March 2007
Monthly Archive
March 6, 2007
It’s On! Or at least we’re told it’s on. About 4,000 British soldiers, along with about 300 Canadians and 1,000 Afghans have launched a campaign in Helmand province in the region of the Kajaki dam where the Brits have wrestled with insurgents all winter.
This time NATO is taking on more than just the Taliban. They’re also targetting the drug trade and what are now called “narco-terrorists.”
The offensive, named “Operation Achilles”, isn’t intended to fix and destroy the insurgents but to drive them out of the area and win the “hearts and minds” of the locals.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. With the bulk of Britain’s combat troops committed to this area the Taliban could choose to exploit their absence in other parts of the province. Or the insurgents could choose to lay low and bide their time until NATO declares victory and returns to its garrisons.
The worst possibility is that the Taliban have deliberately drawn the bulk of Britain’s combat force to the Kajaki area to make it easier for them to strike elsewhere. This wouldn’t be the first time Afghan guerrilas have played that trick.
March 6, 2007
Maybe that’s the way we need to look at the coal-fueled world, especially China. We ship our manufacturing jobs over there where they use cheap labour, lax environmental laws and a coal-fired economy to produce cheap goods we then buy. Put another way, we’re driving their coal-driven economic miracle.
But it’s not just attractively priced Chinese products we’re getting out of this. We’re also getting the end-products of all of that burned coal and that seems to be hitting us hard just when we least need it.
A team of researchers from Texas A&M university believe that coal soot discharged into the atmosphere by India and China could be responsible for some of the freakish weather we’ve been experiencing in Canada and the US.
They believe the particulate pollution drifts high over the Pacific where it results in cloud change and more intense storms – the sort that battered Vancouver over the winter. They believe these intense storms will change wind patterns globally.
Renyi Zhang, an atmospheric scientist at A&M, told the Globe:
“‘You are probably going to have extreme weather, cold winters or warm winters. I just can’t say. The impact needs to be further evaluated,’ he said.
“‘The bottom line is that if you change the weather in one region you are going to change the weather everywhere and you are going to change the climate, basically.’
“He and his colleagues reached their conclusions using satellite data collected between 1984 and 2005, as well as climate models. He says he knows it is controversial to suggest that winter storms may in part be man-made.
“‘First we found the evidence that storms are getting stronger. Second, we believe we have made a link to the pollution in China. People may have different opinions.’
We need to get to the bottom of this – fast. What is the point of paying India and China for their products if it’s going to mean also allowing them to deliver meteorological mayhem to our shores? The longer we wait the harder this is going to be to correct. The planet may just not be able to afford the economic miracles of China and India.
March 6, 2007
They have to do better than this or we have no business fighting alongside them.
The US Army is blaming purported insurgents for its actions in calling in an airstrike with two, 2,000 lb. Mk. 84 bombs on a house that left five adult civilians and four children dead. It was the insurgents that made them do it, right?
These murderous buggers better realize that they can’t claim it was the insurgents, real or imagined, that made them call down two, massive aerial bombs on a house. No, that decision, and the death of the innocents that inevitably resulted from it, lies directly with the American forces who called in the airstrike.
This was nothing short of butchery. The fact is they didn’t give a damn how many people they killed, insurgents or innocents, in that airstrike. Those lives meant nothing, absolutely nothing, to those involved in these homicides. These people do not deserve our support, much less the sacrifice of the lives of our own soldiers. If they want to slaughter civilians, they don’t need our help.
March 6, 2007
Doctors have discovered a blood clot in Dick Cheney’s leg. It’s the sort that could be fatal if left untreated. No word yet on whether the doctors have decided he’s worth saving.
March 6, 2007
We are, Numero Uno and all that but there were a lot of duds in the competition.
Canada came out tops in a BBC survey asking respondents to rate 12-countries – Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela – as having a positive or negative influence in the world. The broadcaster surveyed 28,000 people to come up with its results.
Bottom slot went to Israel then Iran and the US.
Canada topped the list followed by Japan and France. Britain, China and India were also viewed somewhat positively.
“‘It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the pursuit of military power,” said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the research along with pollster GlobeScan.
“Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like France and Japan and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively,” he added.
“Pollsters questioned about 1,000 people in 27 different countries, including the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Mexico and Australia; as well as four predominantly Muslim countries: Egypt, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia; and two countries with large Muslim populations: Lebanon and Nigeria.”
