Canadian military - read this article

Every member of the Canadian military should read William S. Lind's article, Aaugh!. Here's the gist of it:

At present, the bombing is largely tied to the latest Somme-like “Big Push,” Operation Mountain Thrust, in which more than 10,000 U.S.-led troops are trying another failed approach to guerrilla war, the sweep. I have no doubt it would break the Mullah Omar Line, if it existed, which it doesn’t . . . Should be in Berlin by September, old chap.
Of course, all this is accompanied by claims of many dead Taliban, who are conveniently interchangeable with dead locals who weren’t Taliban . . .
Icing this particular cake is a strategic misconception of the nature of the Afghan war that only American generals could swallow . . . the power of the U.S.-created Afghan government is receding, not growing, and the Taliban’s “window” only closes when Christ comes again.
Aaugh! The last time a nation’s civilian and military leadership was this incapable of learning from experience was under the Ching Dynasty.
Perhaps it’s time to offer a short refresher course in Guerrilla War 101:
Air power works against you, not for you. It kills lots of people who weren’t your enemy, recruiting their relatives, friends and fellow tribesmen to become your enemies. In this kind of war, bombers are as useful as 42 cm. siege mortars.
Big, noisy, offensives, launched with lots of warning, achieve nothing. The enemy just goes to ground while you pass on through, and he’s still there when you leave. Big Pushes are the opposite of the “ink blot” strategy, which is the only thing that works, when anything can.
Putting the Big Push together with lots of bombing in Afghanistan’s Pashtun country means we end up fighting most if not all of the Pashtun. In Afghan wars, the Pashtun always win in the end.
Quisling governments fail because they cannot achieve legitimacy.
You need closure, but your guerilla enemy doesn’t. He not only can fight until Doomsday, he intends to do just that—if not you, then someone else.
The bigger the operations you have to undertake, the more surely your enemy is winning.

This article comes via Billmon.

Great line of the day

Via Digby, we find Gene Lyon's latest column:

. . . As history, this cut-and-run business is nonsense. It wasn’t Democrats who made peace in Korea. It was President Dwight Eisenhower. Democrats didn’t dispatch Henry Kissinger to whisper to China in 1972 that the U. S. could live with a communist Vietnam. President Richard Nixon did. He began the long, bloody retreat that ended with the North Vietnamese taking Saigon under President Gerald Ford.
Maybe the oddest thing about the legacy of Vietnam is that the worst thing that could happen, from a rightwing perspective, did happen. The U. S. lost the war. Communists conquered much of Southeast Asia. And the effect on national security ? Well, we got lots of good Vietnamese restaurants out of it. Otherwise, none.
The communists soon fell to fighting among themselves, with Vietnam invading Cambodia, China attacking Vietnam, and the Chinese and Soviet Russians entangled in a blood feud. Next, Russia invaded Afghanistan. Domestic fallout from that bloody fiasco helped cause the collapse of the U. S. S. R. and the demise of communism almost everywhere—also because nobody but a few crackpot professors in the West believed in it anymore.
Exactly why so many like Rove, Bush and Cheney, who avoided Vietnam, subsequently metamorphosed into countryclub Napoleons is mysterious. Personal psychodrama appears to be involved . . .

Emphasis mine.

"You forget who's got the knife"

Years ago, my husband and some co-workers were at one of those Japanese chef restaurants. One of my husband's co-workers was trying to be funny by insulting the chef, whom he saw as just a glorifed waiter, really. The chef put up with it for a while -- good sport, hahaha, and all that -- but finally he had had enough. The jokes ended when he said, pleasantly but meaningfully, "You forget who's got the knife!"
The professional Kewl Kid pundits in Washington are feeling the cold breath of irrelevance on their necks, given the success of Yearly Kos and all the attention now being paid to Markos and Jerome Armstrong and Jane Hamsher and Crashing the Gate.
So now they're trying to slap down the bloggers -- for example, the smear jobs on The New Republic yesterday and on Instapundit today.
But Atrios dishes it right back at them in a subtle post which sends a pretty direct message to the Kewl Kids -- and the message is, we know you better than you know us, so back off before we start spilling the beans on you:

. . . Generally, "political strategists" are quoted all of the time in the media, or have spots on cable news, and miraculously they never seem to have any clients. Or, more to the point, we are never told who their clients are. Perhaps they just stand on a soap box on the corner and announce their strategy to Washington pedestrians. Still, one assumes that they do have clients and that what they say is indirectly or directly motivated by that . . .

