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)

Let us fast-forward to today and focus on the following recent news items:

A) President G.W. Bush considers himself not just the Commander-in-Chief , the Decider and the Decision-Maker anymore, but also simply the Commander Guy;

B) The Bush administration has stipulated that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants and therefore does not need the consent of Congress to do so;

C) This is in line with the fact that President G.W. Bush has brushed aside hundreds of laws already with his signing statements;

D) Congress has already put in the books the Patriot Act and the Military Commission’s Act, both giving the President the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies (powers which include looser surveillance restrictions, indefinite detentions, use of torture, loss of habeas corpus, etc.);

E) President G.W. Bush, in defense of his veto of an Iraq war spending plan passed by the Democratic-led Congress that would have forced him to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sent the message to Congress that he considered the legislation unconstitutional because it infringed on his presidential powers;

and F) Meanwhile, cries continue to clamor for the need of a Unitary Executive, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the republic, because "in stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong".

With these items in mind, go read the U.S. Constitution (especially Articles I-III which define the powers of the three equal branches).

One does not need be a Constitutional lawyer or expert to understand that, especially with regards to item E), President Bush is essentially claiming that the constitutional roles and powers of the Congress are unconstitutional.

In short: the President now stands above the Rule of Constitutional Law - particularly in times of crisis presented by external (re: global terrorism) or internal (re: home-grown terrorism) threats.

History clearly shows that such points of view and radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, along with the slow erosion of the rule of law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crisis, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of the Roman republic.

Has President George W. Bush effectively "crossed the Rubicon"?

Do these days represent the critical period which will lead eventually to the end of the American republic?

Now read this news item (emphasis and extra links added):

(...) President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times' page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans' information and exchanges online.

"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus (...)

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to "make permanent" key aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

"It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request," Lichtblau writes. "Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. 'Since 9/11,' Mr. Smith said, 'we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.'"

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush's purported "security" measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration's eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush's language "recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001... [which] authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden."

"But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress," he adds.

And let us not forget about torture and other "necessary" actions required to "fight" this now-official, never-ending Global War on Terrorism(TM).

Once again, we should keep very much in mind the ever convenient rationale of security agencies as they perform their "duty":

(...) This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.

Anything.

From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.

Because any such activities may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".

So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.

And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.

Conclusion - no one is safe indeed:

It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.

Welcome to the Security State governed by the all-powerful President-Pontificate, who will win (someday in the far, distant future, perhaps) the never-ending Global War on Terror(TM).

The last, final few steps in crossing the Rubicon are being be taken.

Should he be still alive today, I am convinced that George Orwell would say: "I told you so".

Thus the slow march toward tyranny is nearing its completion.

Any questions?


(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)

High-level U.S. officials intervened to make sure Maher Arar was sent to Syria instead of Canada because they feared the porous border would not keep him "from returning to the United States for nefarious purposes," according to a previously secret internal U.S. probe released yesterday.

Richard Skinner, head of internal investigations at the Department of Homeland Security, also told a congressional hearing yesterday that he was reopening the probe into Mr. Arar's deportation because new classified information had been received in recent weeks that cast doubt on the conclusions that exonerated U.S. officials for sending him to Syria.

"We have reopened our review into the Mr. Arar matter because, less than a month ago, we received additional information that contradicts one of the conclusions," Mr. Skinner told the committee hearing.

Well, well, well ... a cover-up of fear-, paranoid- and incompetence-driven mistakes and expediency-hasted malicious intent, which included the interventions of "high officials" in the White House? Who could have ever even suspected something like this? Yeah - right (emphasis added):

The report is heavily redacted and paints an incomplete but compelling picture of high-level intervention that overruled the assessments of anti-terrorism agents, ignored warnings that Mr. Arar would likely be tortured in Syria and ran roughshod over legal safeguards in a rush to get him on a chartered plane out of the country before the deportation could be stopped.

(...) The U.S. report released yesterday shows a U.S. database flagged border agents that Mr. Arar was flying to New York, dubbing him "armed and dangerous" and a "special interest" alien. Yet after being initially detained and interrogated by a special Joint Terrorism Task Force agency at the airport, they concluded they "had no interest in Arar as an investigative subject."

