'Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told'

While the Canadian focus on NATO today has been the release of Manley's report on the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan, a startling news story about the coalition was overshadowed by that long-awaited development and the state of the unstable global financial markets.

This is alarming:

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.

'Radical' is right.

Just look at those code words: "pre-emptive", "imminent", "weapons of mass destruction".

Ring any bells?

And who came up with this dangerous extension of the Bush Doctrine and the Pentagon's 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (which it later decided to 'cancel' after being outed)?

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".

I guess we should be thankful that Canadians weren't part of that decision (that we know of), although I'm sure the minority Conservative government wouldn't have a problem supporting this call.

The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.

That's when we'll find out whether or not Canada's government supports this stance.

Considering how the Bush cabal managed to manipulate the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's Iraq to justify to the world that pre-emptive war was necessary and looking at the nightmarish fallout from that ideological decision to attack regardless of doubts in the intelligence community, one would think that the world would wisely step back from the notion of pre-emption and that the idea of striking with the most fierce weapons of all - nuclear - would cause more rational heads to prevail. Obviously not.

These are the identified threats:

The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

Environmental migration on a mass scale? The only mass migration I've seen lately is in war-torn areas like Afghanistan and Iraq where people are fleeing for their lives thanks to the west's 'interventions'. Are they expecting hordes of Africans to suddenly realize that their devastating climate problems which have plagued them for centuries, will result in boatloads of people suddenly leaving for the United States? If NATO is concerned about immigration/emigration issues, I can't for the life of me see how that has something to do with choosing pre-emptive nuclear strikes as a solution or why it has obviously been so over-inflated as presenting some sort of imminent threat.

And how would this new, nuclear pre-emption program work within NATO?

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

So, this is really a power-play to diminish the power of the EU, providing punishment for NATO countries who refuse to go along with what the big dogs want. Whatever happened to sovereignty and democracy? And, it smacks of exactly the same approach Bush took with the UN - snub the organization and move unilaterally, no matter what legitimate concerns there are or what international law may allow.

Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.

Meet the new Cold War, as orchestrated by George W Bush.

We've been told for months on end that if NATO didn't succeed in Afghanistan, its credibility was on the line - a perspective I certainly don't agree with since success in Afghanistan by any military force, as we've seen throughout Afghanistan's history, is practically impossible. NATO and military leaders have repeatedly said there must be a political solution while continuing to outspend on the military aspect over redevelopment at obscene levels, allowing the Taliban and warlords to retain control in key areas of the country while corruption and opium production runs rampant. How does NATO expect to 'win' anything in Afghanistan under those conditions? And why is is willing to destroy itself over such unrealistic expectations?

Now, these experts have ratcheted up the ante with the focus being on the ultimate military solution: the use of first-strike nuclear weapons. NATO may need reforms, but such an extreme doctrine that only seeks to encourage widespread fear, destruction and division is not the answer. Perhaps these men have fond memories of the effects of Fat Man and Little Boy. Millions of others do not.

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, science for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
-- Albert Einstein

Video: The SC Democratic Debate - Obama vs Clinton

If you missed the debate in South Carolina on Monday nite, here's a clip of one of the feisty exchanges between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It seemed like at any moment the tension would bring on, 'Jane, you ignorant slut' and 'Dan, you pompous ass'. Popcorn Moments™ abounded and a rough time was had by all.



You can read the transcript here (but watching it was much more fun.)
 

It's the New & Improved Hip Mitt

Via the FAUX News blog (and don't forget to watch the video):

Governor Romney paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. when speaking to a group of employees at Gate Petroleum today and then shook hands and posed for photos with African-American families at a parade.

The presidential hopeful met a friendly crowd at the Martin Luther King, Jr. parade here. The former Massachusetts governor often runs back and forth across streets during parades to greet people and today was no exception. He shook hands with ROTC members, tiny beauty queens, police officers and many parade-goers, including children screaming his name. He jumped off the Mitt Mobile to greet a waiting crowd, took a picture with some kids and young adults and awkwardly quipped, ”Who let the dogs out? Who who.” [If you watch the video, you'll notice he said that surrounded by a group of black women - ouch. -catnip]

He took pictures with many in the crowd and greeted one baby wearing a necklace saying, “Hey buddy! How’s it going? What’s happening? You got some bling bling here!”

