And Harper Wants To Sign On To This

Via Robert at Lawyers, Guns & Money, comes this NY Times report on the latest failure of the US Missile Defense Shield.

...after an embarrassing series of test failures in the ambitious, expensive and highly criticized program to build a national missile-defense shield, the U.S. military is slowing the deployment of interceptors while it conducts more testing.

[...]

The government has spent about $100 billion on missile defense since 1983, including $7.8 billion authorized for the current fiscal year. Interceptors, however, have failed five times in 11 tests, even though some critics of the program say the tests have been practically rigged to succeed.

[...]

Philip Coyle, a former chief of testing for the Pentagon and a critic of the missile defense system, said that if highly scripted tests fail, it is hard to see how they could succeed in a surprise attack.

''The basic challenges haven't changed. Basically, hitting an enemy missile out in space, at 15,000 mph, is like trying to hit a hole-in-one in golf when the hole is going 15,000 mph,'' he said. He added that enemy countermeasures and decoys make the job even tougher.

This is one of the biggest white elephants the US has ever pursued and does nothing to secure North America from attack.

Canada's own Stephen Harper can be expected to jump on the bandwagon if he ascends to Prime Minister. There will be no objective analysis of the cost effectiveness of the system; just a request from George and the nodding bobble head of Stephen. Of course, you won't find the US Missile Defense Shield in the Conservative platform, but Harper has already indicated he would entertain joining. But there's no hidden agenda.

Oh yeah, based on the US tests, the unguided nuclear wreckage of a fluke "shoot-down" lands somewhere between the Queen Charlotte Islands and Edmonton.... whether we join or not.

Does Dubya know what USAID is saying?

At least the US Agency for International Development isn't trying to understate the chaos that exists in Iraq. In their lastest request for contractors, USAID outlined what contractors would face:

an insurgency whose tactics include creating chaos in Iraq society as a whole and fomenting civil war.

Many of the attacks significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq.

It is increasingly common for the tribesmen to `turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents, this as a form of tribal revenge

in the southern part of Iraq, which is dominated by Shiites, social liberties have been curtailed dramatically by roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police.

groups such as al- Qaeda are gaining in number and notoriety as significant actors

criminal elements within Iraqi society have almost free rein

Baghdad is reportedly divided into zones controlled by organized criminal groups-clans

Freedom is on the march! Yeah...right.

An Open Letter To Stephen Harper

Mr. Harper:

In that certain elements of the national news media seem to have already ordained your ascendency to the Prime Minister's Office without the benefit of counting the ballots of actual voters, I feel this would be an appropriate time to ask a question which has been weighing heavily on my mind.

In the run up to the US invasion of Iraq you took a position of unequivocal support for the actions of US President George W. Bush. In your speech to Parliament, 29 Jan 2003, you said:

I noted that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter. Saddam Hussein's continued non-compliance and non-cooperation with the United Nations only confirms this information. Hansard, January 29, 2003

While we now know that British and American intelligence was manufactured and intentionally falsified, your reference to Canadian intelligence is worrisome. We both know that Canadian intelligence contained no such information. The information provided by Canadian intelligence analysts was annotated with both its British and American sources. It was not independent of the other two, nor did it provide any additional source data which would verify the information provided by the US or UK. In short, there was no Canadian intelligence. You knew this.

You also said:

The limits of UN declarations are not the limits of Canadian foreign policy or our security needs. While Canada has always strived to work with the United Nations and other multilateral bodies, we have also pursued independent policies with our allies.
[...]
...what we have are members of the international community failing to stand behind UN resolution 1441. They are failing to back the multilateral coalition including Britain, Australia, the United States, Spain, Italy and others, that is prepared to show Saddam a credible threat of force by redeploying in the gulf region. Hansard, January 29, 2003

The US had started to build its so-called "Coalition of the Willing" without allowing the UN to complete its work, yet you were suggesting that a crisis before the UN Security Council should be dealt with by some other Bush contrived, ad-hoc, international body.

In the same speech to Parliament, in reference to Saddam Hussein, you also said this:

His known ties to terrorist organizations and his continued development of weapons of mass destruction would accelerate, leaving the world a less safe place and heightening the possibility of a repeat of September 11 or far worse. Hansard, January 29, 2003

This information was wholly unsubstantiated and originated with Bush administration talking points. This suggests that, with no other information than that provided by Bush rhetoric, you supported Bush's position.

You then said:

We do not believe a second resolution is warranted. There have been a series of resolutions going back to the terms of the ceasefire in the gulf war in 1991. It is clear to us that a second resolution is not legally required. Whether it is advisory or not is a decision the Security Council itself and the allies are going to have to take. Hansard, January 29, 2003

Echoing the rhetoric of the President of the United States, with no other substantive information, you were prepared to act outside the chosen course of action by the United Nations and a majority of the international community. Further, NATO had held firm with the UN action.

After the US and UK had taken action against Iraq, without full UN concurrence, you and Stockwell Day co-authored a letter published on 28 March, 2003, to The Wall Street Journal in New York entitled, Canadians Stand With You. In this letter you stated:

Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends.
[...]
These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

This was in complete defiance of a decision which was taken by the duly elected Parliament of Canada and merely echoed points made by the Bush administration.

You then appeared on Fox News, as reported by CTV in Canada and repeated the substance of your letter to The Wall Street Journal on the air. You stated at that time that you spoke for the "Silent majority".

