Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

A statement says soldiers in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were attacked and retaliated with artillery fire.

The first shell landed too close to a civilian compound and troops called a halt to the attack, but a second shell had already been fired.

NATO soldiers found the bodies of three children in the compound. Seven people were wounded.

In a statement, NATO expressed deep regret and said the incident was being investigated.

On Friday Afghan and German troops killed two children and a woman when the cars they were in failed to stop at a checkpoint.

The incidents are the latest in a string of civilian casualties caused by foreign soldiers.

Killing children is no way to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistani people. The use of artillery or aerial bombardment is too blunt a weapon in a guerrilla war. The price the civil population has to pay is too expensive. Would we accept the cost if was Australian kids being killed?

The United States is in a huge foreign policy muddle in the Middle East. It wants to dominate and control Iran but requires the support of the world community to accomplish its aims. Diplomacy and sanctions require only a low level of support. On the other hand, to launch a military attack or green-light one by Israel, the United States needs far more backing.  

This support does not appear to exist, and recent U.S. foreign policy actions are eroding that support even further. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on August 13 that the United States refused to give the go-ahead to Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities in talks between Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Could it be that the Bush administration finally knows when it is licked?

Israel is desperate to bomb Iran but the US can't get the necessary support from the rest of the world. US foreign policy is in a mess not only in the Middle East but also in Europe. Let's hope the new President of the United States is more of a diplomat than an armchair general.

When they came to us for help from the Taliban we locked them up and threw away the key, turned them into the sea or sent them to Nauru.

Then we bombed their country to bits and re-installed the poppy mafia, the murdering war lords of the mujihadeen and pretended we cared. So far the amount of aid to the people of Afghanistan is about $125 million over 7 years compared to about $1.5 billion to lock them up and about $2.5 billion to bomb them to bits and destroy their entire land.

Ditto for Iraq.

Time is running out to avert a humanitarian crisis, the British-based group said, urging governments to respond to an emergency humanitarian appeal launched in July.

"Up to five million Afghans face severe food shortages, yet the appeal for Afghanistan has a huge funding shortfall, with less than a fifth of the $US404 million needed to respond," Oxfam said in a statement.

"Large parts of Afghanistan are facing crisis as a result of the cumulative effect of factors including the harsh winter, high food prices, drought and increasing and spreading insecurity."

One of the hardest-hit provinces is central Daikundi, where an Oxfam assessment shows people may be facing the worst conditions in more than 20 years.

"As it is almost impossible to deliver aid to rural areas during the harsh Afghan winter, concerted action is needed now to avert the crisis," it said.

"This is a race against time, the international community needs to respond quickly before winter when conditions deteriorate," said Oxfam's head of policy in Kabul, Matt Waldman.

I hope we are as quick to get aid to the people of Afghanistan as we were to invade. We are the invaders, we have contributed to the insecurity, and now we are responsible for these 5 million people.

President Bush’s defining legacies: an affirmation that the United States is still at war with Al Qaeda.

Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush’s advisers assert that many Americans may have forgotten that. So they want Congress to say so and “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

I bet the families of those that are still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have not forotten that we are still at war.

For Bush critics like Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, the answer is simple: do not give the administration the wartime language it seeks.

“I do not believe that we are in a state of war whatsoever,” Mr. Fein said. “We have an odious opponent that the criminal justice system is able to identify and indict and convict. They’re not a goliath. Don’t treat them that way.”

Bruce Fein is right. The opponents in this "war" are criminals and should be brought to justice by the criminal justice system. Instead innocent people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of US soldiers are dead and wounded. Australian soldiers have also been killed and wounded and many are still at risk. The price of this so called war has been borne by the servicemen and their families. Many may have forgotten that these wars are still being fought, but the families of all those involved will never forget.

The other man, dressed in Docker's clothing, was not a native Afghan any more than Olberg was. He was a 27-year-old Saudi. Tim Osman (Ossman) has recently become better known as Osama Bin Laden. "Tim Osman" was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military bases, in search of political support and armaments.

Once a CIA agent always a CIA agent, I say.

I think you will find that the Tora Bora cave structure was built during the Russian occupation which is when Bin Laden was signed up by the CIA to head the mujihadeen to throw Russia out of Afghanistan.

Ian, you need to read more. The caves themselves are centuries old and carried a very sophisticated irrigation system that the US blew up.

Cheers.

Bill Avent, your quick response to Jenny Hume's questions has saved me at least five minutes' work. Given the number of items on today's "to do" list, I too give you my thanks.

I agree with your summary, although I am inclined to dispute your usage of the semicolon. Since I am not marking your essay, however, I shall let the matter pass.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

The reality is that Bin Laden is a CIA agent, always was and always will be. If they wanted him for the attack on the US why not say so on the FBI website?

"And there is no war on 'terror' as you cannot wage war on a noun."

They are making a damn good job of it Marilyn; at least the terror bit. Best not think what they might do to an adjective an adverb, or the humble and hard-working participle (past and present).

These morally illiterate morons would wage war on a fucking full-stop in there was a quid in it.

