Outright Liars

Jason Kenney is a liar. So is his puppy, James Bezan. So says the commander of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2.

Kenney and Bezan are claiming a close encounter between HMCS Fredericton and Russian surface combatants and aircraft. Supposedly, they got that information from the commanding officer of Fredericton.

Not bloody likely.

There is a near zero chance that the captain of Fredericton sent anything but a factual report of a distant visual sighting of Russian ships and aircraft. To do otherwise would prompt Rear Admiral Brad Williamson, commander SNMG2, to boot HMCS Fredericton to a safe area, well away from any activity. Excitable frigate captains who embellish contact reports are not an asset in such situations - they are an extreme liability.

The fact that HMCS Fredericton remains on station with SNMG2 is solid evidence that the ship is performing and reporting in accordance with the well-practiced doctrine established by the officer in tactical command.

That makes Kenney, Bezan and anybody who repeats their words, liars.

Calendar creep on the Afghan map

Interesting things coming out of the Lisbon NATO summit. Canada's grand emissaries to the summit had better be prepared to explain, with absolute clarity, what their hillbilly mouths agreed to.

First is this from the Afghanistan Daily Outlook. (The link will probably not survive so I'll quote the relevant line)

NATO nations formally agreed Saturday to start turning over Afghanistan's security to its military next year and give them full control by 2014. The U.S. and its allies appeared to take conflicting views on when NATO combat operations would end. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he did not expect NATO troops to stay in the fight against the Taliban after 2014. "I don't foresee ISAF troops in a combat role beyond 2014, provided of course that the security situation allows us to move into a more supportive role,"

That requires a careful re-read. Canada has committed to pulling out of a combat role commencing mid-2011 and starting a new mission in a training role by the end of next year. NATO has determined that an end date for its combat involvement will be 2014, if the security situation allows it, and then to take on a more "supportive" role. That could be anything from training to providing combat support in the field. The issue is that Canada assuming a training role, supposedly until the end of 2014, without grinding out the details in a proper national discussion, may well end up committed well past that advertised time.
The NATO plan is highly conditional. The US has rejected any end date and has stated that they will continue combat operations alone, if necessary.

By contrast, US officials insisted that the Nato transition plan did not guarantee an end to American combat operations. US forces could go on fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan even after transition, they said.
Transition and ceasing combat operations are “not one and the same”, said a senior US official. Speaking to reporters at the Nato summit , Barack Obama, the US President, said: “One thing I am pretty confident we will still be doing after 2014 is maintaining a counter-terrorism capability. It’s going to be pretty important to us to continue to have platforms to execute those counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan.”

And now the Harper statement:

Regardless of what role NATO forces may play in Afghanistan after the deadline, Canadian soldiers will not be there to participate, according to Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon.
Combat troops are pulling out next year as planned, he said, and the military trainers pledged to NATO this week will not stay past March, 2014, regardless of what other members of the alliance do. “There is no flexibility,” he said.

Right. Given that just this past summer Harper was rattling on that after 2011 the Afghanistan mission would be completely "civilian", there is absolutely no reason to believe that statement. Without a proper national discourse this is nothing but foreign affairs governance by press release.
And we don't know whether Harper and Cannon have consulted with Bob Rae yet.

General Stanley McChrystal sends his regrets ...

Another NATO airstrike, another 33 dead civilians. AP :

"NATO forces confirmed in a statement that its planes fired Sunday on a group of vehicles that it believed contained insurgents who were about to attack its forces, only to discover later that women and children were in the cars.

The strike hit three minibuses that were driving down a major road in the mountainous province. There were 42 people in the vehicles, all civilians, Bashary said.

"We are extremely saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives," NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said.

McChrystal also sent along his regrets six days ago when 12 civilians including 6 children were killed by two NATO-fired rockets which missed their intended target by 300 meters, and still more regrets were forthcoming the following day for five more civilians killed in another NATO airstrike.

McClatchy's reports that this is all just "a trial run" for "the next big combat mission" in Kandahar this summer, described by ISAF officials as "the big prize for both the Taliban and the coalition":

"Coalition officers describe the Marjah operation, now into its second week, as a "confidence builder" for Kandahar now that extra troops for Afghanistan have been committed."

And just what is the point of this "confidence builder" for "the big prize" again?

Journalist and historian Gareth Porter at The Real News Network :

"In my view this offensive has to be viewed as more of an effort to shape public opinion in the United States than to shape the politics of the future of Afghanistan."

It's propaganda, explains Porter, designed to sell the American people on the idea that when the inevitable negotiations with the Taliban for US withdrawal are held in 16 to 18 months, it will look at home as if the US is negotiating from a position of strength.

Saving US face - that's what all these civilians and soldiers are dying for now.
.

Uh oh! There goes that world stage again... and MacKay's not on it

Shattering news... if you're Peter MacKay. Devastating news if you're Harper.

The US is prepared to back Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to be the next secretary general of Nato, US and alliance sources say.

And that would be an "official" leak. A leak which found its way to a desk somewhere at 101 Colonel By Drive in Ottawa with a message: Back away sonny. This is our turf.

Other contenders for the position include Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, former British Defence Secretary Des Browne, former Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passy and Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

At least the Brits had the saavy to put MacKay at the end of the list of "also ran" candidates.

Examine a few realities here:

1. The Europeans will never surrender the convention of "The US commands NATO forces and a European civilian commands NATO". There's a good reason for this. NATO's original purpose was to operate on western European soil and face east, preventing any attempted Soviet incursion across what was, at one time, a very dangerous border.

2. The position of NATO secretary-general is selected without much in the way of public input. It is something of a power play among the Europeans. The US would be offside if they opposed the European choice. Any opposition by Canada to the European choice would be promptly and completely ignored.

3. Nothing happens in a vacuum. That name of contenders is not "official" but each one had to be put forward by someone, including that of MacKay. Normally, the names of individuals to be considered are quietly laid before the Dean and Permanent Representatives of the North Atlantic Council. Typically, each member-state of NATO submits the name and resume of a person they would like to see fill the role. The final decision requires unanimity.