What reversed that conclusion was the still obscure high-level meeting on Friday, Oct. 4, 2002, when senior officials in Washington determined that not only would Mr. Arar be removed from the United States, but he would be sent to Syria and imprisoned, not allowed to return to Canada. Larry Thomson, then the acting attorney-general, signed an order that rejected Mr. Arar's request to return to Canada because it would be "prejudicial to the interest of the United States."

Got it? What we have here yet once again is more of the Bush administration legalese maneuvering to circumvent/bypass due process, all in order to act according to their petty, paranoid fears.

In the end, Mr. Arar's always-consistent account of those events which lead to his rendition to Syria (instead of deportation to Canada) is finally being vindicated (emphasis and links added):

The timeline revealed in yesterday's U.S. report is broadly consistent with a chronology Mr. Arar has posted on his website and the findings of a Canadian government commission led by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor.

(...) The U.S. report finds that the circumstances of Mr. Arar's detention, from being taken into custody while changing planes at New York's John F. Kennedy airport on Friday, Sept. 27, 2002, until his removal to the Middle East, on Tuesday, Oct. 8, was "questionable," but not clearly illegal.

The report notes, Mr. Arar could have been sent to several places. "Canada was also an option and would have been a more efficient country of return both logistically and economically," it said.

(...) Arrested while passing through the United States to Canada, Mr. Arar was taken from JFK airport and sent directly to a "special handling unit" at a detention centre. The isolation "contributed to his difficulties in obtaining counsel and advice on his immigration case," the report finds.

And the rest, as they say, is history:

Sept. 27, 2002: The Immigration and Naturalization Service scuttles a plan to send Maher Arar to Switzerland, the country he had last transited through on his journey from Tunisia to Canada. The FBI manoeuvres to keep him from calling the Canadian consulate so it can investigate.

Oct. 1: The INS says it gives Mr. Arar a form indicating he has five days to respond to his removal, but the urgency of the matter is never clearly communicated.

Oct. 3: A Canadian consular official visits Mr. Arar in custody.

Oct. 4: Mr. Arar, a dual Syrian-Canadian citizen, requests he be sent to Canada, and expresses fears about torture in Syria. U.S. officials decide they would prefer to send him to the Middle East.

Oct. 5: An immigration lawyer visits Mr. Arar and recalls him being "emotional and distraught." The lawyer does not know he has only one day left to respond to a bid to remove him from the United States.

Oct. 6: At 5 p.m., officials leave messages notifying Mr. Arar's lawyers that an important hearing for him is about to take place. The messages are left on their office voicemails during the weekend. At 9 p.m., officials begin a six-hour interview with Mr. Arar. They leave unpersuaded that he is at risk of torture in Syria, even though other officials have already concluded that he very much is.

Oct. 7: The acting U.S. Attorney-General turns down Mr. Arar's request to return to Canada as "prejudicial to the interest of the United States" because of the "porous" border.

Oct. 8: Mr. Arar is taken out of his cell and brought to a private jet. En route, he is served with a form declaring him permanently inadmissible to the United States.

And thereafter he was renditioned to Syria, where he was tortured.

Maher Arara was denied American justice in 2006 when he sought compensation from the U.S. government for his mistreatment. The main reason cited by the judge who dismissed Arar's lawsuit was "the need for national security and secrecy".

Except that secrecy here was used to cover-up wrongdoing.

Considering that the truth is finally coming out, I wonder if Mr. Arar now has grounds to appeal this unjust and near-sighted 2006 decision or to re-initiate a lawsuit based on these "new findings".

Maher Arar already got Canadian justice - and deservedly so.

He may yet get American justice as well.

At least, I do hope so.


(Cross-posted from APOV).

I have felt much "sympathy" for President Bush when he declared that he wished he was standing alongside soldiers in Afghanistan and/or Iraq; I was especially "misty-eyed" when I heard that he keeps making great sacrifices for the Global War on Terror(TM), such as "feeling for the fallen soldiers' and putting aside golfing.

