrous political exercize on the part of incompetent "deciders" as their response to 9/11.

Or to put it another way: Afghanistan has always been nothing more than a 9/11 vengeance operation, and once the Bush administration had control of the place, they did not have much clue as to what to do - and obviously, they still don't.

But no matter what the cost, apparently, Canada's single most important endeavor will go on even if its disavowed mission in Afghanistan keeps on changing - perhaps helping in the process of defining those oh-so-elusive signposts of success as they go along.

And should all else fail - then the Afghanis will be blamed for it.

As the world turns and seasons come and go, Afghanistan proves there's a whole lot more abject incompetence and sheer stupidity for our "Deciders" to show.


(Cross-posted from APOV)