That means that MacKay's name didn't pop out of thin air. Nor did the publicity of his being "in contention" for the position. Someone had to submit it.

I'm putting my money on Harper's office.

This morning MacKay came out with a statement which confirms his name certainly was laying about the NAC table and that he had been told to make it clear to everyone that he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming the Chair of the North Atlantic Council.

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay appeared on Sunday to call off his rumored bid for the NATO leadership, ceding crucial US support for the job to Denmark's prime minister.

"I have a tremendous amount of work to do with the Canadian Forces," MacKay was quoted by Canadian media as telling reporters in Brussels, adding he was "very focused on my country."

MacKay's candidacy was reportedly supported by US Vice President Joe Biden as a reward for Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan.

However, on Saturday, an alliance diplomat said the United States would support Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to succeed Dutch diplomat Jaap de Hoop Scheffer as NATO's top civilian official.

Yes, and the only thing missing was the tears, but I suspect those happened in private. Bad news for MacKay attempting to secure a job outside Canada for which his only qualification is an over-blown ego but worse news for Harper on at least three counts.

First would be the fact that Harper really believes that being involved in an expeditionary military mission gained him a personal position of influence among the NATO partners, and that beating the same war drum as his personal hero, George W. Bush, placed him in a position of some supremacy over the Europeans. The all-important World Stage. What Harper had not factored in, (and he may well be so dogmatic as to not recognize it) was that by the time he came along and started echoing Bush's demands, (providing a North American voice of solidarity), Bush had virtually no traction with the Europeans. Bush had already lied to the alliance putting it into an untenable situation in Afghanistan and anything he had to say was viewed as the rantings of a man impossible to trust. Harper singing the same tune was dismissed as that of a Bush sycophant. Canada may have been punching above its weight in military terms in Afghanistan but it was failing, shoulder to shoulder with the Bush administration, on any significant diplomatic and development initiatives.

Secondly, Harper had counted on his "We're your best friend" approach with the Obama administration to produce some results which would support his personal agenda. It might have been heartening to hear that Vice-President Joe Biden supported MacKay's bid, but if anyone thought that was anything but lip-service they're suffering from delusions. The Obama administration is busy trying to rebuild bridges burnt in the last eight years with the Europeans. Imposing a radical change in convention on the Europeans now would serve only to anger them. Biden's support was always intended as a temporary "feel good" statement. In reality, the US would support the majority position of the North Atlantic Council in an attempt to maintain unanimity and regain some of the amity lost during the Bush years. It probably didn't help that Harper trashed the Obama administration in what was supposed to be a private speech. Of course it was just politics as usual for Harper, but to Biden, it would have been no less than a demonstration of typical conservative behaviour - and Harper as someone not to be trusted.

Third, and probably the most devastating thing for Harper, is that Peter MacKay is staying at home, in country, in government, in cabinet. Getting MacKay a job in Brussels had more to do with getting him out of the country and out of arms reach of the throttle handles of the Conservative Party than anything else.

Harper has a problem. He is rapidly approaching his Best Before Date, both with the Canadian public and within his own party. The facade of moderate conservative which gained him only slim minority governments in two successive elections is starting to fall away and we're starting to see the old Harper - a bitter, nasty individual, out to attack any and all who do not share his Reform Party views.

The faux alliance-building Harper has finally given way to his roots: that of an Alberta Reformer with little interest in a confederated Canada.

While one of his goals was the total destruction of the Liberal Party of Canada, he is now having a difficult time with the fact that his last budget and the consititutional fiasco that preceded it demonstrated that he is literally owned by his political enemies. In the name of his own survival he surrendered his own agenda and ideology to the members opposite. I'm quite sure there was a scene in his office which would have rivalled the performance by Sessue Hayakawa after his character released British Colonel Nicholson from brutal confinement in order to get a bridge built.

And there would have been the realization that he would not do to the Liberal Party that which he had accomplished with the Progressive Conservatives - destruction.

Now, aware of the rumbling in his own party, he has released his Reform Party dogs. Jason Kenney is running amok and the Reformers are becoming more vocal. Harper knows his days are probably numbered and that means ensuring that the DNA of the Conservative Party remains his. The marriage of the Reform/Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives was never equal. It was an assimilation of the PCs. To Harper and his Reformers, the thought of one of the former PCs rising to the leadership of the party is repugnant. They are still too close to the political centre.

Thus, getting MacKay out of town with a plum job was essential. As Harper becomes more vulnerable the contenders for his job will start to pull out their knives. The last person Harper wants running for the leadership of the Conservatives is MacKay, the man who once led the Progressive Conservatives and who delivered the PCs into the hands of the Reformers. The last thing Harper and his cronies want is the only political cadre which gave his extremists enough respectability and camouflage to get elected to power, in control of the Reform dream.

YouTube link to the appropriate scene of Bridge On The River Kwai provided by deBeauxOs.

Palin understands NATO....

At about the same level as I understand entomology. And bugs get an undeservedly raw deal from me.

There have been thousands of posts all over the blogosphere and in the daily journals about Sarah Palin's jaw dropping interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night. Terrifying, expected, pity-inducing and so mind-burning that it sends one reaching for the nearest bottle of anything to kill the pain are common themes. The greatest focus of many reports centered on the fact that Palin clearly had no idea what the Bush doctrine is. Her eyes told a greater story than her "blizzard of words". Sarah Palin is a joke.

A dangerous joke.

During the interview the following exchange took place:

GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

Except that Russia has a different view and no amount of repeated Bush/Cheney rhetoric is going to change the fact that Georgia used force to try to prevent the secession of South Ossetia, despite prior warning from the Russians not to do so.

No matter how hard people try to deny it, Russia still views the former Soviet states, now-independent countries of the Caucasus, as totally within its sphere of influence. All others can just bugger off. Right or wrong, no one is ever going to change the minds of the Russians as to who has and shall retain authority as the power in the region. When Gibson interjected with, "You believe unprovoked," it was because after the whole thing had washed out, it was clear that Georgia initiated the fight with Russia in the expectation that recent coziness with NATO would permit their hand-me-down army to operate in South Ossetia with impunity. And don't for a minute think that a certain amount of "ethnic cleansing" wasn't on the Georgian agenda.