Time has proven your position was completely wrong. Had you held the reigns of government at the time you were unswervingly supporting the position of the Bush administration, you would have been responsible for untold numbers of deaths of members of the Canadian Forces which you would have committed to an ill-conceived US military adventure. You have the comfort of having not been permitted that horrible mistake.

In this campaign you stated that in the event of an international crisis leading to possible war, you would only commit Canadians to combat if there was a "major international concensus". Given that you have already demonstrated you would work outside the UN and ignore the direction of NATO, Canada's primary military alliance, your phrase is vague and undefined. It could mean a lot of countries or one other country. It possesses no weight.

So, my question to you, sir, is this:

Given that the Bush administration lied to its own people, manufactured, manipulated and cherry-picked intelligence to build a case against Iraq; and,
Given that the Bush administration has violated the Constitution of the United States in conducting illegal communications intercepts on its own citizens; and,
Given that the Bush administration is clearly attempting to build a case against Iran:

Would you commit Canadian Forces to combat in support of the President of the United States in a military action, against a sovereign nation, which had neither attacked nor threatened to attack, based exclusively on US originated intelligence and against the concensus of established international bodies such as the UN or NATO?

The Bozo and Boobsie Show - At Home And On The Road

The White House has offered up two performances in the past three days which demonstrate the unbelievable stupidity and dangerous ignorance of the couple living at US zip code 20500.

Laura Bush, on a trip to west Africa ostensibly to attend the inauguration of Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, popped-off with the Bushco party line on sexual abstinence while issuing a damning condemnation of the promotion of condom use. The major theme of her trip, (if you can wrap your head around this), is "Womens' Rights In Africa". It seemed to matter very little to her that a huge chunk of sub-Saharan Africa is in the grip of a devastating AIDS/HIV epidemic, with some 26 million people infected. 12 million children have been orphaned because of AIDS. And Laura's condescending solution is to stop having sex - period.

Then we get George Bush talking to the press after meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. When asked by a reporter whether sanctions against Iran should include the threat of military force, Bush proceeds to provide a condescending kindergarten definition of the meaning of diplomacy. He didn't describe the process, mind you; he actually spelled out the meaning, avoiding any other words containing more than two syllables, just as someone had written out on his doodle-pad for him.

How nice. George learned a new word and has to repeat it to everyone. The problem is, coming from him it has no meaning.

These two were made for each other. They're both a pair of stunning morons.

A hat tip to Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Islam's Great Struggle - Is Oral Sex OK?

This post from Cheryl provided a tongue in cheek look at a fatwa issued by Egyptian, Dr. Rashad Khalil, an expert in Islamic law. It would appear, however, that the sexual issue of tongues and cheeks is a highly charged topic of sexual discussion among the imams. This report from The Guardian suggests:

Unlike Christianity, which tends to be squeamish about sex, Islam has a long tradition of talking about it openly. Up to a point, this is much more healthy. While Catholic priests are enjoined to remain celibate, Muslim clerics are expected to marry and indulge heartily with their wives in the pleasures of the flesh. In many parts of the Muslim world, especially where folk are poor and uneducated, the local imam is the person many turn to for guidance on matters relating to sex and marriage.

Of course, there are differing opinions depending on which particular sect of Islam provides the fatwa and websites abound with conflicting information. What's a good Muslim to do?

Well, stay away from Big Daddy Dobson's site.

تمجيد إلهة

A perspective on our importance in the universe

Sometimes we get ourselves so involved in day-to-day life, simply coping, or arguing, or compromising, that we forget how truly insignificant we are in the universe. Being a wee bit of an astronomy nut, I found the following article interesting. It appears that a galaxy, unknown to date, is slowly merging into our Milky Way galaxy.

While some of the stars of the companion galaxy may have been observed with
telescopes for centuries, they said, no one realized they belonged to another
body because they are so close and commingled with Milky Way stars

It makes one sit back and contemplate the (un)importance of our daily existance. Fighting with your spouse, railing against your political opponents, getting pissed off at your boss, all take on a new perspective when one realizes how small we are and how impressive the universe is.

Harper's Defence "Plan"

(Full disclosure: I am a former member of the navy/military, having served in naval and special forces culminating in command. I have been committed to combat, peacekeeping and domestic security operations and, at a senior level, have served as a member of Canadian and British forces and as an attached member of US forces.)

The Conservative Party of Canada's plan for national defence is interesting. (PDF page 45). On the surface, in all honesty, it looks pretty good. I don't know any senior member of the Canadian Forces who would argue with much of it. There's only one problem: it's not really a plan.

Most of what the CPC is offering is already underway. There is little in there that the Liberals under Martin haven't already started or at least gotten onto the priority list. The Conservative product then grabs all of that and then tosses in some ideas of dubious merit. In fact, it is not a Defence Plan; it is a cobbling together of ideas.

The Conservative idea for Arctic sovereignty has some points of merit. It is also very poorly thought out. The Arctic National Sensor System is a good idea. To be able to do it within the budget Harper proposes is something else again. Planting fixed acoustic arrays in the Arctic is a completely different trick than doing it off the Grand Banks or even in the Pacific Deeps. In fact, Canada does not presently have the ability to monitor its open water column much less the ice cap. The Conservative focus on the Arctic fails to address the reality of Canada's Pacific and Atlantic ocean frontiers.