And he didn't make any jokes this time about blogger ethics panels.

The Bush Plan for Iraq

1. Declare victory.
2. Leave.
Simple, huh? Why didn't they think of this before?

Today's pop quiz

1. What does the National Rifle Association think of the United Nations?
Answer: Those blasted @#$%&*

2. What does the United Nations think about the National Rifle Association?
Answer: Just what IS this "National Rifle Association"of which you speak?

Great line of the day

At Rising Hegemon, Attaturk asks Who the fuck is this monster in the White House?

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be . . . Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." . . . "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.

They tortured an insane person to make George W. Bush look good. Good luck explaining that one to Jesus, Dubya!

Emphasis mine.

Funny, funny

Isn't it fun finding great blogs?
Of course, I hope you return to this one, but I would understand if you couldn't because you were laughing too hard.
Cynic flagged one the other day that I love - Chase me, ladies, I'm in the cavalry - and here another -- Whatever It Is, I'm Against It. Sample:

Speaking of monkey gods, George Bush is visiting Austria for the very first time. He keeps looking for kangaroos. He had a press conference with his good friend, Austrian Chancellor Schüssel (“I call him Wolfgang, he calls me George W.”). Near as I can figure it, Bush was in Europe to send messages to non-Europeans. He told Iran, which says it will respond to the nuclear proposal by August 22: “It seems like an awful long time for a reasonable answer -- for a reasonable proposal, a long time for an answer.” Yeah, George, like you’re such a fast reader. He told North Korea it should “not fire whatever it is on their missile.” Kimchee? Bush was shocked and offended to hear that Europeans consider the US the biggest threat to global stability. “Absurd” he called it, chuckling. “It’s a -- we’re a transparent democracy. People know exactly what’s on our mind.” And you don’t see any correlation between people knowing what’s on your mind and them considering you a threat to global stability, George? He added, “For Europe, September the 11th was a moment; for us, it was a change of thinking.” And, let’s face it, a change of underwear.

"It's not happening here but it's happening now"

Today in Iraq links to this site, Roads to Iraq, which describes a new Amnesty International advertising campaign in Europe. They are using transparent bus-stop ads with the tagline "It's not happening here, but it's happening now" and here are some of the startling images:

Lie and die

Yes, that just about sums up the Republican policy for Iraq these days.

Great line of the day

Steve Gilliard writes the truth about America in Iraq:

Bush thinks that he can stay in Iraq until we win. We are not going to win . . . Our president's illness, his need to beat his father, is driving this war more than any other factor, and it is getting worse. We are facing a question of character here, one where we descend into the typical brutality of a colonial war, or of the Eastern Front, only to lose in the end. Are we going to hang Iraqis in town squares and burn their villages, murder whole families to keep the weak government in power? As if the resistance will react passively.
They mutliated, read as castrated, the soldiers they caught, then cut off their heads and then booby trapped the bodies. A horrible way to die.
Those who say we must now stay in Iraq are fools. People debating amnesty are wasting their time. An amnesty from a government which has no power means nothing.
Iraq will have a civil war, kill many, many people and the hard men with guns will win. We can never be as savage as people fighting an invader of their home. It is useless to even contemplate that.

Emphasis mine.

Good news

The Episcopalians will continue to support gay bishops.
As I reported on last month, the whole basis of the anti-gay movement in the Anglican Church is not relgious but political; just a few ultra-conservatives want to twist the Anglican Church toward the Religious Right's political agenda, so that everyone will dance to their tune:

Millions of dollars contributed by a handful of donors have allowed a small network of theologically conservative individuals and organizations to mount a global campaign that has destabilized the Episcopal Church and may break up the Anglican Communion.

Well, the Episcopalians would not be bullied.

Episcopal degates snubbed Anglican leaders' request that they temporarily stop electing openly gay bishops . . . a majority of deputies voted against a measure that would have urged dioceses to refrain from electing gay bishops . . . the Rev. Susan Russell of Integrity, the Episcopal gay and lesbian caucus, said she feels proud that the church is willing to affirm its commitment to fight injustice. "The vote says we're not willing to make sacrificial lambs of our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers, and that has to leave me feeling pretty grateful and very proud," she said.