However, Gibson then went deeper. Given that Palin is supposed to sit second chair on a presidential ticket, I doubt that Gibson was attempting to spring any form of trap. Whether that was his intention or not, that's precisely what happened.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members. We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

What Palin provided as answers were little more than partially memorized talking points. She clearly has no grasp at all as to the complications and conditions under which Georgia would enter NATO.

NATO, particularly for new members, is akin to a property insurance policy. In that regard, the underwriters of collective security weigh the risk of any prospective member. Not the prospective member's risk - the underwriter's risk, which in the case of NATO is the level of likelihood that they might have to respond as one under Article 5 of the NATO charter in an armed and deadly conflict.

Georgia presents an extremely high risk to the underwriters. So much so that Germany and France refused to include Georgia in any plan for inclusion in NATO until regional conflicts were fully resolved. Georgia has more than a border disagreement with Russia - it is dragging sabres over the cobblestones. Any way you read Georgia's desire to be included as a member of a western military alliance, until they have completely removed themselves from the issues over the secessionist regions such as South Ossetia the threat of war with Russia remains. That, to a property insurance company is like underwriting a fuel-oil refinery that employs arsonists. No underwriter would think of insuring someone who was clearly going to require a payout - NATO is never going to include a country that is assured of dragging the alliance into a war with Russia. That's not only stupid, it's just bad business. Unless Georgia could pay a huge premium, (a first-rank, modern army requiring little in the way of outside support, which Georgia does not have), the underwriters, particularly the European members, are not going to be willing to commit their forces as a guarantee against future conflicts.

There is another detail of which Palin is clearly not aware. That would be Article 10 of the NATO charter. Aside from the original members the only countries which may be invited into the alliance are European nations. To include Georgia would require a rewriting of the map and a redefining of what constitutes Europe. Georgia is on the wrong side of the Caucasus. It is in Asia - not Europe.

Palin's answer to Gibson was an outright repetition of the Bush administration's effort to include Georgia in NATO. It is arrogant at worst and erronious at best. Palin, knowing nothing of the treaty conditions of the alliance, assumes that the inclusion of Georgia in NATO is a US presidential decision requiring nothing more than Senate ratification. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US military contribution to NATO gives them no special status when it comes to the introduction of new members. The inclusion of Georgia as a member requires the unanimous approval of all members, and that has not and is not going to happen until Georgia divests itself of a conflict with Russia. And that will never happen - at least not in Palin's lifetime. The last thing the world needs is a US administration which repeats the last seven years. The last thing the US needs is a vice-president who understands less about the world than the collective Bush administration in its seventh year of office.

Palin, supposedly someone who could communicate "change", proved to understand the position of NATO at the same level of an elementary school student. If anything stood out, however, it was her belief that simply adding new nations, on Russia's doorstep, and then giving them military support was as simple as joining the yacht club. Every expansion of NATO brings military risk, but more importantly, it dilutes the political resolve of the alliance itself. NATO is not the United Nations. The treaty itself is a finely crafted document which allows a single country under threat to invoke UN article 51, the right of self-defence, with the assistance of a collective military force without violating the UN Charter.

Every time a new country is added the risk of a political rift exists. And the risk that a country will abuse the priviledges of membership increases.

Palin proved she understands none of this, but worse, that she does not care to. It is completely beyond what she can see across the Bering Strait.

--------

Additional reading: Putin warns the West against starting an arms race. (Thanks to Cat)

Add a little ice, hit "chop" for 30 seconds and Voila! A Cold War cocktail!

So the world's only self-declared superpower gets itself bogged down in a war of its own making in a country it can never completely control. Having started the whole thing while believing itself to be in a position of unchallengeable power it finds things don't go quite as planned and ends up over-committing its military to the extent that both its military and its civilian population are suffering from war exhaustion.

Then, because the the superpower is tied-up in Mesopotamia, it commandeers the western European military alliance to deal with a problem it failed to resolve because Mesopotamia was a much more interesting place to be and, well, there's that light sweet stuff in the ground which is just going to make staying in power at home so damned easy.

NATO, a military and political entity, having been designed and built to deal with the threat offered by Josef Stalin and his successors has a little problem. The Soviet Union, having collapsed, suddenly falls off the "sworn enemy" list leaving the list, well, empty in NATO's field of view. So the idea of an expeditionary mission, which the alliance was never designed for, is an appealing notion. The original raison d'etre for its existence having faded, this will breathe new life into an alliance which is having difficulty justifying its existence. Off they go.

Arriving on the ground in Afghanistan NATO discovers that the world's last self-declared superpower botched the job, hadn't neutralized anything and had installed a government which existed in lager bunker while the rest of the country erupted in a violent insurgency. And far from NATO demonstrating unity of command and doctrine on this first-ever expeditionary mission each member's forces arrive with a variety of rules of engagement and a general unwillingness to commit to anything really nasty, particularly if those forces happen to have drawn a fairly quiet zone of "occupation" and "reconstruction".

NATO which is no longer posited to stare down the Soviet bear, gets a deal going where the "sworn enemy" is now considered respectable and everyone gets all chummy. Former Soviet Bloc states are joining NATO faster than Brussels can get the paperwork done and in 2002 NATO invites Russia to set up office in a cooperative agreement. We end up with the NATO-Russia Council. Former Cold Warriors everywhere breathed easy and Condoleeza Rice is once again proved to have been dead wrong on just about everything Russian.

Except that two things are standing out:

1. The self-declared superpower, arrogantly claiming some moral superiority, having already started an aggressive war against a country which represented almost no military threat, is in no position to object should another country try the same thing; and,

2. NATO, which is an expeditionary mission in its own right, finds itself on an extra-expeditionary mission as a superpower surrogate

So, when Georgia decides to pick a fight with Russia over disputed territory, Russia does what it always used to do under its former moniker and gives Georgia a good thumping. The world's last self-declared superpower makes all kinds of noise about it and issues a few threats, none of which are likely to be acted upon. NATO issues ultimatums and starts dragging a sabre across the cobblestones while quoting the Helsinki Final Act and the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the Rome Declaration. Further NATO issues a warning to the effect that

NATO cannot continue with business as usual in its relations with Russia and called on Moscow to demonstrate – both in word and deed – its continued commitment to the principles upon which NATO and Russia agreed to base their relationship.