Harper is promising $2 billion for the establishment of an Arctic naval base and three armed naval ice-breakers. Interesting. In fact, I know of at least three Canadian admirals who are writhing in orgasmic ecstasy over the idea. Too bad. The idea of a year round arctic base has been around since the 1960s. Harper should look into why it's never happened. $2 billion won't begin to cover the cost of the proposal. Three armed ice-breakers, if construction was ending today, large enough to handle a role into the ice pack and with sufficient sea-keeping qualities, will run at least $850 million apiece, assuming their armament is much reduced from that of existing frigates. That leaves $45 million for a full facility, deep-water, year-round port at Iqaluit on Baffin Island. Since the proposal from Iqaluit was for a $49 million port, the Conservative estimate falls short. The dollars discussed are for "economy" models of everything. The Iqaluit deep-water port proposal does not include a comprehensive ship repair facility, harbour maintenance or logistic organization. Add more millions. The ships would have to go to Halifax or Esquimalt for extended maintenance and those ship repair facilities would have to be expanded and fitted-out to accept whatever class of ship gets built. Add more millions. Harper would not discuss armament. The easy answer to that question is, he doesn't have a clue. This idea was pulled from the air and will go precisely nowhere.

The establishment of a renewed airborne battalion to be stationed at Trenton is also interesting. It is intended to dovetail with the plan to increase sovereignty in the Arctic. That makes it a problem. Trenton isn't in the Arctic. The intention is to air deploy the entire battalion and drop them in. And then what? Unless there is a means to reinforce and resupply an airborne drop from the ground, an air dropped force will not survive. Since this plan is in place of actually stationing a battalion in the north, it looks more like a political carrot offered to the Trenton region than a realistic option for Arctic sovereignty. A battalion present would be much more effective than a battalion in being.

Whether the CF should actually reconstitute the Airborne is a whole other question. (See update below). Existing battalions retain "jump companies". The Canadian Airborne Regiment was, arguably, a quasi-special-forces unit. When Gordon O'Connor, the CPC defence critic, was questioned why the need existed when JTF-2 exists, he answered, "JTF 2 is to deal with terrorism. The airborne regiment is intended to protect Canadian sovereignty." O'Connor, a retired Brigadier General, should know better. JTF-2 has expanded significantly, is NOT strictly a counter-terrorism unit and has full special forces capability.

The concept of an army training centre at Cambridge Bay is a good idea, however since this was accompanied with virtually no information, it defies comment. Perhaps someone from the CPC will elaborate, but I suspect this is little more than a political offering for Cambridge Bay.

The announcement of establishing territorial battalions in Canadian cities is another attempt to use defence as a political offer. The term is stolen from the British army and this is a false implication of financial benefit to major centres. Harper identified 5 cities which would receive at least 100 regular force personnel and 400 reservists. On the surface it appears there would be an increase of 500-plus regular force personnel just for Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto. He also said "other major centres", but didn't identify them later. What he didn't say is that those cities already have naval, army and air-force reserve units lodged in them. The increase in regular force personnel would be about 70 per city. The reserve units regularly fall short of permitted strength through normal recruiting. Even the attempt at 90/10 mixed regular and reserve battalions fell short of their recruiting goal in the 1990s. While I would applaud any attempt to increase armed service visibility in Canada, this idea isn't going to do it. Harper either has no idea of how the current CF reserve is constituted or he's deliberately misleading us.

Harper has proposed a rapid reaction regular force army battalion lodged at Comox. Good idea, bad idea. BC should have a regular battalion and I understand the simplistic approach to lodging them next to an air base. However, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the existing infrastructure. Comox may get a sudden economic boost, but has no place to put them. Better to put that battalion in Nanaimo where it can be moved using wheeled, sea or air transport. This idea needs to be reworked.

Most of the rest of Harper's so-called plan is pretty good. It should be; it's already being done. He's offering a greater increase in strength, but if he becomes government that will change. He's talking about a 13,000 person increase in the regular force. Given the economy as it is now, and the mythical economy he suggests he will create, I question where those people will come from. When a person can get a good job on the economy, the armed forces tends not to be a career choice and the recruiting pool is extremely limited... unless he intends to reduce the standards, and that would be a disaster.

One final note. Since Harper has adopted the mantle of the Conservative Party and allows the designation of "Tory", he can wear the can for past tory governments. Conservatives are famous for their lofty promises and equally as famous for breaking them. They consistently offer what the country cannot afford and then leave the service with nothing. It was a Conservative government which scrapped the Avro Arrow and it was a Conservative government which forced the navy to spend valuable time and money developing a nuclear submarine program, (for Arctic sovereignty), and then cancelled it. It was the Conservatives who so indebted the country that a cross-government budget-cut put the CF at odds with its operations. (I could add that the only time I have had to go into hot combat was when a Conservative government sent me, but I'll take personal responsibility for that. I volunteered.)

Update: As reader Boris pointed out, there is already a special regiment being formed under prior legislation by the government. This more than nullifies the Conservative promise to reconstitute the Canadian Airborne Regiment. In fact, under the Liberal plan, there will be an entire Special Forces Command. The Conservative plan is now reduced to a political promise of pork to the Trenton area in an effort to buy votes.

Harper's Financial Plan Hits A Hard Wall - The Truth

The Conservatives have been trumpeting the fact that the Conference Board of Canada has endorsed the CPC platform as "affordable". That's all well and good, but it should be noted that the CPC paid the CBoC to do the job. The Conservative Party might also have done better to have provided CBoC with all of the information on their plan instead of leaving huge chunks of spending and cuts out of it.

From Tilting at Windmills via Pogge comes this analysis of the Conservative platform. It didn't take him long to expose some glaring problems either. Shortly after that, the CBoC economist announced, as reported by Canadian Press, "It is not in the platform I received from them."

