Afghanistan: What's wrong with this picture?

Take a look at all of those US flags - up against Pakistan's border.

Yes, that's right. While Robert Gates and Condi Rice (who just arrived in Afghanistan for a surprise visit) have both been threatening the demise of NATO if Afghanistan becomes a "failed state" by not having other countries sending in more combat troops because they won't be bullied into it, US troops are busy fighting along the Pakistani border because their useless commander-in-chief has been busy propping up Pervez Musharraf to the tune of $10 billion the past few years. And what, exactly, has he gotten in return?

Musharraf, who has been protecting the notorious AQ Khan from international scrutiny, is now reportedly relaxing Khan's house arrest rules. The Bush administration has forgiven Musharraf every step of the way for his refusal to take control of Waziristan and if you're wondering why the US military won't commit more troops to Kandahar, where our Canadian troops are dying, it's probably because they'll be too busy training Pakistan's army.

Michael Vickers, assistant defense secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict, said training sites are being chosen for a five-year program to train and equip the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary unit, to confront al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region.

"That is just getting under way," he told reporters at a briefing. "There may be other training assistance as well, subject to continuing discussions with the Pakistanis."

The training is part of a new $750 million U.S. development effort to make Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) less hospitable for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Washington has given Pakistan $10 billion, mainly in military aid, since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

As usual, this is too little way too late considering the situation in Afghanistan. But, both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been planned for on the fly at the behest of Donald Rumsfeld:

As the United States prepared to respond to the attacks of September 11, Rumsfeld pushed a reluctant military to think unconventionally about going to war in Afghanistan. Dissatisfied with the plan for a large-scale invasion that he received from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Rumsfeld turned to the Pentagon's Special Operations forces.

"He is willing to start military operations in Afghanistan before most of the military thinks that we're ready to do so. And [a] small number of special forces soldiers combined with CIA support for indigenous Afghan resistance forces brings about spectacular results," Krepinevich says.

When the president's attention turned towards Iraq, Rumsfeld pushed his war planners to think outside the box. Emboldened by his success in Afghanistan, the secretary once again pushed aside Pentagon critics and demanded an unconventional war plan.

"Rumsfeld thinks you can re-invent [the] war plan," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward tells FRONTLINE, "And anything that smacks of the old way or something that looks conventional to him, he asks questions about. Doesn't necessarily oppose it, but will ask questions about it, and is looking to make this quicker, with less force and with less casualties."

So, if the Afghanistan war is lost, it certainly isn't NATO's fault. And, just how much of a difference will 1,000 more soldiers make?

This is all on the Bush administration and no amount of guilt-tripping by Gates and Rice at this point is going to change that.

“I do think the alliance is facing a test here,” Ms. Rice said in a visit to London. “Populations have to understand that this is not just a peacekeeping fight.”

Can she possibly be any more condescending?

In Canada, as expected, the Conservative government will table a motion on Thursday for parliament to consider Canada's future role in Afghanistan beyond February, 2009. Stephane Dion said this week the debate will be "civil". Just how do you debate civilly with a bullying government armed with Bush talking-points and insults that any opposing opinion equals siding with the Taliban? While Dion hopes to play chess with Harper - hoping he'll accept a non-combat role extension - "The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have said flatly that they will vote against any extension of the mission."

As I wrote here last week, there's much more to this debate than whether or not the troops will continue fighting. There's an economic component that's important to both the Conservatives and Liberals in terms of US/Canada relations and I believe that's what's fueling the Harper/Dion meetings this week ie. how to stay on the so-called good side of the US without getting dinged financially.

But that's not what the general public will hear about in this upcoming "debate". It will be all about NATO's credibility and the idea that Canada is responsible for saving it.

Somehow, the Afghanistan people have been forgotten in all of this.

Related:

The war that can bring neither peace nor freedom; The crisis of the Afghan occupation is a reminder of its fraudulent claims, growing cost in blood, and certainty of failure

Pakistani News Channel Goes Off Air

Intrigue takes Afghanistan to the brink
 

Robert Fisk on Canada's 'Illusionist' Defence Minister

Fisk nails it, as usual:

Hands up those readers who know that Canada's Defence Minister, Gordon O'Connor, actually sent a letter to Rumsfeld two days before his departure in disgrace from the Pentagon, praising this disreputable man's "leadership". Yes, O'Connor wanted "to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your many achievements (sic) as Secretary of Defence, and to recognise the significant contribution you have made in the fight against terrorism". The world, gushed the ridiculous O'Connor, had benefited from Rumsfeld's "leadership in addressing the complex issues in play".

O'Connor tried to shrug off this grovelling note, acquired through the Canadian Access to Information Act, by claiming he merely wanted to thank Rumsfeld for the use of US medical facilities in Germany to ferry wounded Canadian soldiers home from Afghanistan. But he made no mention of this in his preposterous letter. O'Connor, it seems, is just another of the world's illusionists who believe they can ignore the facts - and laud fools - by stating the opposite of the truth. Bush, of course, is among the worst of these meretricious creatures. So is the late Tony Blair.

'Will Turkey Invade Northern Iraq?'