In short, if you don't withdraw from Georgia we'll boot you out of your palatial downtown Brussels offices. The Russians shrugged this off in a way only the Russians can (OK, they were copying the Bush administration if that makes you feel better) and they announced a troop withdrawal - which amounted to nothing at all. This results in a lot of noise best described by The Editors

Now, lots of people are on TV declaring the importance of having firm principles on this issue, and how their positions are the firmest of all, but all these people are running for office, or have other justifications for wishing to sound bold and confident and knowledgeable, and being vague and noodley does not create this impression. OTOH, vague noodliness has definite strategic advantages, as it is very hard to pin one down and force one to abide by previous commitments (commitments one may have lived to regret) when one has taken no identifiable position and made no commitments. For fans of the graven tablet form: THOU SHALT NOT WRITE CHECKS THOU DOST NOT WANT CASHED. Or, for fans of the concrete example - think very seriously about making formal NATO promises to countries who can’t protect themselves and like to pick fights with Russia.

Again, two things stand out here. Georgia might have wanted to contain itself for a little while longer rather then poke the bear with a short stick. And NATO can certainly take some of the blame for the Russian response to Georgia's claim in the disputed Caucasus areas. The belief that the dissolution of the Soviet Union meant that the states other than Russia which made up that federation were now free to go rushing into the arms of NATO is highly erroneous.

Nato's pledge at the Bucharest summit in April that membership of the Atlantic Alliance for both Georgia and Ukraine was not a matter of "if" but "when", although in deference to Russian objections, no timetable for entry was granted. This provoked Vladimir Putin, then still Russia's president, to promise more support for Georgia's breakaway regions.

Despite the Cold War's demise, Russia regards the successor states of the old Soviet Union as its sphere of influence. This intervention is about sending a message from Moscow to Washington to "keep your nose out" of an area that the Kremlin has always seen as being inside its domain.

The European NATO allies always knew this and, if the Bush administration had a Secretary of State with the ability to critically analyze anything, the US should have known it too. Further, the "no timetable for entry" was followed up with a tacit timetable which suggested Georgia would be invited to join NATO in 2009 with full membership two years later. Russia, on 11 April this year, made its position clear.

"Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders," the agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky as saying. "These will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature," he said, without giving details.

Then Russia announced that it would give the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia its full support, including recognition and diplomatic missions. That was enough to eventually provoke Georgia to go wandering through both regions thumbing its nose at the Russian peacekeeping mission.

Mission accomplished. At least as far as Russia is concerned. Georgia, despite the fact that it really doesn't qualify under Article 10 of the NATO Charter as prospective member since it lies on the Asian side of the Caucasus mountains, would not be allowed to ascend to NATO membership until its territorial disputes were settled, a condition imposed by Germany and France against the objections of Bush and Canada's Harper. Being in a hot little war would seal the deal in favour of the Russians.

Enter the club-footed Bush administration with an offer to Poland and the Czech Republic to install US missile defense systems. Peachy! A can of bear spray would have been more effective. Using the excuse that the missile defense system is intended to intercept missiles from "rogue states" (which don't have effective missiles), Russia read it the only way it could be read: Those things are there to neutralize us! And the Russian response: Want to give those things a try?

That would be a bad idea for Poland and the US since it does not and never has worked.

As Philip Coyle - formerly a senior official at the Pentagon with responsibility for missile defence - points out, there are endless means by which another state could fool the system. For every real missile it launched, it could dispatch a host of dummies with the same radar and infra-red signatures. Even balloons or bits of metal foil would render anything resembling the current system inoperable. You can reduce a missile's susceptibility to laser penetration by 90% by painting it white. This sophisticated avoidance technology, available from your local hardware shop, makes another multibillion component of the programme obsolete. Or you could simply forget about ballistic missiles and attack using cruise missiles, against which the system is useless.

Missile defence is so expensive and the measures required to evade it so cheap that if the US government were serious about making the system work it would bankrupt the country, just as the arms race helped to bring the Soviet Union down. By spending a couple of billion dollars on decoy technologies, Russia would commit the US to trillions of dollars of countermeasures. The cost ratios are such that even Iran could outspend the US.

Russia is surely aware of this but isn't about to pass on an opportunity to remind everyone, everywhere that Soviet and subsequently Russian nuclear weapons doctrine has always been founded on the premise of pre-emptively striking anyone, anywhere who represents a significant threat. The Russian definition of "significant threat" is anyone, anywhere who reduces Russian military strength.

The thing is, they haven't offered to do that to anybody in several decades.

So, given the chain of events, this shouldn't be a surprize.

Russia has halted all military cooperation with NATO, the Western alliance said Thursday, in the latest sign of East-West tension over the invasion of Georgia.

Alliance spokeswoman Carmen Romero said NATO had received notification through military channels that Russia’s Defense Ministry had taken a decision “to halt international military cooperation events between Russia and NATO countries until further instructions.”

And as much as Bush, taking a much needed vacation at his Crawford, Texas ranch, doesn't view this as significant, he might want to listen less to the donkey he hired as a national security adviser and actually read the long list of things which have just been halted.

Just watching this you'd think the Cold War isn't over anymore. Sing it boys:

'I Wish I Had the Taliban as My Soldiers'

A refreshingly frank Spiegel interview with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which bears little resemblance to the whitewashed crap we are used to getting from the Canadian media.

SPIEGEL: Some of your closest aides are suspected of stealing land, drug smuggling and having illegal militias, among them respected governors and police chiefs. Your attorney general, Abdul Jabar Sabet, just named a few of them, including the governor of Nangarhar. Why do you still protect these people?

Karzai: I am not protecting anybody. We are trying to govern Afghanistan and bring peace and stability. I know about the problems with the police. The international community finally agreed after two years of very intense and angry negotiations that the police are a problem and in the middle of 2007 they began to work with us. The checkpoints on the roads, for example, were developed during the years of the Soviet invasion, a time when the country became lawless and each local commander set up his own checkpoint to collect money.