The Conservative platform is confusing. Is it costed or not?! Some Conservatives say it is; others say there are parts up for negotiation with the provinces. That's called voting for a pig-in-the-poke. Or, as Cathie From Canada calls it, Cheshire Economics.

The Conservatives have actually made a couple of changes to their platform since the CBoC reported on their analysis of the CPC's incomplete platform. Prior to that however economists, some of them from prominent right-wing think tanks, had dumped on Harper for his GST cut declaring it the wrong tax to reduce.

So... what's next? Voodoo economics?

Paul Bremer to Netherlands: Do as we say or else!

Paul Bremer has unceremoniously flunked out of Diplomacy 101. In an interview with the Dutch publication De Volkskrant, he threatened the Netherlands with economic sanctions if the Dutch decide not to send NATO troops to Afghanistan. The Netherlands had previously agreed to send 1,400 troops, but has recently had trouble getting approval from their parliament which is deeply divided over the issue.

Bremer's attempt at persuasion?

If the Dutch decide not to send troops to Afghanistan, that will be damaging for Dutch interests in the United States

Time and time again decisions must be taken by the US government, by Congress, that influence Dutch economic interests. It is not difficult to imagine decisions could be taken that would not be in the interests of the Netherlands

How to win friends and influence people.

The Conservative Child Care Allowance - More Damage Than Good

The Conservative Child Care Allowance has always left me a little baffled. It looked like nothing more than a regurgitation of the Family Allowance (Baby Bonus) with slightly increased dollars. However, Laura over at Liberalism Without Cynicism has picked out an analysis by the Caledon Institute which sheds new light on the Conservative plan.

we have a "child care proposal" aimed at people who are already deemed not to need federal help meeting their child care expenses and who don't actually use paid child care.

It's worth a very close read and Laura's analysis comes with the authority of a degree in economics.

It's the "Let's Smear A Veteran Show"!!

Ah yes. The familiar moves of Karl Rove and his legions of flying monkeys. Don't like the fact that the combat veteran has more credibility than the Imperial Leader and his praeterion puppets? Smear the sonofabitch. Turn those decorations against him. After all, you have to be pretty dumb to have served in a place like Viet Nam when others were proving there were legal ways to stay out of it.

Well, y'know, I'd kind of like to meet John Murtha (D-Pa). He seems like a pretty cool guy. Hell, we're both Marines, even if from different countries. We'd probably recognize something in each other because we've both "been there". And since it is always wrong for one marine to try to outdo the other when it comes to wounds, our biggest fight would be trying to make sure the other guy understood that his wounds were probably worse. It's a marine thing.

On the other hand, I have no desire whatsoever to meet George W Bush. I doubt we'd have anything in common at all. You see, him never having served his country in combat might make me difficult for him to understand; and I've never had the occasion to see pink elephants.

Gimme a break!

The Guardian has unveiled their latest supplement..for women. Check out the introduction to it.

Our world-class line-up of contributors includes international beauty expert Kathy Phillips, Vogue's former health and beauty director; the brilliant style gurus at Grazia, Britain's first weekly fashion magazine; Susan Clark, the most-knowledgable alternative health journalist; Jeremy Langmead, editor-in-chief of Wallpaper*, who has scoured the high street for interiors bargains; and great Observer writers Carole Cadwalladr, Rachel Cooke, Kathryn Flett, Louise France, Phil Hogan, Robert McCrum, Alex Renton and Nigel Slater.

Polly Vernon's honest look at the rise (and growth!) of women's obsession with body hair; a revealing interview with Elizabeth Hurley; and an astonishing profile of the woman who swapped her home, her job and her lovers with a stranger - Nancy Weber, who spawned a whole genre of reality TV in the process.

And once you've fed your mind, you can restock your wardrobe, kitchen, sitting room and home office, all from the comfort of your sofa - with Shop!, our fabulous monthly shopping guide.

So, let’s review what the Guardian thinks is soooooo important to women…beauty, fashion, alternative health, interior decorating, body hair and shopping. Gee, I’m so glad I don’t have to overwhelm my pea-sized brain with topics like…say….politics, finance, social issues. What century is this again? The 21st? or the 18th?

Canada needs to brace itself for more combat casualties

As Dave as pointed out in his post below, Canada is about to increase its military presence in Afghanistan and although Canada has been there for the last several years, this deployment will be different.

Canadian troops have been deployed in Afghanistan since 2002 when 800 soldiers were sent to Kandahar to help remove Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. In 2003 when NATO took over the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, Canada’s contribution was almost 2,000 soldiers, the largest contingent of forces to the mission. In August 2005, Canada established a Provincial Reconstruction Team of about 250 people in Kandahar for the purpose of helping the local authorities with security, governance, and delivering basic services. And next month Canada will see its role in Afghanistan expand again.

With the pullout of 4,000 American forces, other NATO countries will jump into the breach to fill a dangerous vacuum left by the US. Along with the British, the Australians, and the reluctant Danes, Canada will be sending about 2,000 men and women (as well as members of the elite JTF-2 force) to one of the most unstable and dangerous regions of Afghanistan…Kandahar. Make no mistake about it, this is not a peacekeeping mission, it’s a combat mission. The dangers are myriad:

The Taliban
It was in Kandahar, a southern province bordering Pakistan, that the Taliban first established their stronghold. Although many were routed out in 2002/2003, the Taliban have never truly vacated the area. And they want it back. As an example, in just a mere four days in August 2005, the Taliban along with their al-Qaeda allies killed two American soldiers, wounded another two, bombed a police bus, and three days later killed another four American soldiers.