[insert cringe here]

Not everyone was hip to the new Mitt though:

Romney even received some hugs, but some Obama supporters held up signs and one woman yelled, “Mitt Romney go home. You are holding up the parade!” Once the parade did start Romney hopped back on the Mitt Mobile and headed to his next stop.

Where I'm sure he'll entertain the crowds with his new-found love of break dancing while he eats grits. Word.
 

Israeli Ministers Want Nasrallah Assassinated

Peace in the Middle East? Not bloody likely.

Via Ha'aretz:

After Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Saturday that his organization is holding the remains of Israel Defense Forces soldiers killed in the Second Lebanon War, several government ministers on Sunday called for the militant chief's assassination.

"Nasrallah is a cruel and crazy man," said Minister Yitzhak Cohen (Shas), during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. "I don't understand why he is still breathing. We should have liquidated him a long time ago. I recommend the cabinet assassinate the man.

Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) echoed the sentiment, saying, "Nasrallah is a person who has crossed all lines of inhumanity. We don't need to negotiate with him, we need to destroy him."

Absorption Minister Ze'ev Boim called Nasrallah a "sewer rat," adding, "we must make sure he does not see the light of day."

That's what happens when the oppressed becomes the oppressors; when those who have been terrorized become merchants of terror.

"sewer rat"?

From The History Place:

The devastating Nazi propaganda film 'The Eternal Jew' went so far as to compared [sic] Jews to plague carrying rats, a foreshadow of things to come.

Do they really have such short memories?

And does the idea of Nasrallah negotiating with body parts disturb you?

Well, read this:

JERUSALEM -- Israeli troops are collecting bodies of Hezbollah fighters killed in Lebanon and storing them in refrigerated containers in Israel, the army said Wednesday.

Israel used the bodies of Hezbollah fighters as a bargaining chip in a previous prisoner swap with the Lebanese guerrilla group, and security officials said bodies were being collected for the same reason this time.

Absolutely gruesome.

So, when Israel does it, it's okay but If Hezbollah uses the same tactic (which has been successful in the past), Nazrallah should be assassinated and cabinet ministers who voice that are just told to simmer down by Ehud Barak (probably because he's got his hands full trying to kill more people in Gaza by denying them fuel)?

What kind of insanity is this?

Related:

More from Gaza: People are dying, Help us!

Update:

Barak: Gaza to get one-time fuel, medicine delivery

Lebanese Army Fires on Israeli Warplanes Over Southern City
 

Sunday Food for Thought: Non-violence

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Stockholm, Sweden, December 11, 1964.

Related:

Historians Fear MLK's Legacy Being Lost
 

Just One More Year and Bush Will be Gone

This is the headline in The Independent:

Just one more year! Good riddance to George W Bush

Funny, I don't recall seeing any similar headlines in America's newspapers today. Dog forbid the MSM should lose its access to the White House by making such a declaration - as if those relationships have yielded something more than outright lies the past 7 years as so-called 'reporters' just played stenographers to Bush's White House. Sure, the New York Times and the Washington Post broke some scandals along the way but they became scandalous when they and other corporate media outlets played a part in pimping the propaganda they so willingly published in the run up to the Iraq war - Judith Miller of the NYT being a prime example of why the MSM is no longer trusted. And Michael Gordon, Miller's sidekick during those infamous days (who is also a first class asshole), is now playing the same role when it comes to fearmongering about Iran.

But I digress...

The Independent's Rupert Cornwell, who wrote the pre-emptive obituary on Bush's presidency I noted above, ponders what the next president will have to clean up. Well, not so much 'what' as how they will be able to manage a country, economy, and government that has been torn apart at the seams by Bush and his nasty band of neocons. No small task and no-one is expecting things to change anytime soon (except all of those presidential candidates' supporters out there who so believe in all of this "change" speechifying that they actually think the next president will swoop into office like some kind of nouveau, political Superman™ to save America from itself their first day in office. Please people. Wake up.)