I have likewise felt much "empathy" for John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who keep beating the drums of war - increased troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as waging war aginst the evil Iranian Regime.

As a Canadian, my chest swelled with patriotic "pride" when Prime Minister Harper announced his vague plans to invest greatly in our military, if only because "if you want to be taken seriously in the world, you need the capacity to act".

And then ...

Then I remembered this:

"Ignorance breeds fear. Fear fosters hate. In turn, hate leads inevitably to violence (...) when will we acknowledge the fact, once and for all, that it is the incompetents among us who consistently promulgate violence as a solution for anything, to everything? (...) we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence - other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger - invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence ... including our very own for embracing such mendacity."

For indeed, we have much to atone for giving into fear following 9/11 - as this video illustrates:

Which, in turn, made me remember this:

"So - what exactly happened on the day after the fateful and tragic morning of 9/11?

We lost and the terrorists won.

Right there and then.

Whatever else has happened in the (seven) years which followed to this day merely constitutes the gradual and methodical enactment of the terms of our surrender.

No more, no less."

We have allowed bona fides incompetents to run our governments, to represent "us".

We have allowed ourselves to be enthralled by the fearmongering, the hatemongering and the cries for blind vengeance bellowed by false patriots, making us forget what true patriotism is and what it means.

Consequently, this is the price exacted from us when we entrust governance to incompetents:

And this is the price the incompetents that we've entrusted have exacted from "them":

All of this also reminded me of one of Ghandi's quotes:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

Along the way, we have forgotten what true leaders are all about:

"What is power?

We all know the saying: 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. However, how many among us actually realize that this adage is nothing more than an excuse for incompetence in wielding, or exercising, power?

For it is a fact that those individuals who are 'corrupted' by power are inevitably revealed at their core to be selfish, greedy, covetous, paranoid or fearful. Consequently, these use power expediently as a tool for the wasteful satisfaction of their every whim, want and need, or as a weapon to aim recklessly at their outwardly-projected inner demons.

In short: only incompetents abuse power.

Why is this so? Because, their petty minds are blind to the principle that factual power constitutes that which serves not only to better our own personal lives, but to improve those of others as well. We are indeed the keepers of our brothers, our sisters, our families, our relatives and our neighbors: this is a plain and simple verity, which also happens to define the very essence of Humanity.

It is not coincidence that incompetents invariably forget - or deny - such a fundamental truth."

Whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not, this much remains true: all that blood is on our hands.

If only because we have met the enemy, and the enemy is ourselves.

We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

We are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we surrendered to fear, hate and desire for blind vengeance, all the while thinking that somehow our vigilance and implication had become optional with regards to our own governance.

My only remaining hope lies with the possibility that it is not too late, that we may yet veer off the road to perdition upon which we are fast riding on and take another, more enlightened, one.

After all, are our noble precepts of democracy, liberty, human rights and peace nothing but empty, boastful, self-gratifying and hypocritical shams?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Let us re-visit the main justifications/objectives for the Afghanistan war, which began in October 2001:

1) Defeat the Taliban;
2) Defeat al-Qaeda;
3) Bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan.

Over the span of seven years since this war began, major combat operations have kept on going and going in Afghanistan - despite the proclamation in May 2002 that major combat operations were over and in the face of repeated claims that this war has been a big success.

Defeat the Taliban? Whether fueled by drug trade or corrupted misappropriations of U.S.A. funds to Pakistan (!), the Taliban insurgency shows no signs of wavering - not only in the South of Afghanistan where it has been most active but slowly spreading to the North of the country as well - all the while profiting from Pakistan's ineptitude (or incompetence, or fear?) to deal with them on their own side of the border. Just recently, Pakistan released a senior Taliban leader on his pledge to cease attacks in Pakistan - proving once again that Pakistan looks out for itself first and foremost, despite being a much touted "ally against terrorism". In the meantime, there have been repeated calls to negociate with the Taliban, going as far as to promise them a significant presence in the Afghanistan government - with the tacit approval of the U.S.A., Canada (for which the Afghanistan war has pretty much become its war) and other N.A.T.O. allies. Why, even after a much publicized recent attack by the Taliban on Afghani officials and foreign dignitaries (of which the Afghani government had been warned about), Afghani President Hamid Karzai went as far as to demand that N.A.T.O. "leave the Taliban alone" in order to stop "undermining negociations" with them! And guess what? N.A.T.O. forces are apparently following suit by putting the word out to Taliban fighters that they want to talk!