Fiona: Now you have me worried, Justin. Over the past week I've been engaged in a minor skirmish with certain serial offenders against Webdiary's (minimal) style rules. Should I have been charging? Let me assure you that I'd be delighted to augment my current pittance, so how much would you advise for a comma versus a colon?

For god's sake after all these years why do people still try and conflate this nonsense in Afghanistan?

It was about an oil pipeline and was planned in July 2001 with the plans tabled on 10 September 2001.

Meanwhile the Afghans did not have anything to do with anything. The Taliban were the government of the day started by Bill Clinton and Benazir Bhutto to counter the current mob of murderers whom we call the bloody government.

Now give over. Not only that but the Taliban offered Bin Laden to the UN on 14 October 2001 if they could provide evidence that he was involved. As we have known for years they had none and have never found any.

The UN have just confirmed the murder of 60 children and 30 women in that latest attack by the US who insist on dropping bombs from 30,000 feet like the cowards that they are without bothering to find out what is really going on.

As for the Iraqis - they certainly had nothing to do with anything.

And there is no war on 'terror' as you cannot wage war on a noun.

So grow up boys and get over it.

Ian, when you read this you begin to think Iraq under the US is not so different than Iraq under Hussein:

In March or April 2007, three noncommissioned United States Army officers, including a first sergeant, a platoon sergeant and a senior medic, killed four Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots to the head as the men stood handcuffed and blindfolded beside a Baghdad canal, two of the soldiers said in sworn statements.

Like I say, thousands dead and wounded and nothing to show for it.

Ian MacDougall: "John, so then are you saying that the US should not have gone after those responsible for 9/11?"

Well, as you know, it was an "inside job" and therefore they coudn't justifiably go after anyone.

In fact, perhaps the whole thing was faked on a Hollywood back lot? Prove that it wasn't.

Australians, like people in most countries, have a hugely exaggerated impression of the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Second, we have an exaggerated impression of governments' ability to prevent them.

That is partly because rare events may be more dramatic and tend to stick in our minds. It is hard to forget the events of September 11, 2001, in which nearly 3000 people were killed, and the Bali bombings of October 2002, in which more than 200 people were killed, including 88 Australians.

But for a significant terrorist act on Australian soil you have to go back to the Hilton bombing in Sydney in February 1978, in which three people died.

Transnational terrorism across the world leads to an average of 420 deaths a year. Within a global population of 6.6 billion, that's not a big risk. The chance of being killed in a road crash is very much higher. Australia's annual road toll is four times that global figure. And in the US, 10 times as many people are killed on the roads each year as were killed in the events of September 11, 2001.

Are we getting value for our dollar? Or has Osama forced us to overreact?

The total cost of the war on terror, including Iraq and Afghanistan, could be anywhere from $1 trillion to $1.45 trillion by 2017.

If the US won the cold war by forcing Russia to overspend on its military?

George Will and Irving Kristol argued that SDI, Reagan's military buildup and the ideological crusade against Communism had delivered the knockout punch to a system that had been on the ropes since the early 1980s. A parade of former Reagan administration officials, including Weinberger and Richard Perle, came forward to assert that Reagan had known all the time that the Soviet Union was on its last legs and had aggressively foreclosed Soviet military options while pushing the Soviet economy to the breaking point. According to conservatives, the combination of military and ideological pressures gave the Soviet Union little choice but to abandon expansionism abroad and repression at home, and SDI was the key to this winning strategy. The Star Wars initiative had put the Soviets on notice that the next arms race would be waged in areas where the U.S. had a decisive technological advantage.

It could be argued that Osama Bin Laden has caused the US to overreact and is pushing the US economy to breaking point.

Authorities are trying to stop an anti-Semitic satellite TV station broadcasting into Australia from Indonesia — which has already rejected US efforts to take the channel off the air.

It is the third time Australia has acted against al-Manar, a channel owned by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite Muslim Lebanese political party. The United States lists it as a banned terrorist organisation. Australia lists only its armed wing, the External Security Organisation...

According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, al-Manar, launched in 1991, transmits 24 hours a day worldwide and is bankrolled by the Iranian Government. The station regularly broadcasts speeches by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and fatwas (Muslim legal rulings) endorsing suicide bombing as legitimate.

Greg Barton, Monash University professor for the study of Indonesia, said the West had little prospect of getting Indonesian co-operation. "It highlights the diminution of soft power for the West in general and America in particular as a direct result of Iraq," he said.

Professor Barton, an adviser to Abdurrahman Wahid when he was Indonesian president, said: "I can't see President Yudhoyono listening to the Americans on this one."

It looks like Indonesia is going to ignore demands to close this station down.

Soft power is losing  influence as a result of the war in Iraq.

Anyway, aren't we fighting for freedom, including a free press?

First a major Taliban attack on a US base:

Taliban suicide bombers, backed by gunmen, have attempted to breach the defences of the main US base for south-eastern Afghanistan, Afghan and NATO officials said.

