Saturday 23rd of November 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

obscurantist mullahs .....

‘Nothing's going better in Iraq.
Everything's out of whack in Afghanistan. The two military interventions in the
greater Middle East that were supposed to bring stability, if not democracy,
clash with a ferocious opposition composed of radical forces that do not
necessarily have the support of the population, but which profit from growing
hostility towards the "liberators." The deterioration of the
situation in Afghanistan at the moment when NATO is taking over the international
coalition led by the United States is not independent of the latter's failure
in Iraq.

And yet, in the beginning, the
Afghan issue was very different from the Iraqi case. In 2001, a few weeks after
the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in
Washington, George W. Bush succeeded in convincing a broad coalition that the
despicable Taliban regime installed in Kabul was, indeed, protecting Bin Laden
and his al-Qaeda accomplices. Undoubtedly, it was, as would be the case in Iraq
two years later, a coalition of the willing, an assemblage of disparate states
that was different from traditional alliances. But that coalition transcended
the Atlantic alliance; it did not divide it. It gave the impression of bringing
the "civilized" - that is to say "Western" - world together
against the obscurantist mullahs. 

Certainly all the participants
were not moved by the same ideological motivations. Some committed themselves
in solidarity with a United States struck by terrorism, an
"unlimited" solidarity, as former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
said then. Some were constrained by their status as American clients. Others
saw it as an opportunity to get rid of a radical Islam that was just as
threatening to themselves. For others, finally, it was an opportunity to play a
role in the "international community" that the end of the Cold War
had deprived them of.’ 

Iraq & Afghanistan -
Western Failure

failure accomplished .....

 

 

update from the Center for American Progress …..

‘Only one week after NATO took over command of southern Afghanistan from U.S. forces, a sharp spike in violence is already "taxing" the international coalition. In the "worst upsurge of violence" since 2001, the Taliban recently overran two districts before being beaten back.

The NATO force is larger than the American contingent that previously patrolled the area, but officials now worry that they will have to "pull back to avoid being spread so thin that they do not have a decisive amount of force anywhere." One senior officer in the region was quoted as saying that British troops are already "on the brink of exhaustion" and have suffered "great hardship."

The violence comes as Tom Koenigs, the top U.N. official in Afghanistan, warned reporters that he doubted the insurgency was going to be over in a year. "There is a virtual unlimited reservoir of Taliban fighters," he added. "It is not possible to defeat the movement by inflicting heavy losses on it." Unfortunately, troops have not yet been able to do any reconstruction projects, which were somewhat neglected by the American forces due to a "shortage of troops." As a result, popular discontent has grown, and opium harvests are at their "biggest ever" in the region.

"It was better when the Taliban were in power," says Haji Khan, a village elder. "There is no peace, no security. Things have got much worse over the past year."

head office is not happy .....

‘Although Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently stated that she does not "know anyone who is more admired or respected by the international community" than Hamid Karzai, the leader of Afghanistan is facing increased criticism both at home and abroad. A growing number of Afghans and some foreign supporters are said to be "losing faith" in Karzai's government, "which is besieged by an escalating insurgency and endemic corruption and is unable to protect or administer large areas of the country."

Equally frustrated, Karzai criticized the international community for "long ignor[ing] his pleas for more help to build the nation's security forces." Taking "bitter umbrage" at international criticism of his government, he has now "strongly suggested" that he will not seek another term in the next national elections in 2009. "I don't think it's good to be running all the time. Let other people get a chance to run."

His remarks "raise significant questions" for Afghanistan, where violence has surged this year to its "worst level since the Taliban were ousted in 2001," thanks to a resurgent Taliban that has grown increasingly sophisticated.

Opium production also remains alarmingly high, with Afghanistan producing 87 percent of the world's opium in 2005, and citizens are "increasingly angry" with the widespread corruption that pervades their entire system.

when the music stops .....

‘Reclaiming Afghanistan from the Taliban remains a crucial element in America's global struggle against terrorism. So it should be setting off alarm bells in Washington that Afghans are becoming disenchanted with the performance of the country's pro-American president, Hamid Karzai.

The democratically elected Karzai government is a big improvement over any of its recent predecessors. But it has not brought security, economic revival or effective governance to most of the country. That has left it vulnerable to complaints about blatant corruption, the pervasive power of warlords and drug lords, and escalating military pressure from a revived and resupplied Taliban.

Nearly five years after American military forces help topple a Taliban government that provided sanctuary and training camps to Osama bin Laden, there is no victory in the war for Afghanistan, due in significant measure to the Bush administration's reckless haste to move on to Iraq and short-sighted stinting on economic reconstruction.’

Losing Afghanistan

I went astray...

From the Independent

Street prices plummet as use reaches epidemic levels

By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent
Published: 13 September 2006
The [http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1523145.ece|cost of drugs] in many parts of Britain has plummeted in the past year, an authoritative study on the country's booming industry in illegal substances has revealed.
Specialists also disclosed that the potentially lethal practice known as " speedballing", in which users inject themselves with a mixture of heroin and cocaine, is reaching epidemic levels.
The low prices of many drugs suggests that they are readily available throughout the country and that police and customs are losing the war on drugs.
----------------
Gus: I'm sorry in one of my recent blogs, I assumed that drug barons would maintain the price of the stuff, in order to maximise profits... but I wuz wrong... It appears that these business people have decided to use supermarket marketing technique... Quantity with lower profit margins? Sell more product at a lower price than sell less at a higher price... With the glut of drugs in their warehouses they must have had to do a clearance sale... and this is likely to hook new customers... Bingo... all we have to wait for now is the drug drought, and prices will go through the roof. Oil barons tactics?...

Mission "French fries"

French freedom fries
From [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1953750.ece|The Independent]

France blocks Nato bid to create a global terror force

By Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 04 November 200
Plans to boost Nato's co- operation with countries such as Australia and Japan in an effort to forge a partnership against terrorism have been blocked by France.
The moves were to have been at the centre of a summit of the alliance's leaders to be held in Riga this month. Nato officials now accept that only a loosely worded pledge to increase contacts with partners in Asia and Australasia will be included in the communiqué, which will be agreed by President George Bush and other leaders in the Latvian capital
-------------------
Gus: the [http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=3323|reasons] given by the French Defence Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie are two fold. [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php%3Fart_id%3D3323&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLe%2BFigaro%2Bnato%2BMich%25C3%25A8le%2BAlliot-Marie%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG|Her concern] is that Nato extraneous alliances must not dilute the North Atlantic aspect of its mandate and second, a complete Western alliance (including Japan, NZ and Australia) could and would be perceived by most non aligned countries as giving "credence to clash of civilisations". France "respects" a world with multilateral diversity rather than a one unilateral US dominated world.
In other words, Another French snub of US policies...