That's the question asked by AP reporter Christopher Torchia in this article and according to the Times Online, the Turkish prime minister hasn't ruled it out.

This past Sunday, the New York Times editorial The Road Home (which finally called for troop withdrawals from Iraq - a very hollow and far too tardy appeal from a newspaper that published Bush's Iraq war propaganda as it if was factual) included this suggestion:

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

That's not going to happen if the Turkish government continues to feel betrayed by the US and threatened by PKK militants in northern Iraq. So, while the NYT editors seem to think that Turkey isn't shouldering any of the burden, they refuse to even acknowledge the current reality on the border.

On Monday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Turkish television that Turkey would take whatever steps were necessary if the United States fails to fulfill its pledge to help in the fight against Kurdish rebels, but he appeared reluctant to order an invasion before the elections.

"We are seeing with great grief that America remains quiet as Turkey struggles against terrorism. Because there were promises given to us, and they need to be kept. If not, we can take care of our own business," Erdogan said. "We hope there won't be an extraordinary situation before the election. But there'll be a new evaluation after the elections."

Flashback to this 2005 story and you don't exactly have to wonder why the relationship between the US government and Turkey is on very shaky ground:

US blames Turkey for Iraq chaos
March 22, 2005

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has blamed the inability to gain permission to invade Iraq through Turkey for the power of the insurgency that the US now faces.
[...]
Asked on Sunday what he considered to be the greatest mistake of the war, Mr Rumsfeld told ABC: "Had we been successful in getting the 4th Infantry Division to come in through Turkey ... I believe that a considerably smaller number of the Baathists and the regime elements would have escaped.

"And as a result the insurgency would have been at a lesser intensity than it is today."

Typical Rumsfeld: blaming everybody else for his own incompetence.

So now we have the NYT wagging its finger at Turkey, telling it that it's for its own good to help the Bush administration get the hell out of Iraq when, all along, Bushco has either ignored Turkey's pleas for help and/or blamed that country for the mistakes made by the "flowers and candy" neocons.

So, tell me again how the NYT has changed its stripes from being a Bushco propaganda mouthpiece?

And, if you want a picture of the possible effects of a Turkish invasion, read this. The stakes are high for all involved and this is a front that the US military is not prepared to deal with, as the article states. Meanwhile, the only thing the Pentagon seems to want to do is play the numbers denial game about how many Turkish troops are actually on the border. Fat lot of good that does. The Pentagon denies every initial war report about anything that might be Bad News™ propped up by the state department's spokespuppet who has offered absolutely nothing about how to deal with a possible incursion. Useless, as usual.

The US has a "Special Envoy for Countering the PKK", retired Air Force General Joseph Ralston, appointed in 2006 and whom the authors of this Harper's article wonder aloud about his seeming lobbying on behalf of Lockheed Martin to the Turkish government.

As a former supreme allied commander for NATO and vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he would appear overqualified for the job.

Then came the mid-September announcement (just weeks after Ralston's appointment) that Turkey would be purchasing thirty new F-16's from Lockheed Martin. Weeks later, the Turkish government ruled out purchasing any Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes. This leaves only one option—Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A deal between Lockheed and Turkey would be worth as much as $10 billion.

Did Special Envoy Ralston lobby on behalf of Lockheed Martin during his encounters with Turkish officials? It seems likely. Ralston sits on the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin and serves as vice chairman of The Cohen Group, a lobbying firm that has represented Lockheed since 2004. On August 11 of this year, seventeen days before he was named Special Envoy, Ralston was appointed to The Cohen Group team that lobbies for Lockheed.

So, just how effective is Ralston when it comes to actually advising Turkey if his main function seems to be enabling US war profiteers? It appears that his "special envoy" status doesn't have much to do with what his mission is supposed to be - unless Turkey plans to use those Lockheed Martin planes to attack the PKK within Iraq. Who knows? I guess we'll have to wait until after the Turkish elections to find out what's going to happen.

As for the NYT, which is still shilling for Bushco on the Iran invasion front thanks to several columns by Michael Gordon - a willing leftover from the Iraq war propaganda days - it will take more than one sorry "we support Iraq withdrawal now" editorial to restore its seriously damaged credibility. If its editors couldn't even research the Turkish situation to the extent that they would have had to conclude that Turkey's government isn't in any mood right now to facilitate the withdrawal, their suggestions for such a strategy certainly can't be taken all that seriously and they obviously need to learn how to use Google instead of relying on whoever is whispering administration rhetoric in their ears.
 

From the 'Quel Surprise' File

Via USA Today:

The Homeland Security Department and the military this summer will test whether drones flying 65,000 feet above the nation's busiest airports could be used to protect planes from being shot down by terrorists with shoulder-fired missiles.

Dubbed "Project Chloe" after a character on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's favorite TV show, 24, the anti-missile strategy is the latest to be explored by government leaders looking to thwart potential missile threats at commercial airports. Other methods are being considered, but Homeland Security officials say they may be too costly or impractical.

I hear Donald Rumsfeld and soon-to-be-disappeared-from-Washington Alberto Gonzales are vying for the roles of CTU torturers next season...