NATO troops were still fighting the remaining Taliban insurgents after they were driven back to some houses in a nearby village, the provincial governor said.

The Afghan Defence Ministry said 13 suicide bombers were killed.

A suicide bomber killed 10 Afghan civilians and wounded 13 more outside the same base on Monday (local time).

And then:

A suicide bomber blew himself up at a hospital in a north-western Pakistani town that has been plagued by sectarian violence, killing at least 23 people, police said.

The explosion happened as Shiite Muslims gathered to protest over the death of a man in a suspected sectarian attack in the troubled town of Dera Ismail Khan, provincial police chief Malik Naveed Khan said.

"There are 23 confirmed dead and up to 20 wounded. We have found the legs of the suspected suicide bomber," Mr Khan told local television, adding that tensions were high in the area after the blast.

And now:

Ten French paratroopers were killed and at least 21 wounded in heavy fighting between NATO troops and insurgents in the Kabul region on Thursday

Does the West have any idea what it is doing? As the death toll rises we seem to be slipping deeper into the quagmire.

It all looks the Tet offensive in Vietnam.

During the second half of 1967 the administration had become alarmed by criticism, both inside and outside the government, and by reports of declining public support for its Vietnam policies. According to public opinion polls, the percentage of Americans who believed that the U.S. had made a mistake by sending troops to Vietnam had risen from 25 percent in 1965 to 45 percent by December 1967. This trend was fueled not by a belief that the struggle was not worthwhile, but by mounting casualty figures, rising taxes, and the feeling that there was no end to the war in sight.

Winning or losing the WOT?

If we're not careful we could lose the bloody LOT.

The short answer to the opening question would have to be we have lost. After careful consideration the long answer would have to be we have lost, absolutely.

By "we" I mean you and me, the punters, the ordinary people of America, Iraq, Australia, Afghanistan, UK and so on.

Qui Bono

Not the punters; you won't find too many ordinary folk who have benefited from the deluded idealism of George W Bush's puppet masters. Neoconservative galoots who have successfully stuffed up US foreign policy in the way only galoots could do; not to mention the blood and tears.

But these galoots could not give a shit; qui bono – do your own homework; they laugh all the way to the bank. When you make shit loads of cash for death and destruction why stop?

How many punters are laughing?

The total futility and hypocrisy of the Neoconservative agenda has been exposed in a rather brutal (but probably necessary manner) by Russia. Putin draws the line and McCain and Bush waffle a load of crap.

Georgia (with the nod and assistance of the US) got walloped for murdering innocent men women and children in Ossetia; they behaved worse than terrorist when they had no reason to do so. Just like the current US government.

No good has come from the WOT (PANAC?), no one likes a bully and the US (government), like a bully, picks on the weak (can't beat em), for the financial interest of the very few, while being totally impotent in the face of its equals.

China will be very upset that Bush and his Georgian mate timed (planned) their stupidity when they did. China will not forget; just one more reason to disconnect when the time is right; the consequences may be unfortunate.

Most punters (sans those at the pointy end) may think they have not lost much from the WOT, but what lies ahead could see (many of) them losing the LOT.

The WOT, the dysfunctional and dishonest US (global) banking system, K Street along with related (global) corporate and client corruption will see to that.

We are living in interesting times, indeed – things are going to get worse.

But US President George W Bush said Moscow's decision to send in troops had hurt its credibility overseas.

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," he said in Washington before departing for a holiday in Texas.

Bush, an expert on how to hurt overseas credibility, lectures Moscow for copying the US. 

Ask Cuba if they think the US uses bullying and intimidation.

Destroying the Taliban regime after 9/11 was just and rational. And it was done in an effective and proportionate manner: over just six weeks in late 2001, with several hundred American special operatives on the ground, American air support and our allies in the Northern Alliance.

Since then, however, the mission has grown. Today there are 71,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, yet things are getting ever worse. There were 10 times as many armed attacks on international troops and civilian contractors in 2007 as there were in 2004. Every other measure of violence, from roadside bombs to suicide bombers, is also up dramatically. Our principal ally at the beginning of the war, the Northern Alliance, controlled more of the country at the end of 2001 than President Hamid Karzai, our current principal ally, effectively controls today...............

For those who remain unconvinced that anything short of ambitiously remaking Afghanistan would imperil America’s basic interests, here’s the big question: What sort of commitment are you willing to make? Dan McNeil, the American general who was NATO’s top commander in Afghanistan until he left in June, said shortly before concluding his tour that according to current American counterinsurgency doctrine, a successful occupation of Afghanistan, which is larger, more complex, more populous and very much less governable than Iraq, would require 400,000 troops.

This is an extract of a piece in the New York Times by Bartle Breese Bull, the foreign editor of Prospect magazine, who is writing a history of Iraq.

It is obvious from reading this piece that the war in Afghanistan is not going to be won unless the US is prepared to increase troop numbers to at least 400,000. I don't think the US could do this even if it wanted to. So the question remains: what are we doing in Afghanistan? We do not have the will or the capability to win the war.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6394614489570050125