Al-Qaeda
Kandahar’s proximity to Pakistan means that the Taliban are not the only combatants in the region for the NATO forces to worry about. Pakistan is still home to large numbers of al-Qaeda members and cross-border infiltration into Kandahar is commonplace. Not only do the Taliban and al-Qaeda form a co-operative team in their attacks, al-Qaeda comes complete with sophisticated armaments and training. British military officers say

Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in southern Afghanistan are preparing
for a large offensive soon after the Canadian and British troops arrive

Between the two of them, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are a dangerous force to reckon with.


Drug traffickers and warlords
Kandahar is prime real estate for growing poppies and despite repeated attempts to reduce the number of poppy fields, the end result can be described as, at best, a stalemate, at worst, a losing battle. Afghanistan produces almost 90% of the world’s opium and the crop makes up more than half of the country’s domestic product. After more than two decades of war and recent droughts, Afghani farmers are returning to the lucrative poppy farming as a means of earning a living. For many it is"the difference between modest prosperity and destitution".

The vast majority of the opium profits end up in the hands of warlords and drug traffickers, many of whom are actively involved in the Afghan government. In fact, it has been estimated that as many as 70% of Afghan government officials are active in the drug trade. The profits made by the warlords are used to finance their own private armies for the protection of the poppy fields. Another group that won’t be happy at seeing NATO forces in the area.

Anti-Americanism
Canadians have no problems differentiating themselves from Americans, but the rest of world lumps us all into the same group. Afghanis don’t make any distinction between Canadians and Americans. It is their feeling that the United States controls NATO and therefore NATO personnel are the equivalent of Americans. Our “Canadianism” will offer Canadian troops no particular protection.


The Canadian army, while very small, has had to punch above its weight for the past 35 years. It has the distinction of having some of the best trained soldiers in the world. Those headed for Afghanistan have been prepared physically, mentally and professionally for what lays ahead. They will arrive well-briefed, ready and with everything that can be made available to make their role successful. They will also go with wishes of a nation that would have every single one of them come home unscathed. That may be too much to hope for.

Canadians need to brace themselves for the possibility of numerous combat casualties during this new expedition into Kandahar. We are a country that is not emotionally prepared for military funerals and we take combat deaths very hard. When we lost four soldiers to USAF “friendly fire” in 2002, the entire country mourned. The memorial services were attended by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, the Governor-General and the services were nationally televised. Canada has suffered eight deaths in Afghanistan since 2002 and each death has made national headlines.

We may be in for more.

The World War That George Built

As the war in Iraq develops into a greater quagmire reports are surfacing that the insurgency is being used by Iraqi and foreign militants as a training ground for wider operations. Rather than operate in camps as they did in the days of the Afghan Mujahideen, they operate independently or in small groups using a network of safe houses in Iraq. The Middle East Online reports:

It is a perfect model of urban combat that did not exist in Afghanistan," said Michael Klare, a professor and security expert at the University of Amherst in the United States.
Foreign fighters "will come back from Iraq with an ability to do terrible things. The longer the war goes on, the more people will be trained in this fashion, and the more of a danger they will pose," he said.

The CIA was cited in the New York Times as having reported:

Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamist extremists than Afghanistan was in Al-Qaeda's early days because it is serving as a real-world laboratory.

Klare was very unforgiving of Bush's handling of the worsening situation in Iraq:

Klare, who published a prophetic article in 2003 entitled "How to defeat bin Laden," was not optimistic that leaders in Washington would act to prevent the Iraqi resistance from evolving into a highly-mobile network of urban terrorism.
"The professionals in the State Department, Defense Department and the CIA understand this very well. But it does not seem to affect decision-making in the White House, that has done everything wrong from the beginning."

And where are they going? Well...

While this is going on in Iraq the US is withdrawing 4000 of its troops in Afghanistan while NATO is preparing to boost its forces. In April The British assume command of an expanded NATO International Security and Assistance Force made up of 1 British brigade, 1 Canadian brigade, an Australian reconstruction team and a Danish company. The Dutch have been wavering on an initial offer of a battalion. The force remains too light for the job ahead, particularly since current ISAF troops have seen an increase in Taliban and insurgent activity. Some of the fighters who are using Iraq as a training ground are finding their way to Afghanistan.

The Scotsman reports that hundreds of fighters are gathering in Afghanistan ahead of the NATO deployment.

Attacks in Afghanistan are now running at more than 500 a month - it's getting as dangerous for westerners as Iraq in some places," said a British officer involved in planning the NATO peacekeeping mission in the south-west of the country.

(snip)

The foreign fighters are making common cause with remnants of the Taleban regime hiding in southern Afghanistan and with local tribesmen who resent efforts by the Kabul regime, backed by the US and Britain, to clamp down on the drugs trade.

The two reports together paint an ugly picture. Afghanistan is poised, once again, to become as dangerous as Iraq is now. NATO forces are faced with a peacekeeping mission turning to a full blown insurgency and expanded combat operations. Australia, not a member of NATO, is showing hesitation and wants the Dutch to firm up their commitment before an Australian force is deployed.

All of this is, of course, a George Bush creation. His failure to properly secure Afghanistan in the first place before he became totally distracted with an unnecessary adventure in Iraq has caused south west Asia to become an expanded war. Not to mention that Iraq had no indiginous terrorists until the Bush administration attacked it and then failed to establish order on the ground.

NATO is walking into a trap created by the Bush administration's arrogance and stupidity.

You're doing a heck of a job, George.

