Gates, The North Atlantic Treaty, and the Afghanistan War

Robert Gates has been on a steady PR tour to pressure NATO allies to send more military combat troops to Afghanistan the past couple of months.

This has been his rallying cry:

Mr. Gates said NATO could not afford "the luxury" of letting some nations conduct less dangerous missions while others did more fighting and dying...

While pushing that guilt trip, Gates seems to have forgotten what the North Atlantic Treaty actually says:

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

We're already quite aware of the disdain the US government has for other countries' expressions of their own sovereignty and that is more than obvious in the message Gates, Rice, and others have been pitching in order to shift responsibility from US mistakes.

As Gates confesses:

Mr. Gates said the Sept. 11 attacks were especially poignant as the United States had been heavily involved in Afghanistan in the 1980s only to turn its back on the country after Soviet troops withdrew and it become a safe haven for al-Qaeda.

He described the decision to abandon Afghanistan as "a grievous error, for which I was at least partly responsible".

Mr. Gates was a senior official in the CIA when it helped mujahideen guerrillas fight the Soviets and later served as U.S. deputy national security adviser and then CIA director.

So, while Gates is on his personal redemption tour trying to force others to clean up his mess and to take responsibility for what was "a grievous error" made by himself and successive administrations of the United States government, why should other countries be willing to ease his conscience? Why should we be his personal saviour?

We have a right to decide what our participation will consist of, Mr Gates, and the fact that your government has no use for international treaties is not our problem. Contrary to what you may believe, all of the NATO allies in Afghanistan are living up to their obligations - not to you and your neocons who orchestrated this disaster, but to the North Atlantic Treaty which they signed on to.
 

Write Your Own Caption

 
Photo credit: Canadian Press

Afghanistan: Tories Introduce Their Motion; Gates Insults Europeans (again)

As expected, the Harper government has introduced a confidence motion on the fate of Canada's role in Afghanistan (full text) that would extend the mission to 2011 while calling for the heralded 1,000 extra troops and equipment that are apparently supposed to make all the difference for our soldiers over there.

The motion reads, in part:

whereas, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, the House does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009;

Pack your bags. You're going on a guilt trip.

that Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the government of Afghanistan can defend its own sovereignty and ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld;

And who screwed up the training? The Pentagon, when it hired Dyncorp. Once again, Canadians are expected to clean up their mess or our "reputation" will be tarnished. We're like glorified janitors.

whereas their Report establishes clearly that security is an essential condition of good governance and lasting development and that, for best effect, all three components of a comprehensive strategy - military, diplomatic and development - need to reinforce each other;

whereas the government accepts the analysis and recommendations of the Panel and is committed to taking action, including revamping Canada's reconstruction and development efforts to give priority to direct, bilateral project assistance that addresses the immediate, practical needs of the Afghan people, especially in Kandahar province, as well as effective multi-year aid commitments with concrete objectives and assessments, and, further, to assert strong Canadian leadership to promote better coordination of the overall effort in Afghanistan by the international community, and, Afghan authorities;

Well, that all sounds fine and dandy but, as I've noted here before, 80% of America's money in Afghanistan is going towards military expenditures. That doesn't leave much in terms of reconstruction money.

On top of that, CIDA minister Bev Oda refuses to give straight answers about Canada's reconstruction efforts there. No wonder:

Cup half full, half empty in Canada's development work for Afghanistan

Jan 31, 2008

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, the proverb goes, or you can teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

If that's the mantra of development work in Afghanistan, Canada's approach is failing.

Millions of dollars are eaten up by corruption and mismanagement, and even successful programs do not seem to have a long-term impact, according government documents, non-governmental organizations and a former aid official.

Nipa Banerjee said 50 per cent of the $300 million allocated during her three years as head of aid in Afghanistan for the Canadian International Development Agency brought little or no results.

Yet, this government expects that the Canadian and Afghan people will be satisfied by more of the same?

As for "revamping" Canada's mission, here's what Robert Gates had to say about that on Friday, while he was insulting the Europeans by proclaiming they were "confused" about the difference between the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. Considering that Gates tried to shame NATO countries a year ago and that he also recently insisted that NATO troops don't know how to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan while at the same time announcing a measly enhanced US fighting force of just 3,200 soldiers, it's clear that the Bush administration intends to keep bullying and guilt-tripping tactics to deal with this war.

Mr. Gates said there was no need to rethink the NATO strategy in Afghanistan or to reshape the mission.

Just how does Harper think he can "assert strong Canadian leadership" in the face of a blunt statement like that, especially since he hasn't shown anything like "strong Canadian leadership" on our role there thus far? Just who is he trying to fool? And does anyone out there really believe that Canada's in charge of what's happening in Afghanistan when it comes to the fate of our troops and that of the Afghan people? There is no doubt that the Harper government and, to a lesser extent, the Liberals will be led by the nose by the Bush administration as long as we continue to participate in this war.