"If we don't succeed in Afghanistan, the Taliban will return" indeed. Interestingly, many Afghanis are not unhappy to see the Taliban returning!

Yes siree, the Taliban has lost - definitely.

(To learn more about the Taliban and "how much" they know about us and hate our freedoms and whatnot, I strongly suggest that you to read/watch the series Talking to the Taliban, via Red Tory: part I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII - but I disgress).

Defeat al-Qaeda? Osama bin Laden got away and is still in hiding, along with most of the al-Qaeda leadership, quite alive and well - thank you very much. In the meantime, Pakistan is once again of little help here - not only are bin Laden and al-Qaeda hiding in Pakistan, Pakistan freed suspected al-Qaeda members in 2006, whereas al-Qaeda funding keeps going through Pakistan. At one point, Pakistan even "lost" the trail of bin Laden - and recently, Pakistani President Musharraf declared that Pakistan was "not particularly looking" for him. All well and good, considering that al-Qaeda presumably assassinated opposition leader and staunch al-Qaeda opponent Benazir Bhutto, while continuing to cause much chaos in Pakistan alongside Taliban fighters. And through it all, the now-infamous "on and off" hunt for bin Laden by the U.S.A., Canada and other N.A.T.O. allies still goes on (or not) ... in Afghanistan! No wonder such a wild goose chase will be a very long one ...

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda keeps fighting alongside the Taliban in the continuing insurgency in Afghanistan, and is poised to launch more terrorist attacks around the world ... from Pakistan. That, in addition to the fact that al-Qaeda continues to be a source of inspiration for would-be extremists - especially in Iraq.

Yes siree, al-Qaeda is on the run - definitely.

Bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan? Yes, there have been some positive steps towards democracy in Afghanistan - but such gains are far from being faits accomplis. Rampant corruption and the booming drug trafficking (and the Drug Lords behind it) are but two of the prevailing problems which keep undermining said gains. The biggest problem of them all lies with the remaining powerful, brutish Warlords. Although having been elected in 2004, President Karzai holds power in Kabul only ... with the consent of said Warlords who hold power practically everywhere else in the country, thanks to more short-sighted, expedient incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. It doesn't help either when one of the Warlords declares allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And Karzai's government remains hardly stable, thanks to the ongoing insurgency. Last, but not least, what of the Afghani women? Little has changed since 2001 and things are in fact worsening in this respect, while laws are slowly but surely returning to the "old style" Taliban ones. On a related note, freedom of the press is not that free just yet and is likewise worsening - all of this thanks to seven years after Afghanistan's liberation from the "Taliban Regime".

Yes siree, the Afghanis have freedom and democracy - definitely.

So all in all, after looking closely at the main justifications/objectives for the war in Afghanistan and how "successfully" they have been achieved, it is safe to conclude that for all the boasts from the Bush administration, as well as those coming from Canada's Harper government (and from the British, and the Australians, and the French, and so on and so forth), soldiers and civilians have been dying in Afghanistan over the last seven years for absolutely nothing.

But we know all too well why we've arrived to this point, which is more or less right back where the Afghanistan war began on all accounts, despite all the empty rhetoric of touting all the progress achieved "over there": botched pre-war planning, botched post-war planning and the disastrous diversion of the Iraq war.

This war is indeed a veritable catalogue of errors.

No wonder Afghanistan is a quagmire. No wonder it's damn hard work. No wonder the situation is grim. No wonder the Afghanistan "mission" is in trouble, if not actually in crisis. No wonder Afghanistan has been assessed as a 30-years long marathon "mission" while we keep running in circles.

For indeed, each one of the prime justifications/objectives for the Afghanistan war have now been either completely disavowed ("defeat the taliban"), more or less abandoned ("defeat al-Qaeda"), or outrightly dismissed/ignored ("bring freedom and democracy"), by the very same people who have been pushing and supporting said justifications and this war.