SPIEGEL: During the Taliban times there were no checkpoints at all.

Karzai: That was the best aspect of the Taliban. They did a lot wrong, but they also did a few things right. I wish I had the Taliban as my soldiers. I wish they were serving me and not people in Pakistan or others. When we came back to Afghanistan, the international community brought back all those people who had turned away from the Taliban …

SPIEGEL: … you mean the brutal commanders who fought in the civil war …

Karzai: … who then became partners with the foreign allies and are still paid by them today for their support. It is not always easy for me to find a way that can enable Afghanistan's administration to function.

SPIEGEL: Dirty deals are still necessary for the stability of Afghanistan?

Karzai: Absolutely necessary, because we lack the power to solve these problems in other ways. What do you want? War? Let me give you an example. We wanted to arrest a really terrible warlord, but we couldn't do it because he is being protected by a particular country. We found out that he was being paid $30,000 a month to stay on his good side. They even used his soldiers as guards …

continued....

Cross-posted at Creekside

Also from Spiegel : "Why NATO troops can't deliver peace in Afghanistan" :
"Last year, 1,469 bombs exploded along Afghan roads, a number almost five times as high as in 2004. There were 8,950 armed attacks on troops and civilian support personnel, 10 times more than only three years earlier. One hundred and thirty suicide bombers blew themselves up in 2007. There were three suicide bombings in 2004."

Operation Enduring Freedom From Inconvenient Facts

It was back in October when we first heard about the possibility of US Marines relocating from Iraq to Afghanistan :

"The US Marine Corps has insisted that its forces be removed from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan instead to take the lead in combat there.
According to senior military and Pentagon officials, the suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defence Secretary Robert M Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders, theNew York Times reported.
This would leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while the Marines would play an important role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command."

Then came the Manley panel report and the whole drama of Harper's conditions for staying on in Afghanistan - where oh where would the 1000 extra troops and air power evah come from? - and now the US Marines are indeed relocating to Afghanistan as planned and Operation Enduring Freedom is in da house!

CBC : Afghanistan joint command

"There were sighs of relief in government circles earlier this month when the United States agreed to provide at least an additional 1,000 marines to the Canada-led mission in Kandahar.
Finding an extra 1,000 combat soldiers to help the 2,500-strong Canadian military mission in troubled southern Afghanistan was a key Canadian condition — along with more air power — for keeping our troops there until the end of 2011."

Way to keep up, CBC. I do believe we've already bitched that one.

But in what CBC refers to as the "new, more side-by-side relationship between American and Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan", a few questions arise about our differing policies.
Quite apart from how the command structure is supposed to work, there's the American propensity for wiping out marijuana and poppy crops, ie Afghani livelihood; their greater reliance on air strikes, ie bombing Afghan civilians; and the little matter of their torturing detainees/POWs, ie Bagram., the US internment facility where Afghan detainees known to be innocent of any crimes have been beaten to death.

Uh-oh - detainees. Already a big optics headache for Harper in Canada, news that detainees might fall under US - Canadian joint jurisdiction is bound to play badly for the Cons.
But wait!

CTV : Ottawa hopes to block probe into Afghan detainees :

"The government is seeking to block an independent investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission into Canada's handling of Afghan detainees, according to court documents filed in Federal Court.
Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association filed a complaint with the commission last year, after allegations surfaced that detainees had been tortured by local Afghan authorities.
Government lawyers filed an application Friday to halt the investigation, saying the commission does not have jurisdiction to probe the complaints."

Something they really might have mentioned at any time since the commission began its investigation.
And as Pogge points out, if the commission doesn't have jurisdiction, then why has the government of Canada been complying, however reluctantly, with its demands for documentation up till now?

Possibly because now we're under deadline to get aligned with Operation Enduring Freedom From Inconvenient Facts before the 'joint partnership' begins in July.

The Moron tries to redefine NATO

George W. Bush has decided that NATO forces are now inextricably tied to his great 10th Crusade to spread freedom, peace and American flags over as many oilfields as possible.

“NATO is no longer a static alliance focused on defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion,” he said in Bucharest. “It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions.”

You know, literacy requires that an individual be able to read as well as just write. NATO disagrees with Bush's view. In fact, The North Atlantic Treaty is pretty clear.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

NATO is completely and utterly a defensive treaty. It is nobody's expeditionary "freedom" spreading crusade machine. It is there to provide collective defence to its members - not the rest of the world.

Not that we can expect our man Steve to take a different stand than his hero-in-chief.

Hopefully the rest of the world recognizes Bush for what he is: a lame-duck sock puppet who is so in love with his title that he can't spend two minutes reading a treaty that hasn't changed in 59 years.

Bush might want to watch his yapping. His ill-advised and failed attempt to give the Ukraine and Georgia membership in the defensive alliance may prompt the need for renewed vigilance in the direction of the North German Plain.

President Vladimir V. Putin, after meeting with NATO members in Bucharest on Friday, bluntly declared that an expansion that included Ukraine and Georgia, both former Soviet republics with deep historical links to Russia, would constitute a threat.

Somebody needs to bring the clown home, strap him into a chair and unplug his telephone until the end of November.

Theatre. Pure theatre.

It should be filmed and sent to The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Ever since the Manley Report was issued the question was out there. Would Canada receive the 1000 troop reinforcement the Manley Report demanded as a condition for continuing the Afghanistan mission past 2009?

The answer had to be "yes".

Harper is making a big deal about how he spent, well, days on the phone talking to the leaders of NATO allies looking for the magic 1000.

Harper said that he never doubted Canada would get the support it was seeking from its allies. He began a round of telephone diplomacy directly to world leaders in late February after the report of the independent panel led by John Manley recommended that the prime minister lead the diplomatic push for more military help.

"I've never been in any doubt of this ever since my very early discussions," Harper explained. "Not that I had been given precise commitments since Day 1."

No precise commitments, however, there had already been word from the Pentagon that they were planning an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan. Harper and company are trying to feed you a line. This is pure spin designed to make Harper look like an international man-of-action and a tough negotiator who gets results.