On Attempting To Remain Civil Amid This Storm Of Flying Crap

One of our readers has posted an excellent observation on the CTV blogsite lamenting the quality of discourse taking place in all quarters during this federal election campaign. Coupled with a disbelief that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada are actually any different from past incarnations of the Reform/Alliance, it points out the lack of restraint exercised by all too many people in an attempt to get their candidate or party into power. It's definitely worth a very close read.

We get the occasional comment on this site. That is always a good thing. The concept of a blog is that it is interactive and allows some debate. And with all the positive strokes there are also the opposing views. That's fine too, as long as that's what it is.

Occasionally, however, the discourse turns, shall we say, nasty. A reader, instead of providing an opposing view, resorts to a form of insult to defend a position they are clearly unable or unwilling to substantiate. That's fine too, because it exposes something about the commenter: a) The commenter never actually read the article, or; b) The commenter is unable to articulate their thoughts and resorts to a form of base reactionary insult demonstrating a lack of civility.

I wonder, when I read an unsubstantiated insult, if the writer is aware that he/she is harming the cause they have so poorly defended. When a commenter comes across as a semi-literate knuckle-dragger, which side of the argument does the commenter thinks has been advanced?

The attack ads being run by all major parties are no better. When the information on the Liberal attack ad referring to the Conservative plan to lodge army battalions in various cities around the country emerged, I couldn't help but wonder what idiot even conceived that strategy. That ad, now that it's public, had the direct effect of costing the Liberals 40,000 possible votes. Members of the military, past and present, tend to hate all politicians. It isn't easy to attract those votes. It's a simple matter to drive them away though, and insinuating that they represent something bad is a sure-fire way to do it. Couple that with the fact that most Canadians actually like the members of the Canadian Forces and, well... would you like a bandage for that foot?

The traditional media is also to blame for the lack of civil discourse. Rather than do the deep research required to properly inform the public about everything surrounding an issue, a candidate or a party, major organs of the media skim the surface, issue forth with a quick pontification and move on - the news cycle is complete. They need something "new" to feed the next reiteration. In order to stay "on top" of the news cycle they leave huge amounts of valuable information behind, untouched, unresearched and unknown.

Blogs do something different. Blogs invert the news cycle. And, whether anyone likes it or not, most blogs actually take a firm position. In an election campaign, they will normally fall into the camp with which they feel comfortable.

We have been accused of being a "fanatic liberal website" by one commenter. That's patently untrue and the commenter knows it. There is nothing fanatic about it. What this blog represents is a position which resolutely questions the past and present background of Harper and his Conservative Party of Canada. We believe that Harper, his candidates and his party machinery represents an extremist right-wing constituency modelled after the current US Republican Party and that he is not being truthful with the electorate. We have supported that view here, here, here and here. And we have no reason to shift our position. Certainly, that position will only be reinforced when a commenter presents no substantive argument and resorts to insults, strawmen and red herrings.

And, to our readers from outside Canada, I offer greetings. As you have probably been able to deduce from this post, the election campaign here is getting a little dirty. (Sort of like going to an election and having a hockey game break out.)

Abu Ghraib - Maj Gen Geoffry Miller Invokes Article 31

Major General Geoffry D. Miller, the former Commanding General of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and one of the more significant members of the US command structure involved in the Abu Ghraib detention and interrogation abuse allegations, has invoked his right to refuse to answer questions under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

UCMJ Art. 31 is similar to the US Constitution's 5th Amendment and the Miranda warning provided for civil law enforcement. The difference is that when a US service person is being questioned they have the right not to answer questions before any arrest or accusation is made.
Miller's assertion is that he has previously answered all questions now being put to him.

Maj. Michelle E. Crawford, a defense lawyer representing Miller, said the general decided not to answer further questions because he has "been interviewed repeatedly over the last several years" about his role at Guantanamo Bay and his visit to Iraq and he stands by his many statements to Congress, Army investigators and lawyers.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have conducted many investigations and disciplinary interviews. The reason an investigator asks the same questions over and over is to determine if the answers are the same each time.

Miller's "choice to no longer answer the same questions . . . was based on the advice of counsel and includes the fact that he has already, and repeatedly, answered all inquiries fully," Crawford said.

That's a dodge. Neither Maj. Gen. Miller nor Maj. Crawford can know the what questions would be asked unless they were submitted to counsel in advance of the inquiry. While that is sometimes done, if the prosecution has more evidence they may wish to question the general further to clarify his involvement and the involvement of others.

Miller's decision came shortly after Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, accepted immunity from prosecution this week and was ordered to testify at upcoming courts-martial. Pappas, a military intelligence officer, could be asked to detail high-level policies relating to the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Which would give him cause for concern if he had issued orders to Pappas.

Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington expert in military law, said that Miller's decision is "consistent with his being concerned that he may have some exposure to worry about." Fidell added: "It's very unusual for senior officers to invoke their Article 31 rights. The culture in the military tends to encourage cooperation rather than the opposite."

In fact, when general officers invoke their rights under Article 31, or such equivalent protections in other western militaries, it usually means they have something very serious to hide. The culture in the military is that for offences which affect the entire chain of command there is always someone superior in rank at whom to point the finger. The finger pointing tends to abate as higher ranks fall.

Miller has another problem. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004 that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip. But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's most senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and his subsequent recommendations.

It's starting to look like the "few bad apples" may in fact be a completely rotten tree.

The Calgary School - The Voices In Harper's Head

As the Canadian election campaign enters its final phases with the advanced polls opening on Friday, it is time to look at the machinery that Stephen Harper would take to Ottawa should the Conservative Party of Canada gather enough seats to form a government.