In essence, the core-reasons for going into Afghanistan are being put aside in lieu of political salvage operations of appearances - with the price continuing to be exacted with the lives of N.A.T.O. soldiers and Afghan civilians in the meantime.

To put it in other words: people and soldiers have been dying over the last seven years 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.

The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.

And Afghanistan will forever constitute grave testimony to that effect.

Hip, hip, hooray.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

This illustrates well how easily any specific action, within the context of a military operation in progress, can lead to a war crime (in this specific case: that of directing attacks against civilians).

There we had a massive offensive in progress, with bombs blowing everywhere and bullets flying left and right. What is the civilian population to do? Stay in their homes while the war rages on all about their homes?

Some would immediately answer yes - they should have stayed put in their homes, if only because of the current "surgical bombing" capacity of the U.S. military which enable a precise strike of valid military targets. Now, assuming that the regular folks of Fallujah at the time happened to be keenly aware of this and that they could somehow manage to remain calm and collected to not give into fear while sheer Hell was happening all about them, such an argument nevertheless remains as insipid as it is bereft on any reasoning depth.

Indeed, laser-guided bombs and missiles usually allow precise targeting. But considering the average payload of said bombs and missiles, any precise targeting capability is rendered a moot point once explosion occurs - for the blast and shock wave alone can, and will, destroy/kill anything and anyone nearby (within a sizable radius at that) in addition to its intended target.

That is why civilians at Fallujah had no choice but to flee their homes in order to seek succor in neighborhoods where there was little (or not) fighting. And folks did indeed run away from their homes - whether out of cool and calm reasoning (yeah, right), or out of primal fear and compelling instinct to survive (much more likely).

And this is obviously what the crowd in the video was doing.

The problem? The pilot who spotted this crowd did not establish whether they were armed individuals or not (and let's put aside for the moment that the pilot was obviously not being shot at by anyone in this crowd - otherwise he would have reported it). In addition, his command did not ask, but rather simply gave him the A-OK to bomb the fleeing crowd.

It took some 30 seconds between the crowd being spotted by the pilot, his command giving the OK to bomb, and the crowd to be obliterated.

Decisions have to be made quickly and swiftly during a military offensive - you wait a tad too long and the lives of soldiers can, and will, be lost. So the pilot's command never thought of asking for the confirmation that armed hostiles were in the crowd, nor did the pilot even think of doing just that - assuming here that he had the time and the means to do so.

In the heat of the moment, all that mattered was that there was a crowd of people moving in a street within a combat zone - and therefore, they were automatically assumed to be hostiles.

Hence why, as well as how, a war crime can be committed in the full earnestness and chaos of a military operation.

The same dynamic applies with regards to friendly fire. Here is but one example:

A friendly-fire incident killed one Canadian soldier and wounded 36 others in Afghanistan (...) Pvt. Mark Anthony Graham (was) killed when a garbage fire lit was mistaken for the smoke and fire of an intended target and strafed by the U.S. air force.

Fighting had been fierce in the Panjwaii district, where soldiers were attempting to secure a section of Highway 1, a major thoroughfare across Kandahar province that had been under control of the Taliban.

(...)

The report, by a board of inquiry called to look into the incident, found that the morning of the attack, Charles Company, 1st Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment, had lit a fire to burn their refuse on the rocks of Ma'sum Ghar before heading back into the battle zone.

Graham, a former Olympic track-and-field athlete, had been standing at the fire, warming up.

Air strikes had been called into the fight zone the day before, after four Canadian soldiers -- Sgt. Shane Stachnik, Warrant Officer Frank Robert Mellish, Pte. William Cushley and Warrant Officer Richard Francis Nolan -- had been killed in the fighting.

U.S. aircraft were in the area keeping up the pressure, and the pilot of the A10-A was tasked with strafing a target that moments earlier had been hit by a guided bomb dropped by another American aircraft.

He was supposed to use the fire and smoke generated by the bomb to identify where he was to shoot.