Just look how Condi Rice is framing this in typical neocon terms:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan—On a surprise, 10-hour visit here Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thanked a crowd of multinational soldiers in a dusty compound, telling them their service in Afghanistan is helping to protect "the future of your own countries, your own people, and indeed, the security and the future of the world."

Will Canada bend to that fearmongering or will this government (and the Liberals) take a long, hard look at this situation, refusing to bow to American economic and global domination pressures?

Liberal leader Stephane Dion said today that his party will submit its own proposals next week in an attempt to amend the bill. Just how far will those amendments go and how does he plan to whip the vote when 24 MPs voted with the government last time to extend the mission to 2009, despite the fact that debate was so limited on such an important issue?

In the end, will this really be about Afghanistan or is it all hinging on whether the Liberals feel they're ready for an election? I guess we'll find out soon enough when the budget is presented to the house in March.
 

Conservatives Behaving Badly

A roundup - because they're just behaving so badly this week.

First up: Tories threaten election over crime bill. Nothing like trying to bully your way into an election and blaming the senate for it at the same time. The Liberals are reportedly poised to bring down the government over the budget instead of being conned by Harper's "cute trick" (as Ralph Goodale put it to CBC's Don Newman) of doing the government's bidding on the crime bill.

Now, let's see if I can figure out what the Harper gov't is up to re: the Afghanistan war.

- Harper says he wants 1,000 more troops in Kandahar and has called for a debate on the fate of the mission in late March - after the budget (when the gov't might fall) and after the March 1 deadline he's given the senate to pass the crime bill, or else, and before the NATO meeting in April.

- When asked in parliament yesterday why he has dragged his feet, this was his response:

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, for two years, there has been mounting criticism of the Prime Minister's failure to lead in Afghanistan.

This week we learned the Prime Minister has finally, at the eleventh hour, begun to call NATO countries to ask for much needed assistance for our troops. He should have made those calls last year, and we said so.

Why did it take a year, with the deadline fast approaching, for the Prime Minister to realize the urgency of the situation and take responsibility—


Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, during the last two years, while the Liberal Party completely reversed itself and decided we should suddenly pull out of Afghanistan, the government was working with our allies to strengthen that mission.

We have seen important contributions from many countries, including an additional contribution from Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States. These contributions are very important.

We will continue to press for additional contributions from NATO because we think those are important. However, we do not think there is cause, if NATO is willing to give us what we need, to abandon our commitments to the Afghan people.

In other words, don't blame me. Who needed phone calls? It's not like I'm the prime minister or anything...

Remember when Harper promised to govern with "transparency, honesty, and accountability"?

Right.

Anyway, if an election is forced before the Afghanistan war debate or as a matter of non-confidence over that motion, the Harperites can then ride into their campaign proclaiming that the opposition parties chose to abandon Afghanistan. They're far too predictable. At the same time, of course, that would let Harper off the hook (he thinks) for not dealing with the deadline to our commitment next February. In the meantime, the fate of Canada's soldiers in Afghanistan will stall while he plays more political games. How does that even begin to make sense to him or his party - except for the fact that, as several Liberal MPs repeated in question period on Wednesday, they are "vindictive, dishonest and incompetent"?

No kidding.

Next: John Baird (bully extraordinaire) will be investigate by a commons committee over allegations of political interference in Ottawa's election. He will no doubt use the excuse "The Liberals made me do it" to defend himself.

News on the isotope front: A rep of MDS Nordion (which came under attack in the CMA earlier this week testified to a commons committee investigating the Chalk River isotopes fiasco, that natural resources minister Gary Lunn was informed of the urgency of the situation 12 days before Lunn has publicly admitted he knew what was going on. (no link on that yet)

The Mulroney/Schreiber affair: Mulroney either a) had really clueless advisors or b) has people who have no qualms about lying for him.

The only time between the spring of 2000 and February 2008 that Lavoie said he ever brought up the payments with Mulroney was in a phone call the evening before Mulroney testified before the committee.

Lavoie served as assistant chief of staff to Mulroney during his time in office and was later hired as his public relations consultant.

He suddenly stepped down as Mulroney's spokesman in late November after years in the post, saying he was too busy with his job as vice-president of media giant Quebecor Inc.

C'mon...

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Schreiber accused Mulroney of lying to the committee when he testified:

The German-Canadian arms dealer says he paid the former prime minister to lobby the Canadian government, not foreign governments as Mulroney told the ethics committee in December.

The difference is critical because it would be improper for an MP to accept money to lobby the government while in office.
[...]
Mulroney explained that he didn't declare the money on his taxes for six years because he spent it all on travel to places like Russia, France, and China while working for Schreiber.