Oh, and the Presbyterians have done the right thing, too:

The critical vote in the Episcopal Church occurred on a day when another Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), decided at a session in Birmingham to allow gay clergy, lay elders and deacons to work with local congregations.

I think the churches are finding out that, as that religious philosopher John Lennon once said, all you need is love.

Loney speaks out

Sometimes what an organization doesn't say is more revealing than what it does say.
People will call James Loney paranoid when he accuses the Knights of Columbus of shutting down a youth leadership camp where he worked rather than employ an openly gay man.
And yes, it could sound plausible to explain, as this story postulates, that maybe liability concerns are actually to blame for the closure.
But the tip-off is this -- the liability-cost explanation did not come from the Knights of Columbus themselves.
They actually won't say very clearly at all why they suddenly decided to close the camp when its funding was in place and applications from campers were being accepted.
So, no, I don't think Loney is paranoid.
I think he is probably right.

"Goodwill and generosity"

Harper gets it --"Canada's diversity, properly nurtured, is our greatest strength" he said at the opening of the UN World Urban Forum.
Exactly.
I was thrilled to hear him say this. Harper didn't take the political path, one which seems to be particularly easy for conservatives, and particularly easy for Bush-bots, of blaming immigration for social problems, amplifying fear and divisiveness, pandering to people who want to slam the door and keep out everyone black, brown or yellow.
Instead, Harper has turned the terrorist arrests into an opportunity to lead Canada toward a broader vision -- perhaps also recognizing that some of the members of his own party are most in need of this leadership:

Some commentators have blamed Canada's open, multicultural society for spawning the alleged terrorist network, Mr. Harper added. "They have said it makes us a more vulnerable target for terrorist activity." But rather than shutting out those from other countries with different ethnic backgrounds and religions, Canada should maintain its long-standing, open-door policy, he said.
"It is true that somewhere, in some communities, we will find . . . apostles of terror, who use the symbols of culture and faith to justify crimes of violence . . . the terrorists and their vision will be rejected "by men and women of good will and generosity in all communities," Mr. Harper affirmed to loud applause.

A great speech -- and, perhaps for the first time, I can be proud that the man who made it is Canada's prime minister.

Today's pop quiz

1. Is the Iraq insurgency treating captured American soldiers with same respect that American soldiers have shown to Iraqi prisoners?
2. How is this going to end?

Afghanistan writings

James Wolcott quotes from a couple of good articles about Afghanistan and what it means to the United States -- and to us, too, of course.
First, a July, 2006 article by Stewart Nusbaumer "Unfinished Business" at the American Conservative magazine:

. . . in Afghanistan and Iraq the Bush administration was clueless about the wars it faced, declaring victory before the real wars began. The neocons wrote a silly script that had Afghans and Iraqis pulverized by our hi-tech war machine and quickly capitulating, as if the Vietnam debacle never happened, as if the world's guerrilla fighters never learned how to stymie and slowly bleed the world's premier conventional military.

Then a flashback to what Ted Rall wrote in December, 2001:

'It would take billions of dollars to even begin rebuilding this country,' an American officer who refused to give his name noted while his driver worked on a flat tire. 'Billions of dollars and many, many years. We don't have that kind of attention span. Bombing Iraq will be a lot sexier than teaching Afghans how to read.'
And so we've lost this war, not because they're good or we're not, but because of who we are. The American Empire can't spend the bodies or the time or the cash to fix this crazyass place, because in the final analysis, election-year W. was right—we're not nation builders. Guys who once called themselves Talibs switch to something called the Northern Alliance, and we call this a victory. We know it isn't so, but like Nixon's peace with honor, it'll have to do.
Both the Russians and the English lost everything to Afghanistan, but it doesn't have to end that way for us. After all, the same thing happened to us in Vietnam, our first Afghanistan, but we survived it. True, our economy was never the same. Undeniably, it replaced an American Century with postmodern alienation and ironic detachment. But if those estimates are correct and this war is costing a mere billion bucks a month, we ought to tally our dead, write up our losses, and count ourselves lucky to still be called a superpower.

At the end, Wolcott notes "Five years later, our luck may have run out."