First though, one has to ask where Manley came up with the magic 1000? Manley says it was based on advice from Generals Rick Hillier and Guy LaRoche. That's quite likely, but in the Manley Report the number "1000" is an approximation. The actual recommendation in the Manley Report is a Battle Group. That would suggest a mixed tactical force of infantry, artillery and armour built around either a full strength infantry battalion or armoured force. What Manley never specified in his report is what that battle group is supposed to be. In short, it's nothing without further definition. And Canadians have been led around with the magic 1000 figure as the government translated the approximation into a final figure.

Manley never footnoted his report but he did include lists of persons he spoke to. Given that he actually spoke to several highly placed NATO commanders, coming up with one battle group to reinforce an area with high-intensity fighting seems a little skimpy. Those same NATO commanders are calling for reinforcement across Afghanistan ranging from 4 brigades to 4 divisions. They say Afghanistan can't be won with piecemeal troop increases.

What is even more curious however, is the fact that Manley never spoke to the Commander US Central Command. Why not? Central Command is responsible for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan.

Canada maintains a liaison staff at Central Command known as Task Force Tampa on Operation Foundation. Manley never spoke to any of them according to his list. In fact, there is no indication he even set foot in the offices of USCENTCOM. That's a little strange considering the prominence that USCENTCOM has in relation to Operation Enduring Freedom and the fact that the commander of Task Force Tampa is charged with keeping USCENTCOM apprised of Canadian activities and intentions in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

The fact is, the Bush administration has been talking about a troop increase in Afghanistan since January. In fact it extended the tour of the 10th Mountain Division by 4 months as a part of a visibly permanent increase.

Things don't happen in a vacuum.

Today the US announced a significant increase in US troop levels in Afghanistan. No one is yet sure what the numbers will look like.

Gates said he believed it was too early to decide how many additional combat forces the United States should plan on sending in 2009. He said it would depend on several things, including the extent of U.S. and NATO success on the battlefield this year, as well as the impact of a new senior U.S. commander taking over in coming months. Gen. David McKiernan is due to replace Gen. Dan McNeill this spring as the top overall commander in Afghanistan

McNeill has said he believes he needs another three brigades — two for combat and one for training. That translates to roughly 7,500 to 10,000 additional troops. The Bush administration has no realistic hope of getting the NATO allies to send such large numbers.

McKiernan on Thursday told Congress that while he can't yet say how many more troops he would want there, he believes he needs additional combat and aviation forces, intelligence and surveillance capabilities, and training and mentoring teams.

In remarks to reporters after Bush made the statement at the summit Thursday, the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said any extra U.S. combat troop deployments would be in southern Afghanistan, where fighting is heaviest.

Gates said he believed that was a logical possibility but that it was too early to say they would go to the south.

That's today. This was yesterday.

Harper confirmed that France's proposal — which would free up U.S. soldiers to go to Kandahar — along with "considerable" progress in acquiring unmanned surveillance drones and large helicopters, met the demands Canada had set out to extend its mission to 2011.

Ambiguity, meet Steve Harper.

Any US troops redeployed in Afghanistan, regardless of what banner they are operating under, would come from USCENTCOM's order of battle. Just planning it would be a detailed undertaking. If the US is really planning on moving troops, the idea was spawned months ago and it would have been the result of some serious and tough negotiations. Canada would have been screaming about the disproportionate casualty rate being endured before the last rotation.

And why didn't Manley visit CENTCOM? We may never know for sure, but consider that if Canada had been raising hell in Tampa about combat losses and a force stretched to the limit, there is a very real likelihood that the Americans had already agreed, once there was a reduction in the number of brigades in Iraq, to bolster the Canadian force in Kandahar. The caveat the Americans would likely have attached is that every attempt be made to find troops in NATO. In any case, a discussion with the Commander USCENTCOM would likely have revealed a commitment in principle to provide an equivalent battle group.

Of course, the American commitment depends entirely on somebody other than Bush and his administration. The final decision will rest with a new US president.

In the meantime, the best we can do is sit back and watch the theatre.

Ignoring the realities

Michael Evans and Philip Webster are reporting that the meeting of NATO defence ministers is likely to produce exactly nothing in terms of troops being demanded to boost the combat force in Afghanistan.

Nato defence ministers meeting today are not expected to offer any more troops for Afghanistan, despite a plea from military commanders for another 7,500 soldiers, alliance sources said yesterday.

The gloomy prediction on the eve of an informal session of the defence ministers in Vilnius, capital of Lithuania, pre-empted appeals yesterday from Gordon Brown and Condoleezza Rice, the American Secretary of State, for other Nato countries to share more of the burden in Afghanistan.

Dr Rice, who met the Prime Minister and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said: “I do think the alliance is facing a real test here. Our populations need to understand this is not a peacekeeping mission.”

What an obdurate fool.

What is astounding is that Rice actually still speaks as though she possesses influence anywhere in the world.

"Our populations" clearly aren't the semi-informed dullards Rice holds them out to be. In fact, most of Europe and a majority of Canadians have quite accurately pegged the NATO Afghanistan mission as an attempt by the Bush administration to extricate itself from an incredible mess of its own making.

Germany's offer of 200 more troops is accompanied with a caveat that they not be redeployed to the south.

Here's the reality: 85 percent of Germans are opposed to any redeployment of German troops to southern Afghanistan. If German political leaders made any other offer they would be committing political suicide. It is ludicrous to presume that any one of them would be willing to sacrifice their political fortunes on the altar of the Canadian-contrived Manley Report.

The sense of crisis was made worse by news from Ottawa where the Canadian parliament is split over whether Canada's 2,500 troops in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan should be recalled next year. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, was reported to be threatening to go to the polls if parliament voted against extending Canada's troop commitment.

And the German response to that is: Shall we send bratwurst? The Europeans don't give two shits whether Harper goes to the polls.

Angela Merkel is facing an election in Germany next year and a full 85 percent of Germans are flatly against the redeployment of German troops to the south of Afghanistan. Any move on her part, or that of her defence minister, to redefine the German contribution would result in her being labelled "pro-war" amongst German voters. That would find her out of a job by next year and she knows it.