Anyway, those of us who have been alive during Bush's presidency know all too well what lies ahead and the reality is that it's going to take decades, most likely, to repair the political sewage that Bush and his warmongering, capitalist cronies have let fester in DC, America, and around the world. On top of the damage that has already been done, it is highly probable (100% guaranteed) that they're not done yet. They can create a lot of chaos in the time they have left. What do they care? Bush will ride off into the sunset in his truck on his faux Texas ranch (where perhaps he'll be attacked by another insurgent snack food) and Cheney will grab his guns and head out hunting (never to be heard from again - unless he manages to shoot yet another one of his friends in the face).

So, start the countdown. Head out now to buy that champagne (while you still have two nickles to rub together) and begin the celebratory planning because when January 20, 2009 rolls around, more than a few people are going to be partying like it's 1999 (or at least wishing it still was so they could wake up to discover that the Bush years were just one long, excruciating nightmare that never really happened).

Related:

Oliver Stone votes for 'Bush' project; Josh Brolin to play embattled president
 

Friday Fun: John Kerry's Answering Machine

Not safe for work:

Canada Places the US and Israel on Torture Watch List

Yes, I'm talking about Canada's Conservative government.

Via Reuters:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's foreign ministry has put the United States and Israel on a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured and also classifies some U.S. interrogation techniques as torture, according to a document obtained by Reuters on Thursday.

The revelation is likely to embarrass the minority Conservative government, which is a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel. Both nations denied they allowed torture in their jails.

The document -- part of a training course on torture awareness given to diplomats -- mentions the U.S. jail at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where a Canadian man [Omar Khadr] is being held.
[...]
"The training manual is not a policy document and does not reflect the views or policies of this government," he [Foreign Affairs minister Bernier] said.

The government mistakenly provided the document to Amnesty International Canada as part of a court case the rights organization has launched against Ottawa over the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan.

Well, this is bound to be interesting...
 

Gates Backtracks on NATO Criticism

Robert Gates is in hot water. Here's what he told the Los Angeles Times this week about NATO troops in Afghanistan:

"I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview.

Canada's government was quick to provide cover for Gates by trying to reassure Canadians that he wasn't talking about Canada's troops but his press secretary, in an attempt to backtrack, said this:

Mr. Gates "most certainly did not" finger Canada, Mr. Morrell said.

Mr. Morrell said Mr. Gates's view, that NATO members lack counterinsurgency training and combat effectiveness, was general and applied across the entire 26-member alliance, including, to some extent, the United States.

In other words, he reinforced Gates' criticism by including all allies and that does include Canada. Somehow, in the mind of the US defence department, that explanation makes everything better.

"The secretary never criticized any specific member of the alliance," Mr. Morrell added, although he declined to release a transcript of the interview with the Times.

Jason Motlag and Jim Lobe writing for the Asia Times offer a different perspective on the counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan:

Washington hopes that the additional troops will help both stabilize Afghanistan and shame its reluctant NATO allies into sending more troops to the same end. Of the 3,200 new troops, about 1,000 will be used for training the Afghan army, and the rest will be deployed to southern Afghanistan to fight the Taliban alongside British, Australian, Dutch and Canadian troops, who have taken record casualties during the past year.

Tainted record

Commandant General James Conway first pitched the plan last year after hostilities in Iraq's al-Anbar province in Iraq calmed down, saying marines on the ground there could either return home or "stay plugged into the fight" and head to Afghanistan.

Marines with a "more kinetic bent", Conway said, are needed to take the fight to the enemy.

But trend lines show that in an Afghan-style counter-insurgency, strength in numbers may not apply. In fact, successive troop buildups since the Taliban were ousted in late 2001 have been matched by a steady increase in insurgent-related violence.