"He mistook a garbage fire at the Canadian location for his target without verifying the target through his targeting pod and heads-up display," the report said.

The point? War is Hell and chaos. Why then take the risk of committing war crimes by sending men and women to fight and die in wars of choice?

Whether by accident or, even worse, by intent (two examples here and here), war crimes are almost inevitably committed at one point or another of any ongoing massive military operation - especially within urban theaters.

Even more so within the context of insurgencies, when troops are never sure of who the enemy is.

Just one more reason why the military approach in the so-called Global War on Terror(TM) is a tragic sham and a catastrophic failure, being nothing more than a callous political exercise.

So the obvious question is: will the deciders (at the very least) behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars be ever brought to justice?

After all, it is the deciders who send the troops to war, who establish the rules of engagement, as well as of the treatment of captives (civilian or otherwise).

Unfortunately, the answer to the question is not bloody likely:

For indeed - the Bush administration (to the man and woman) signed on to implement torture of detainees.

And both the House and Senate ended up supporting it all.

And, indirectly, all of this was likewise supported by the American people who elected those political cowards, calculators and outright incompetents - from 2000 through 2006.

Through it all - the wars, the reports of torture and other war crimes, the revelations of the lies and illegalities from the Bush administration - the elected representatives of the U.S.A. and, by proxy, the American people, not only did nothing to impeach this administration but instead passed the necessary laws to essentially provide retroactive protection from prosecution to this same administration.

That is, in essence, what history will record and what the rest of the world will remember.

Now, if you think that any member of the Bush administration will be instead prosecuted by another country (or even The Hague International Court) for their war crimes, I say to you "guess again" (emphasis mine):

August 2003:

U.S. President George Bush signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision is dubbed the "Hague invasion clause".

In other words: the U.S.A. has already threatened officially to go to war in order to prevent any American from being prosecuted for war crimes in another country - even an allied one.

Altogether, the actions and laws passed by the U.S.A. since 2001 have lead essentially to this (which speaks by itself):


So here we are now - with the U.S.A. having shown itself over and over again quite capable of acting like a rogue state in defiance to the rest of the world of nations, all in order to get revenge for 9/11 (at least, that is how the narrative still goes).

With me, a Canadian, being bewildered through it all, always wondering about my American friends: why have they done this to themselves?

Although the answer is out there, it still breaks my (progressive) heart.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Indeed, many (including yours truly) have been clamoring the same said obvious - however, that this simple fact is at last admitted openly in testimony before Congress, and that said admission was actually proded out by elected representatives, constitutes nevertheless a significant moment.

In order to fully appreciate such significance, let us first go back to the core-reasons for the Afghanistan War (emphasis added):

At the time, President Bush justified the launching of the Afghanistan War as a response to 9-11 and the failure of the Taliban to meet his demands concerning terrorists, including delivering Osama bin Laden. Following the trauma and outrage brought by 9-11, an overwhelming majority of Americans supported the War in Afghanistan - and President Bush was believed at face value when he claimed that the replacement of the Taliban regime was a requirement for keeping the U.S.A. safe from another al-Qaeda attack.

However, and despite President Bush's "convictions", a lot did not sit well with his invasion of Afghanistan (emphasis added):

(...) there was a rather meek international support for such justifications initially, especially since: 1) the U.S.A. had turned a convenient blind eye when the backward, fundamentalist Taliban regime seized power in 1996 (after all, the U.S.A. had supported the Taliban); 2) although the Taliban was indeed characterized by its parochial, fundamentalist and theocratic-driven ruthless rule, it was never a terrorist organization to begin with; 3) the Taliban was certainly not involved in 9-11; 4) the Taliban had agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan for trial (10/01/2001, but Pakistan refused); 5) the Taliban then offered to try bin Laden themselves (10/07/2001, but the offer was rejected by Bush); and 6) the Taliban thereafter offered to hand him over to the U.S., provided that proof was shown that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11 (10/14/2001, but this offer was likewise flatly rejected by Bush).

Hence, the Taliban regime was not a terrorist organization and had made a significant number of overtures to deliver Osama bin Laden - however, all such overtures were rejected.