>"Merkel is very afraid of a rerun of the 2002 election," said Jan Techau, Europe director at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. In 2002, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, a Social Democrat, was reelected after mounting an antiwar and anti-US campaign as Washington prepared to invade Iraq.
"Merkel is scared that that kind of campaign could be pulled off again," Techau said. "This is why the Christian Democrats do not want to hand the Social Democrats the peace issue. As each party tries to prove which is the most pacifist, foreign policy is becoming paralyzed," he added.

Scared indeed. And then there is the fact that most Germans view the US Bush administration as a danger to the world. When Rice and Gates come rolling in demanding more German boots on the ground, a shift into the free-fire zone and a guarantee of combat casualties, the resistance only stiffens.

Rice, Gates, Harper, Mackay and various others making demands on other countries aren't factoring in the political reality that the war in Afghanistan, an open-ended US manufactured fiasco with no strategic goal, is not being swallowed easily by most populations contributing forces to NATO. Political leaders defy the general feeling of their voters at their own peril - hardly something an ambitious politician is likely to do.

There is another poll starting to emerge. Britain and Canada provide troops to Afghanistan from a completely volunteer armed forces. When the British deploy 16 Air Assault Brigade to Afghanistan in April, the two parachute battalions which form the bulk of that brigade will be understrength by about 100 men each. It is being made up by pulling about 60 troops from 4 Para battalion - a part of the Territorial Army - part-time reservists.

In short, the British are now having difficulty recruiting and retaining troops for the regular army after years of corrosive deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Canada has been employing army reservists (militia) from the beginning of its Afghanistan expedition to fill out the ranks of regular force battalions. What Canadians generally don't see is that, despite an intense recruiting effort, those regular force battalions are no better manned now than they were three years ago. In fact some are worse off. There are major support units which, on returning to Canada from an Afghanistan rotation, simply disintegrated as the bulk of members opted to be released from the Canadian Forces.

Today's meeting in Lithuania will result in Rice and Gates uttering more demands. The reality neither of them seem to want to face is that when they issue such demands, the universal response is a desire to do the opposite.

SPP and Operation Enduring Freedom

Author Linda McQuaig thumps John Manley for his attempts to wrap Operation Enduring Freedom, better known here in Canada as our mission in Afghanistan, in Lester Pearson's mantle of peacekeeping.
She reminds us that "the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were both illegal under international law, in that neither received [UN] Security Council approval."

"The Manley report implies that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was endorsed by the Security Council, but Boyle notes that the Security Council resolution cited by Manley in no way authorized military action. Rather, it called for the perpetrators of 9/11 to be brought to justice – suggesting they be dealt with as criminals through extradition and the judicial system, not war.
After invading Afghanistan and toppling the government, Washington won UN authorization for the new government it installed, and for its ongoing intervention through NATO. As a result, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan – like the one in Iraq – now has "a veneer of UN authority," notes Osgoode Hall law professor Michael Mandel.

Manley has long been a proponent of closer relations with the U.S., and he and his panellists met with top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.Yet the Manley report avoids any suggestion that Ottawa's involvement in Afghanistan is about pleasing the Bush administration, which is widely disliked in Canada.
Indeed, the Manley report makes Washington all but disappear, emphasizing the UN and NATO, and Canada's role within NATO.
But NATO is just a military alliance ultimately run by Washington. Indeed, since it came into being in 1950, NATO has always been headed by a U.S. general (currently John Craddock).
In addition to NATO forces in Afghanistan, there are another 13,000 U.S. troops under direct U.S. command. This means that all troops serving in Afghanistan are ultimately under commander-in-chief George W. Bush, whose shadow looms large over the country."

We are, of course, still waiting for a debate on Manley's previous report, "Building a North American Community", now available at Amazon, which he co-authored with William Weld, Mitt Romney's campaign co-chair in New York State, and also Pedro Aspé, co-chair of the now infamous North American Forum held in Banff in Sept 2006, at which Manley was a moderator.

Cross-posted at Creekside

NATO does the five o:clock follies

Everyone hold up. Do not touch that keyboard. Despite the fact that for two years NATO forces have not been able to secure a small hydro-electric dam, we are now told things are going rather well in Afghanistan.

More than six years since the Taliban were ousted from power in Afghanistan, the militant movement is being “contained,” with some 70 per cent of violence last year occurring in just 10 per cent of the country, NATO said.

The upbeat assessment Sunday contrasted reports that a resurgent Taliban are challenging the U.S. and its allies. It also comes as several of NATO's European members are refusing to send soldiers to Afghanistan's south, the scene of most of the fighting, opening a rift with the U.S. and others that have borne the brunt.

Three-quarters of Afghanistan suffered just one violent incident per week last year, Lt. Col. Claudia Foss, a spokeswoman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force told a press conference in Kabul.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that the insurgent movement is being contained,” Lt. Col. Foss said.

Whoa! That's a pretty tight spin there, colonel. In short, absolutely fuck all has changed. A few more details would show that this contained insurgency is actually growing. Instead of the normal withdrawal this winter, the insurgents have kept up the pressure.

Where have we seen this kind of behaviour before?

Oh yeah. Here. And for what it's worth, this weekend I heard Kabul referred to as the equivalent of Saigon in the early 1970s: an armed enclave protecting a government and a military establishment that has no idea what's actually happening in the field.

Why would NATO suddenly issue this That wasn't the mission, but let's call it accomplished anyway announcement? Well look at the strange type of life the various reports have taken on.

An independent study co-chaired by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones and former UN ambassador Thomas Pickering warned last week that Afghanistan risks becoming a failed state because of deteriorating international support and the growing insurgency.

On Sunday, a British cabinet minister called on allies to send troops to the south.

“We have made clear to our NATO partners that we do want to see appropriate burden sharing, not just in the number of troops on the ground but where those troops are committed within Afghanistan,” Douglas Alexander, British International Development Secretary, told the British Broadcasting Corp.

Germany in particular has been resisting pressure to deploy troops to the south. Germany insists its parliamentary mandate is for its 3,500 soldiers to serve along the northern border, only helping out in the south for a limited period.