But Schreiber said that's impossible. He said strict rules on arms exports in Canada and Germany would have made it illegal to ship to what he described as "communist" countries like China and Russia.

Thus ends this episode of conservatives behaving badly.
 

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
 

Defending Omar Khadr

The US military may have unwittingly tripped itself up on Wednesday by offering these proclamations about a video they discovered allegedly containing boys recruited by al Qaeda in Iraq.

Here are some quotes from their news conference:

The insurgent group “wants to poison the next generation of Iraqis,” said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, an American spokesman, at a briefing about the group’s use of women and children.

Military officials say they believe that the tapes are used during sessions with children in “the process of indoctrination and training that starts early to ensure they grow up to become future terrorists when they become of age,” he said.

If I was one of Omar Khadr's lawyers, I'd definitely grab onto those words along with these spoken by Major General Geoffrey Miller (torture-loving asshole that he is) back in 2003, referring to other juveniles held in Gitmo at the time:

Miller recommended that the Defense Department send them home because he had determined that they had been "kidnapped into terrorism," posed a low risk, and had no further intelligence to provide.

Saying that children are being indoctrinated or that they've been "kidnapped into terrorism" runs contrary to what government lawyers have claimed in their case against Omar Khadr as he languishes in Gitmo. To the contrary, they are more than willing to refuse to see Khadr as one of those indoctrinated children and are attempting to hold him responsible for crimes allegedly committed when he was a child soldier - just as the boys al Qaeda has recruited in Iraq would be labeled.

The US military and the Bush administration can't have it both ways. They release videos like this to point out how ruthless al Qaeda supposedly is towards children while trying to prosecute the one child soldier (that we know of) that they have in custody.

On top of that, new evidence in Khadr's case shows just how dishonest the US military has been in its zeal to prosecute him as they try to pile on even more charges against him:

The document inadvertently handed out to the media in a military courtroom here on Monday shows that, according to the U.S. witness who was closest to the action, there was one other fighter alive inside an Afghan compound during a 2002 gun battle when a grenade was lobbed at U.S. troops entering the compound, killing Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer. It had long been assumed that Mr. Khadr was the only person alive inside the compound at the time, and thus must have thrown the grenade. Sgt. Speer's killing is the basis of the murder charge against the Canadian.
[...]
The revelation that one other person was alive inside the compound when the grenade was lobbed cast doubt on whether Mr. Khadr was the only person who could have thrown the grenade. No U.S. personnel actually saw him toss it. The witness quoted in the document also says he saw two men dead under the rubble and debris when he entered the compound. Since the two men may well have been killed by the air strikes, they could have fired on the two Afghan soldiers.

And, check out this this stunningly arrogant piece of US propaganda:

U.S. NAVAL BASE GUANTANAMO, CUBA - The chief military prosecutor in the Omar Khadr case says the fact the Canadian terror suspect survived after a U.S. operative shot him twice is a testament to the "way America fights."

That's right: Khadr should be grateful that he's in Gitmo because some "U.S. operative" couldn't shoot straight. Anyone who believes he was actually spared as some sort of twisted show of compassion is a fool.

Frankly, this is just infuriating and shows just how completely convoluted the US military spin has been in this case:

"What does it show that he is alive today?" Morris told Canwest News Service Wednesday. "It shows how America fights; that we instantly go to the aid of somebody who is out of combat, as we did there.

"But for the instant vigilant response of our military and medical personnel he would not have lived."

He was shot - twice - in the back. The reason he was treated is because the "operative" didn't manage to kill him. Does anybody think he was somehow aiming at Khadr's toes to save him from death?

The Bush administration takes pride in the fact that it will be the first country to try a child soldier.

The longer this goes on, the worse it gets. I don't give a damn about "America's reputation" in all of this. That was soiled years ago, and rightly so. What I do care about however is justice - a concept totally foreign to this sham military tribunal system.
 

Super Tuesday (Live Updates)

Everything's super in the US of A: Superman, Super Bowl, Superpower, Superstars and, of course, Super Tuesday.

But the thing about Super Tuesday is that the math behind the process is so convoluted, you practically need a PhD to understand it. On top of that, there are Super Delegates whose votes won't come in until that last minute - months from now.

Keith Olbermann explains:


I don't have a dog in this fight. I have no use for the Democratic party and I'm definitely not one of the 15% of Canadians who would rather vote in the US election than our own.

That said, I'll throw out my prediction: Hillary wins the popular vote today while the delegate count is too close to call to make either Hillary or Obama the clear leader.

As for the Repubs, it looks like McCain (back from the dead) has the momentum, much to the chagrin of people like Rush Limbaugh who actually defended Clinton and Obama over McCain today. (Because that's how much he loathes McCain).