Why? Because of the expedient desire to go to war - which happened on 10/07/2001, when American and British forces undertook an aerial bombing campaign targeting Taliban forces and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - thus marking the beginning of the Afghanistan War.

From then on, the rest was history - including how it turned out (emphasis added):

By the summer of 2002, the Taliban had been removed from power and its remnants, like those of al-Qaeda, had gone into hiding. By the end of spring 2003, then-still U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared major combat operations over. However, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, by then fully allied by necessity, had already regrouped along the Afghani-Pakistani border, recruiting heavily while training in guerrilla warfare tactics - thanks to consistent funding seemingly transiting through Pakistan. Then, the Taliban insurgency followed - which has been lasting to this day.

(...) Osama bin Laden got away and is still in hiding, along with most of the al-Qaeda leadership - even if he and his organization were the prime justification for going into Afghanistan in the first place.

How could this have happened? Simply this way:

The Powell Doctrine was already established and demonstrated after Operation Desert Storm. But then the resident incompetents in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.) tossed it aside when they went into Afghanistan - especially because, as it has been revealed, they already had their sights on Iraq. So, they went in Afghanistan without massive deployments, made those stupid deals with the Afghan Warlords and their militias, contented themselves with routing the Taliban and al-Qaeda away from Khabul (and for the life of me, I never understood why no one figured out that the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban would run into Pakistan and, consequently, take strategic steps to block off the border in order to prevent this - then again, they never had enough boots on the grounds to enact such a basic strategy to begin with - but I digress), and then they asked for U.N./N.A.T.O. help because they had begun occupying themselves with Iraq.

Conclusion: the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been back in force after being essentially allowed to flee to Pakistan and regroup, thanks to the mind-boggling incompetence of the Bush administration.

Or, in other words: this has been a policy of retreat from bin Laden and Afghanistan.

At the same time, this has also been a policy of not only ignoring the Pakistan problem, but actually coddling to it (emphasis added):

Pakistan has often been praised by the Bush administration, among others, for its role in the Global War on Terror(TM). President Bush even once proclaimed a broad and lasting strategic partnership with Pakistan to this effect.

Despite evidence to the contrary:

A) Although initially helping to round up remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (after their defeat in the summer of 2002) on its own side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the Pakistani army quickly found itself in a sub-war (dubbed the Waziristan War) which began in the spring of 2004 and ended in the summer of 2006, being pitted against al-Qaeda and other militants joined by local rebels and pro-Taliban tribal forces - all believed to be connected with the Taliban insurgency. A peace agreement was signed in September 2006 between the Pakistani government and the pro-Taliban militants, encouraged by the Tribal Elders in power in the region.

B) The provisions of this peace agreement included, among others, a significant reduction of Pakistani troops in the Waziristan region and the release of some 2500 al-Qaeda and pro-Taliban militants previously captured. Consequently, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have free reign at hiding within Pakistan.

C) Since then, Pakistan's "help" against al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been going downhill. Osama bin Laden was ascertained all along of being in hiding in Pakistan, whereby the Pakistani "lost his trail" quite a while ago. Furthermore, al-Qaeda funding still goes through Pakistan.

and D) Despite previous claims (see above), members of the Bush administration have begun this year to call upon Pakistan to "step up" further with its help in fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, even going as far as to threaten military strikes within Pakistan's side of the border with Afghanistan, without Pakistan's permission.

In between, there has been a resurgence of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, as well as clashes and confrontations between Pakistani forces and pro-Taliban/al-Qaeda forces - in fact, Pakistan is deemed likely to face a civil war should it presses on further in the areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are hiding. Furthermore, President (dictator) Musharraf may yet declare martial law, even if he has so far publicly rejected the option. Meanwhile, the only solution that President Bush could come up with in solving this dire problem is by seeking a $2 billion Pakistan aid package from Congress, in order to help financing tribal paramilitary groups in the semi-autonomous region of Waziristan in Pakistan (where al-Qaeda and the Taliban have gained such a foothold) as part of an American-Pakistani joint counterinsurgency effort designed to wrest the region from extremist militants.