Canada is threatening not to extend its military mission in Afghanistan after 2009 unless another NATO country sends more soldiers to the south.

Well the Manley Report is a crock and it's being wheeled out as some form of policy document. As for the rest, I would say the good colonel got it wrong.

Turkey feeds Bush a dose of his own rhetoric

George W. Bush, January 20th, 2004. State of the Union address:

America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

Apparently, Turkey feels the same way.

We don’t have to get permission from anybody.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, October 22nd, 2007
Referring to the intention to invade northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish attacks on Turkish territory.

Let's see now. Turkey is a member of NATO.

This is going to get ugly.

Peter MacKay performs the Flypaper Ceremony

Peter MacKay was in Washington yesterday to observe the annual Canadian Defence Minister's homage to Bush's flypaper strategy.

"If the job is not done in Afghanistan, if countries like Canada leave, the Taliban can follow them,'' MacKay told Canadian reporters here.

The tradition began in October 2004 when President Bush, aka Crusader Bunnypants, addressed reporters in Greeley, Colorado:

"We have defeated the Taleban..."

Wait, that's not it...just a sec...scrolling down...ah, here we go :

"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities." (Applause.)

Canada failed to observe the flypaper strategy ceremony in 2005 for some reason, but here's Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in April 2006 :

"Fighting terrorists in Afghanistan is better than waiting until they show up in Vancouver, Montreal or Ottawa, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told the Commons on Monday."

MacKay slipped in a small coda of his own yesterday when he added a reference to the Battle of the Bulge, saying he wanted to "look into the whites of the eyes'' of the members of other NATO countries.

Canadian reporters were puzzled but they wrote it all down anyway.

And did I call this one back in July? Why yes, yes I did.

(Cross-posted at Creekside)

Is Canada still a "No Nukes" country?

UBC Professor Michael Byers noticed a change in Canada's stated position on nuclear weapons at the government website, dfait.
Embassy Mag : Canada's Disturbing Change of Position :

"In January 2002, Canada's policy called for "the complete elimination of nuclear weapons ...through steadily advocating national, bilateral and multilateral steps "
But recently, the same foreign affairs website has been amended to say that Canada's nuclear weapons policy is now "consistent with our membership in NATO and NORAD, and in a manner sensitive to the broader international security context."

As Mr. Byers rightly points out, this clause strips Canada's policy of any real meaning."

Given NATO and NORAD's relationship to the USA - yeah, it does.

In a search of dfait just now, I found the phrase "the complete elimination of " still in use up to Oct 2005.
After that, it only appears in archives. I guess the sixties really are over.

Rather touchingly, I see the moon is still off-limits though :

"The 1979 Moon Agreement – formally the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies – reiterates the Outer Space Treaty's obligation that the Moon be used only for peaceful purposes."

Lucky moon. Maybe one day we can get something like that for Earth too.

"The Outer Space Treaty only explicitly forbids orbiting nuclear weapons or other WMD about the Earth, installing them on celestial bodies, or stationing in outer space in any other manner."

So, dfait, we're still good on that last one though, right? Right?

Cross-posted at Creekside

Is the commander of ISAF overstepping his authority?

This is interesting. The commander of the NATO International Security and Assistance Force in Afghanistan, US General Dan McNeill, appears to have been freelancing his forces without informing, well... headquarters. (Emphasis mine)

The German government and the North Atlantic Council in Brussels are unhappy with US General Dan McNeill, who took over as commander of the 36,000-strong NATO-led force in Afghanistan in early February.

McNeill launched last week's "Operation Achilles" offensive against Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan without informing NATO headquarters in Brussels and the allied NATO powers.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and several ambassadors complained that McNeill had surged ahead on his own authority. They criticized him for declaring that the operation, which was originally planned just to protect a water dam, was a "spring offensive."

Government officials in Berlin were particularly irritated by reports that the US general is skeptical about coordinated civilian and military reconstruction efforts, an approach that Germany and many other partners support.

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, US General John Craddock, has expressed regret about McNeill's behavior, say sources in Brussels.

It would be more than a little interesting to know what Canada's ambassador to the North Atlantic Council had to say in regards to this. Juneau is a career diplomat with a long resume of diplomatic posts and ambassadorships. One can't imagine he would take too kindly to discovering that the defence of the Kajaki Dam, a reconstruction project, turned into a "spring offensive".

McNeill has a lot of experience in Afghanistan and his popularity among the Afghan leaders is questionable, to say the least. He was the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan when air assaults killed significant numbers of civilians in Oruzgan Province in July 2002. Despite a promise to change the way American forces conducted themselves, McNeill's reliance on the intelligence provided by Afghan warlords and his policy of ordering air assaults without coordinating with Afghan leaders brought sharp criticism of his callous approach to the protection of civilians. It would be fair to suggest that the Afghan leadership doesn't like him very much.

There is every likelihood that had McNeill informed Brussels of the need for an offensive, he would have been given the nod to go ahead. But to simply plan and execute a major operation without properly informing his NATO superiors is exceeding his authority.

When your boss has to "express regrets" for your behaviour, you aren't the right person for the job.

The Canadian Senate lays out a few truths on Afghanistan

Steve at Far and Wide has an excellent post laying out the Senate Defence committee's latest report on Afghanistan. The report is blunt and paints a relatively grim picture. It also suggests that unless other NATO countries start stepping up to the plate, Canada should re-assess its mission entirely.

I'm not going to repeat Steve's post but I will add a few items.

Senate reports have a tendency to gather a lot of dust. Since there is really nothing binding about them they serve only as advice and it's easy for a government to ignore them. I suspect that will be the case for this report, particularly since Harper has a habit of uttering Bush-style platitudes about the Afghanistan campaign which are out of place and lack traction among a majority of Canadians.

That brought me to the last part of the CBC's coverage of the report.

When asked whether the government has painted too "rosy" a view of the mission, Kenny replied that the report reflected what the committee saw during two visits to Afghanistan.

"I'm telling you that's how we see it. If the government isn't laying it out like this, then they should," he said. "It's going to be an uphill fight for a long time."

Got that Harper?

No. I don't suppose you do.