Maybe somebody should tell Harpo that we don’t need to brandish a lot of guns, Canada is already pretty well respected without them.
March 5, 2007
Tanks and artillery and jet fighters are great – when you’re fighting someone else’s tanks and artillery and jet fighters. In tackling an insurgency, however, relying on mega-firepower actually increases your already high chances of failure.
There’s a new study out making this very point. From the Washington Post:
“Two political scientists recently examined 250 asymmetrical conflicts, starting with the Peninsular War. Although great powers are vastly more powerful today than in the 19th century, the analysis showed they have become far less likely to win asymmetrical wars. More surprising, the analysis showed that the odds of a powerful nation winning an asymmetrical war decrease as that nation becomes more powerful.
“The analysis by Jason Lyall at Princeton University and Lt. Col. Isaiah Wilson III at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point shows that the likelihood of a great power winning an asymmetrical war went from 85 percent during 1800-1850 to 21 percent during 1950-2003.
“The same trend was evident when the researchers studied only asymmetrical conflicts involving the United States. The more industrialized a powerful country becomes, the more its military becomes technologically powerful, the less effective it seems to be in an asymmetrical war.
“Essentially, what Lyall and Wilson are saying is that if you want to catch a mouse, you need a cat. If you hire a lion to do the job because it is bigger and stronger, the very strength and size of the lion can get in the way of getting the job done.”
“While the findings are of immediate interest because of the situation in Iraq, the social scientists are really trying to address a systemic issue: America has gotten stuck in the Hollywood notion that a military with ever more powerful armaments is a more effective military.
“Reversing that view will be difficult because it calls into question the utility of giant defense projects, Lyall said. Also, the findings lend credence to the politically unpopular notion that successfully prosecuting an asymmetrical war, such as the one in Iraq, requires a large fighting force and, possibly, high casualties as troops asked to blend in with local populations become vulnerable targets for insurgents.”
The Lyall and Wilson analysis is useful if only for restating a reality that’s been heard repeatedly before – by everyone, it seems, except our political and military leaders. The most important weapon in fighting an insurgency is a massive number of boots on the ground – not tanks, or fighter jets or artillery – but enough soldiers to actually secure the countryside. So long as the insurgents can come and go relatively unmolested, they’re almost guaranteed to win.
You can’t control, you can’t secure a territory the size and nature of Kandahar province with a battle group of 1,000 soldiers. It can’t be done. That’s why we wind up calling in air strikes and artillery on civilians, unnecessarily handing a tactical victory to our enemies. That’s why we wind up dependent upon corrupt, local security forces whose main contribution seems to be to drive the population into the arms of our enemy.
The latest American manual on counter-insurgency warfare says we need 25-soldiers for every 1,000 locals, living where they live, keeping them safe from the insurgents day and night. In Kandahar province we need a force of 22,000 minimum. Oh well, only 21,000 left to go, eh?
March 5, 2007
Taken from American Fascists.
Chris Hedges on Creationism:
“The danger of creationism is not that it allows followers to retreat into a world of certainty and magic – which it does – but that it allows all facts to be accepted or discarded according to the dictates of a preordained ideology. Creationism removes the follower from the rational, reality based world. Signs, miracles, and wonders occur not only in the daily life of Christians, but also in history, science, medicine and logic. This belief system becomes the basis for understanding the world, and random facts or data are collected and made to fit into the belief system. If facts can’t be made to fit, they are discarded or treated as misguided opinions.
“When facts are treated as if they were opinions, when there is no universal standard by which to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship or in the reporting of the events of the day, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe, where there is no possibility of reaching any conclusion not predetermined by those who interpret the official, divinely inspired text.”
March 5, 2007
Let’s see:
1. We’re in Afghanistan because another bunch of foreigners, al-Qaeda, used the place to train and prepare for the attacks of 9/11. America was attacked and NATO responded.
2. We’re still in Afghanistan almost six years later because the country we’re supporting under the NATO charter chose to go off on a lark of its own in another country, Iraq.
3 We’re still in Afghanistan because the bulk of the ground forces the US has deployed in the region are stuck in Iraq and can’t be sent to Afghanistan.
4. Now, America is toying with the idea of taking on another Muslim state, Iran.
5. An American attack on Iran could unite the Muslim people, within Iran and throughout the rest of the world of Islam, whether Shia or Sunni, and bring them to see our efforts as part of a genuine crusade against Islam.