Harper has been accused of running an American Republican style campaign. He has made no effort to conceal a passion for the policies of the US Republican party and has openly held well established Canadian institutions in disdain. He comes by his love for the American ultra-right-wing honestly; he's one of them.

Harper studied under Straussist neo-cons at the University of Calgary, then worked with them to develop the policies and the framework for the Reform Party. When Harper made a bid for the leadership of the Alliance Party some of the U of C neo-cons jumped in as advisors. When the 2004 federal election came about, they were right there, led by the American born, American educated and Republican party approved, Tom Flanagan.

In 1996 a paper out of the Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC named the political science department at U of C: The Calgary School: The New Motor of Canadian Political Thought, and Tom Flanagan had become their informal leader.

Flanagan has extreme political views, to say the least. He has worked tirelessly against the claims of aboriginal Canadians and has made clear his view that North American aboriginals should be assimilated and their culture entirely eliminated. It also goes that his beliefs extend beyond First Nations into other culturally diverse groups. Far from accepting the Canadian cultural mosaic in favour of the American "melting-pot", Flanagan preaches a cultural smelter. As tons of copper concentrate are placed under pressure to produce a few ounces of gold, Flanagan promotes the idea that diverse cultures would be pressured to adhere to a narrow political dogma, dispense with their ethnicity, conform to a single religious standard and accept the leadership of the purest of the smelted ore. In other words, a society dominated by an elite group which is white, heterosexual, christian, english-speaking and male. Those who do not accept this view need not leave the slag heap and will have their rights, freedoms and eventually their franchise eliminated over time. Flanagan, an adherent of the Bush style of governing, was Harper's campaign director in 2004 and he is still one of Harper's closest political advisors. Rick Anderson, who worked with both Harper and Flanagan in the Reform Party described them as, "... intellectual soulmates, philosophical soulmates."

Barry Cooper, by his own admission, is Flanagan's peer both intellectually and politically. Cooper defends Flanagan against all critics and was responsible for nominating Flanagan for entry into the Royal Society of Canada. He is a professor at the U of C and a senior fellow of the right-wing Fraser Institute. Cooper, while often flying below the political radar has come out strongly in favour of abolishing welfare. He has also contributed to Fraser Institute public policy documents where he recommends absolute submission to US "Fortress North America" security and anti-terrorist methods. Cooper is also a member of the Bohemian Club, a group of US Republican heavy-weights who meet every year outside San Francisco to discuss policy. Cooper speaks the language the mostly US audience wants to hear - Canada's new conservatives are in love with the US, particularly a neo-con US. Cooper likes to portray himself as coming from Alberta pioneer roots. That, however, is a lie. Cooper is the son of a well-to-do Vancouver family who attended school on Vancouver Island and attended university in the US.

David Bercuson, along with Cooper, suggested that Quebec, if it was planning on leaving Confederation, had better be gone quickly. Bercuson is a prolific writer who promotes the Alberta cause at the expense of all other regions of the country, but takes particular aim at Quebec.

Ted Morton, another American-born and raised Albertan, is even more vitriolic. He, along with Harper and others penned the Alberta Agenda, also known as the Firewall Letter in which they called on the Premier of Alberta to exercise full constitutional authority and de-facto remove Alberta from Confederation. Morton is now involved as an MLA in Alberta provincial politics and is a member of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party. While he would be preoccupied with provincial politics, he would have a direct line to Harper.

Rainer Knopff is also a professor at the U of C Political Science Dept. His particular target has been the Canadian Supreme Court. (Caution: Link is from a virulent anti-feminist group). He and Morton have a long history of attacking what they refer to as "special interest groups". In fact, what they are attacking is minority groups and those seeking equality under the law. In their book The Charter Revolution and The Court Party; Broadview Press, 2000, they attack feminists, civil libertarians, gay rights activists, aboriginals and others. They then unapologetically defend their thesis on the altar of neo-conservative reforms. They leave little doubt that should their party win power that they would set about deconstructing the Canadian Charter.

There are others: Ted and Link Byfield who owned and published the anti-gay, anti-feminist and now defunct, Alberta Report are active in promoting the neo-con agenda of The Calgary School, and William Gairdner has echoed the policy statements of the Calgary School in book after book. All of them are vitriolic bigots and would crush any minority group seeking equality. And make no mistake about it: these people are not Canadian progressive conservatives; they are neo-con US Republicans and they believe in the concept of the "tyranical majority".

The hidden agenda is no myth. All of the neo-cons mentioned, but particularly the members of The Calgary School, are adherents of the teachings of Leo Strauss. One of the most notorious of Strauss' students was Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the US invasion of Iraq. Strauss' philosophy was less a philosophical pursuit and more of a manifesto. He believed that in order to protect people from themselves government should be made up of an elite group of philosophers who hide the truth and present a palatable falsehood in order to pursue their agenda - the so-called "noble lie". He argued that those governing must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the peoples' feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.

There is no reason to believe that the members of The Calgary School have suddenly changed their devotion to the Strauss philosophy. In fact, there is every reason to believe that during an election campaign it is strengthened.

Should Harper actually win the election on the 23rd, you can be assured that writers of policy, the advisors in the Prime Minister's Office and the framers of legislation will be a group of racist, homophobic, anti-feminist bigots; those we now know as The Calgary School.

The role of newspapers

I spotted an article written by a newspaper editor wherein he voiced his hopes and fears for the newspaper industry. He decried the growing trend of newspapers to amalgamate and laid out his personal views on what the role of newspapers should be.