Overall, attacks increased from nine in 2002 to 103 last year, according to the Rand Corporation, and some 300 foreign troops have died in the past two years.

While north and west of Afghanistan are today relatively safe, the Pashtun-dominated southern and eastern provinces are much worse. Six years on it's understood that the crucial window to inject development and win over disillusioned Pasthuns when the Taliban fled was diverted by the Iraq war. According to the Congressional Research Service, Washington has spent about US$3.4 billion a year on reconstruction, or less than half of what went to Iraq.

The aid that has trickled into Afghanistan has gone almost wholesale towards military expenditures. But the integrated "light footprint" strategy used so effectively to topple the Taliban, in which special forces on horseback and small ground units reinforced Northern Alliance irregulars, was replaced by blast-walled compounds and heavy armor vehicles.

Security efforts stood to receive a big shot in the arm from the US Congress' latest military spending package, which exceeded $10 billion - a massive upgrade from years past. Yet about 80% of the total was earmarked for military purposes versus just 20% for reconstruction. This makes little sense in an agrarian country where infrastructure has been shattered by 30 years of war.

So, who's really responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan? That answer seems obvious.

And, will the infusion of 3,200 US marines save the day? Don't count on it.

Today these four basic principals of counter-insurgency, based on army and marine doctrine, are taught to Afghan security forces at the Afghanistan Counter-insurgency Academy in Kabul. However, it is the marines themselves who have courted controversy in the country for being too heavy-handed.

Last March, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, the former top US commander, expelled a marine special operations company after their convoy was ambushed and they went on a "rampage" in Nangarhar province that left 12 civilians dead, including an infant and three elderly men, according to a report by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. One man was said to be so riddled with bullets that he could not be identified.

"In failing to distinguish between civilians and legitimate military targets, the US Marine Corps special forces employed indiscriminate force," the report said. "Their actions thus constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian standards."

Faced with mounting public anger over the shootings and a series of botched air attacks, President Hamid Karzai is said to have pushed for the expulsion. The unit had been the first marine special operations company sent overseas before the incident, and US officials noted that an order for all 120 men to be redeployed was unprecedented, stressing the gravity of the incident. At present, only 300 marines are stationed in Afghanistan.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how much counter-insurgency training you have if you can't or won't use it in an environment as challenging as Afghanistan and it bears repeating that this is yet another war that officials and commanders have admitted won't be won militarily.

By focusing so much money on military efforts while not dealing with extreme poverty, leading farmers who have reverted to growing poppies while making deals with the Taliban to protect them, the US has hamstrung its own efforts and those of its allies. It's hard to get people to trust you when you've admitted torturing their neighbours and family members.

So, no matter how much the Canadian government wants to apply cover for its conservative brothers in Washington, it can't be denied that US actions and inaction over the past 6 years in Afghanistan have led to what NATO is dealing with today. Add to that the Bush administration's backing of Musharraf, who has not dealt with insurgent forces in Waziristan, and anyone can clearly see where the blame really lies. Sending in a few extra US marines will certainly not fix the problem - especially since only 1,000 of those 3,200 marines will actually be joining NATO allies in the south.

...violence has continued to rise in the south, which is controlled by a 11,700-soldier NATO force largely made up of the British, Canadian and Dutch forces. Britain saw 42 soldiers killed last year, almost all in southern Afghanistan, its highest annual fatality count of the war; Canada lost 31, close to the 36 from that country killed in 2006. American forces lost 117 troops in 2007, up from 98 in 2006, but U.S. forces are spread more widely across Afghanistan.

The latest news:

Seven Canadian soldiers received minor injuries in two incidents involving suspected roadside bombs in southern Afghanistan, the military said Thursday.
[...]
Seventy-seven Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2002.

What are you going to do about that, Mr Gates, besides blaming training for all of your problems?

Related:

Germany and the United States Failed to Train Afghanistan's Police

Canada eyes leaner role in Afghanistan
 

Huckabee & "God's standards"

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Which 'God'? And does that include these standards too?