The preceding was written in August 2007. Since then, Musharraf did declare martial law in November 2007 (which he lifted about one month later, but not before making himself President until 2012 - with congratulations from President Bush), opposition leader and staunch al-Qaeda opponent Benazir Bhutto was assassinated (apparently by none other than al-Qaeda), and a new Prime Minister intent on restoring full democracy in Pakistan (and a close associate of Benazir Bhutto) was elected.

In the meantime, Pakistan remains very much volatile as al-Qaeda, Taliban and tribal allies continue to sow chaos, while U.S./N.A.T.O. forces have stepped up their unilateral strikes into Pakistan from Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its allies.

In short, terrorism and extremism have remained so far beyond the control of Pakistan, having painted itself in a corner to this effect long before 9/11 and the launch of the Afghanistan War.

So here we are, with two full-fledged quagmires - one (Afghanistan) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to rush to war along with botched pre-war and post-war planning, and the other (Iraq) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to wage a war of choice ... along with botched pre-war and post-war planning (violence is the last refuge of incompetence and incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself - so state the 6th and 7th Principles of Incompetence, respectively). In addition, we have a country (Pakistan) with nuclear weaponry which ever hangs precariously on the razor's edge of civil war and anarchy.

Oh - and to top it all, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still alive and well in Pakistan ... as they have always been.

The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.

Or, in other words: anti-terrorism is not a matter of troops and tactics, but rather one of diplomacy and strategy - at home and abroad.

Another fact which was obvious all along, to which incompetent warhawks, chickenhawks and fear-driven fools have ever been blind to (we all know who and what they are).

Consequently, the very à propos question which should have been asked from the begining and which is to be asked again and again, especially in light of the aforementioned admission by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, remains this one: what should we do about al-Qaeda in Pakistan?

I have found some potential answers (emphasis mine):

- implementation of a new guarded, yet effective, counterinsurgency strategy in Pakistan. This means relying on credible human intelligence, winning over local support, and coordinating with American trainers and intelligence and military personnel in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis were able to bring Swat – a former Al-Qaeda stronghold in northern Pakistan – under state control using such a comprehensive strategy.

- in addition to a desire to "talk" to moderate Taliban, more needs to be done to endorse counterinsurgency strategies over brute-force counter-terrorist measures. Pakistani politicians are eager to take charge – but they must know that simply cutting deals with al-Qaeda or Taliban will not guarantee security. Before hastily signing another truce with the "moderate Taliban" in the tribal areas, the new government must investigate past failures of similar agreements.

- measures that promise better governance, more constitutional autonomy and socioeconomic opportunities to the tribal areas pending expulsion of terrorists will only succeed if Pakistani politicians guarantee consistent engagement. That includes, for example, asking the military to support Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) – similar to International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF) role in Afghanistan – over large-scale military operations.

- the current U.S. plan to increase the training of Pakistani troops – paratroopers, Pakistani Special Forces, and Frontier Corps – is a step in the right direction. U.S. training programs must be supplemented by U.S. military hardware and intelligence exchange across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In constrast, the current unilateral U.S. attacks on Pakistan’s rustic tribal areas are highly likely to prove devastatingly unsustainable and counterproductive (Note: actually, they have done so in the recent past already).

Once again: anti-terrorism is not a matter of troops and tactics, but rather one of diplomacy and strategy.

Only by taking a long, hard and sober look at was done horribly wrong will we be able to formulate the policies and strategies to combat terrorism that should have been devised to begin with.

If only because (emphasis adeed):

A stable nuclear-armed Pakistan is crucial for any successful effort to bring stability to the region. It holds the potential for intelligence exchange and military support, and holds a strategic geographic location next to Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban know this too well. With time running out, Washington should provide smart and targeted military, economic and diplomatic aid to all willing and capable Pakistani civilian and military leaders and institutions. Changing the counterterrorism-counterinsurgency calculus by focusing on active socioeconomic engagement over excess use of brute force is essential to achieving victory in the Global War on Terror.

Looks like the table has been set after all.

Do we have the courage and competence to pull up a chair and sit down to it?

Que sera, sera.


(Cross-posted from APOV)