A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred.

One of the virtues, perhaps almost the chief virtue, of a newspaper is its independence. Whatever its position or character, at least it should have a soul of its own. But the tendency of newspapers, as of other businesses, in these days is towards amalgamation. As organisation grows personality may tend to disappear. It is much to control one newspaper well; it is perhaps beyond the reach of any man, or any body of men, to control half a dozen with equal success.

To the man, whatever his place on the paper, whether on the editorial or business, or even what may be regarded as the mechanical side - this also vitally important in its place - nothing should satisfy short of the best, and the best must always seem a little ahead of the actual. It is here that ability counts and that character counts, and it is on these that a newspaper, like every great undertaking, if it is to be worthy of its power and duty, must rely.

What’s the punch line you ask? The article was written 85 years ago on May 5, 1921 on the 100th anniversary of the Manchester Guardian (now known as The Guardian). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Robertson's Insane Comments May Have Killed Christian Theme Park In Israel

Christian evangelical wingnut, Pat Roberston may have just blathered his launching pad for the rapture right out of existence.

From MSNBC:

Avi Hartuv, spokesman for Israel's tourism minister, said officials are furious with Robertson's suggestion that the stroke was retribution for Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last summer. "We can't accept this kind of statement," Hartuv said.

He's nuts. You should see what he says about schools who teach actual science.

Robertson is leading a group of evangelicals who have pledged to raise $50 million to build the Christian Heritage Center in Israel's northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught.

As opposed to raising $50 million to do something frivolous - like feed, house, clothe and educate the poor - in any country.

"We will not do business with him, only with other evangelicals who don't back these comments," Hartuv said. "We will do business with other evangelical leaders, friends of Israel, but not with him."

Does that mean this is personal?

A day after Sharon's stroke on Jan. 4, Robertson suggested the prime minister was being punished for "dividing God's land," a reference to the August pullout from the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements.
"God considers this land to be his," Robertson said on his TV program "The 700 Club." "You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine."'

You Israelis really need to learn that you are only there for one purpose. You are to secure the place for the rapture. Is it so hard to understand? Quit messing with the territorial boundaries. They belong to... well, not you. Robertson needs that land. He makes a lot of money conning people about its purpose.

The Christian Theme Park, occasionally known as the Christian Heritage Center by Robertson and others of his persuasion, was to be built on 35 acres on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. The Israelis were going to provide the land for free as a partnership in what they viewed as a highly lucrative tourist attraction. The area was intended to be near the biblical town of Capernaum which is supposedly where Jesus lived, worked and performed miracles. However, the local population, both arab and jewish were less than pleased with having a fundamentalist christian attraction of that magnitude anywhere near them.

The Israeli tourism ministry is now approaching the whole idea with renewed caution.

Hartuv left the door open to continuing the project, but only with people who don't back Robertson's statements.
"We want to see who in the group supports his (Robertson's) statements. Those who support the statements cannot do business with us. Those that publicly support Ariel Sharon's recovery ... are welcome to do business with us," Hartuv said. "We have to check this very, very carefully."

Hmmm. This should be interesting. Make them snivel! Let's watch Dobson, Falwell and Haggard grovel and whimper for a change.

I guess we might have to wait a little while longer for the roller coaster to heaven.

Aussies Have No US Ambassador. Lucky Aussies

The Australians are feeling a little put out that the Bush administration has failed to appoint a new ambassador to Canberra, a post which has been vacant since the end of 2004. There is also concern that the sudden cancellation of a visit by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is a bit of a snub. An article in The Australian highlights the issue.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer emerged from hastily arranged talks in Washington with Dr Rice on Monday, saying the US had given no hint on when it would name a replacement for Mr Schieffer. (Tom Schieffer was posted to Tokyo in 2004)

Umm, diplomacy is NOT the Bush administration's strong suit. In fact, it's not even in the cards they're using.

We would like them to appoint an ambassador as soon as possible," Mr Downer said. "Obviously there have been some, how can I put it, there have been some difficulties that they have encountered in relation to potential appointments, which are really not for us. That's a matter for them."

Yup. George is really busy trying to get people to like him and Australia is SO far away. However, you can have the US ambassador to Canada! He's a dork, but he's Bush's buddy, so he should be ok for a while.

A source close to the Bush administration said yesterday the delay could be explained by the President being preoccupied with a series of second-term political crises, including the Iraq war.

INCLUDING THE IRAQ WAR?!!! No kidding! And then there is the fact that he's spying on his own citizens, lied his way into the invasion of Iraq, can't get a nominee to the Supreme Court past a bunch of religious carpet-baggers, has one of his top advisors under indictment and another one under investigation, has a little fraud and corruption scandal bubbling over and anyway... some Aussie told the administration that "Oz is full 'a 'roos, mate," and they can't appoint an ambassador until all 21 US intelligence agencies provide their separate interpretations.

But defence analyst Alan Behm did not think the US was snubbing Australia.
"I don't believe that's the case at all," he said. "I think George W. Bush is looking for another trusted confidant like Tom Schieffer who can operate at high level between himself and John Howard, and they won't be easy shoes to fill."

Short Behm - Bush is running out of cronies to appoint. And since Oz is more than a 1 hour shuttle flight away from Washington, well, it's a long way from the holy waters of the Potomac.

That, or you are really being snubbed. Or maybe just ignored. Don't take it personally. It's the Bush administration. Having no US ambassador for the next little while may be a good thing.