6. NATO forces in Afghanistan are stuck smack in the midst of the Muslim world, surrounded by worrisome countries like Pakistan and – oh my, Iran.
We already have an unmanageable front to our south and east, the border with Pakistan. American airstrikes on Iran would open another front, this time to the west.
Now, our forces on “the mission” are already overstretched. What lies in store for them if the White House brings a new bunch of problems in from the west, from Iran?
I think our leaders, Harpo included, need to demand unequivocal assurances from the Bush regime that it won’t attack Iran so long as our own people are in harm’s way in neighbouring Afghanistan. We’re already paying the price for their Iraq adventure. We don’t need to fight Iranians also.
March 5, 2007
Why, oh why, can’t they figure this one out.
Trigger happy US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan are going on a spree killing civilians. You could also say they’re on a massive recruiting drive – for the Taliban.
Yesterday following a suicide bomber attack, American troops opened fire on a group of civilians, mowing down 16 of them. The US military admits that after first claiming they victims were likely killed by insurgent gunfire.
Today – well today they’re killing kids. The way the US military spokesman puts it, they spotted two guys with guns going into a house so they called in an airstrike on the place.
They called in massive firepower on a residence without knowing who was inside because they “saw” or thought they saw a couple of men with guns in a country where people just tend to have guns.
The airstrike killed 5 adults and 4 children between the ages of 6-months and 5-years.
The US military admits the aircraft dropped two, TWO THOUSAND POUND BOMBS, on the residence. What in God’s name is anyone thinking when dropping two, one-ton bombs in a residential area? These are “area weapons.” They kill everyone – innocent or suspect – within their huge blast area.
If this is the way we – and our allies – are going to conduct this war, it’s time we got out because we have lost the moral high ground we like to boast about so much. This isn’t warfare, it’s butchery. Gunning down civilians in the street, blowing up kids in their homes. If those were our townspeople lying dead in the street and our kids’ corpses in the rubble of their home, how do you think we would react?
We all have to share some part of this. Our leaders are determined to wage this war on the cheap. We don’t have a fraction of the troops needed for this job. That both increases their vulnerability and limits their options when they do fight back. We’re using the indiscriminate overkill of aerial bombardment because it’s comparatively cheap and we don’t care enough about these civilians to do this job properly.
Remember, this is a war for the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan people. What goes through those hearts and minds when word of these atrocities gets out, and it quickly does? Is this a preview of how we’re going to fight the Taliban’s spring offensive this year, by waging our war against insurgent and civilian alike?
Just in case you’re curious, here’s some information on the Mk. 84, 2000-pound bomb used on this house:
The Mk. 84 (pictured above) carries 945 lb of Tritonal, high explosive. It is capable of forming a crater 50-feet wide and 36-feet deep. It generates lethal fragmentation to a radius of 400-yards.
Let’s do the math. Anything standing within a 2,400 foot diameter circle of this bomb can be killed. A 50-foot wide crater, 36-feet deep is pretty much going to obliterate a mud house and everyone inside. Now, try dropping two of these.
March 3, 2007
A Commons committee has urged the government to force a substantial reduction in emissions by the oil companies operating in the Athabasca Tar Sands. From the Toronto Star:
“The regulations should also ensure that future oil sands expansion is done in a way that does not “jeopardize” Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto climate change accord, says the yet-to-be released report of the natural resources committee, obtained by the Star.
“‘The mounting environmental and social costs associated with oil sands activities … make it increasingly clear that it would be irresponsible to continue on a `business-as-usual’ course. It is time to being the transition toward a clean energy future,’ says the report, dated Feb. 28 and marked “Confidential.”
“The report says by harnessing new technologies, such as pumping carbon dioxide underground, and by buying credits from companies that have already reduced their emissions more than required, the oil sands could have net emissions of zero within the next 12 years.
“The report was to have been tabled in the Commons this week, but was delayed.
“Because MPs yesterday began a two-week break, the report now is at risk of not being tabled until after the Tories have announced emission-reduction targets for the largest industrial polluters, which include the oil sands.”
The recommendations won’t go down well with Harpo who wants to avoid significant GHG emission reductions by opting for the ruse known as “intensity-based” targets. Once again aping his mentor, George Bush, Harpo is content to keep rolling the dice even though they’re loaded against the country and the planet.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
The Mound of Sound 