And isn't this handy for the Republicans? Be afraid, be very afraid. Pee your pants all the way to the polls: Intelligence Chief Cites Qaeda Threat to U.S.

I'll post results as they come in, because that's the kind of political junkie I am.

Results:

Obama wins in Indonesia. Really! Democrats Abroad are hooked up via the intertubes all over the world and the Indonesian results (such as they are) were the first ones to come in after midnite. The Republicans are not counting ex-pat votes in other countries because...well...democracy sucks, apparently. (Update: the Repubs voted the old-fashioned way - absentee ballots. I guess the tubes were just too complicated for them to figure out.)

The Huckster wins West Virginia.

NBC and CNN project that Obama has won Georgia.

8 pm ET and on:

NBC projected winners:

Democrats:

IL - Obama
OK - Clinton
TN - Clinton
AR - Clinton
MA - Clinton
DE - Obama
NJ - Clinton
AL - Obama
NY - Clinton
ND - Obama
UT - Obama
KS - Obama
CT - Obama
MN - Obama
Am Samoa - Clinton
ID - Obama
AZ - Clinton
MO - Obama ("apparent" winner - very close race)
UT - Obama
CO - Obama
CA - Clinton
AK - Obama
NM - too close to call at the time of this writing

Republicans:

IL - McCain
NJ - McCain
MA - The Mittster
CT - McCain
AR - The Huckster
DE - McCain
AL- The Huckster
NY - McCain
UT - The Mittster
GA - The Huckster
OK - McCain
AZ - McCain
ND - The Mittster
TN - The Huckster
MT - The Mittster
CA - McCain
MO - McCain ("apparent" winner)

A wise reminder about exit polls (which these projections are based on).
 

Mulroney Running Scared: Spector Testifies Today

Despite insisting last week that what Mulroney's chief of staff Norman Spector was prepared to reportedly testify to today is beyond the ethics committee's mandate in the Mulroney/Shreiber investigation, Mulroney's lawyers have launched what the G&M calls a "pre-emptive strike" one hour before Spector is set to appear before the committee this afternoon by providing documents relating to that supposedly irrelevant testimony:

The documents include a statement by Marilyn Burk, former assistant to the Mr. Spector, concerning the removal of confidential files from the prime minister's office, according to a media release.

There are also “various documents relating to the system of expense management at the PMO and OLO” and “to payments for 24 Sussex furnishings.”

Here's what Spector plans to submit to the committee:

Mr. Spector, former chief of staff to Mr. Mulroney in the early 1990s, has said he'll be bringing documented evidence to Parliament Hill of other cash transactions.

“The MPs will be interested no doubt in my good knowledge of the Bear Head project when I was chief of staff to Mr. Mulroney,” Mr. Spector wrote in French last week in Le Devoir newspaper.

“I equally hope to help the committee understand the motivations and the behaviour of my old boss by discussing other cases,” Mr. Spector continued.

“Finally, documents in hand, I believe myself quite capable of helping them identify the source of large quantities of money reported at 24 Sussex while Mr. Mulroney was prime minister of Canada.”

Today's hearing starts at 3:30 pm ET. Watch it live on CPAC.

Popcorn!

Related:

Spector's Jan 28, 2008 letter to Paul Szabo, chair of the ethics committee.

Ex-Mulroney chief of staff to tell MPs about cash

Background: The Fifth Estate's "Brian Mulroney: The Unauthorized Chapter"
 

Quote du Jour: Know Your Quotes

Health minister Tony Clement in question period on Tuesday:

The last refuge of scoundrels is to say you were misled.

Wrong!

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

- William Samuel Johnson

And when it comes to using the refuge of "patriotism" against anyone who criticizes this Conservative government, there's no doubt who the real "scoundrels" are.
 

Alberta's Speech From the Throne

Alberta's Lt. Governor, Normie Kwong, delivered Alberta's Speech From the Throne (text) on Monday which was really just the Conservative government's launch of its election platform since it's expected that an election call will come at any time - most likely right after the speech with the date of March 3rd being floated.

You know there's an election coming up when the premier spends like a drunken sailor (in the tradition of Ralph Klein) and those promises have been coming fast and furious lately while Steady Eddy Stelmach hopes to hang onto his job. (Good luck with that!) As one reporter noted today, Alberta has had an influx of ~100,000 "immigrants" the past five years - not just from other countries, but from other provinces. Many of them had not had to suffer under decades of regressive Conservative rule in this province. On one hand then, they may throw their support behind these neanderthals if they're married to Conservative ideology or simply don't know any better about how the Cons have behaved in Alberta. On the other hand, the Liberals and NDP did make gains during the last election so the Conservative establishment here is nervous. And so it should be. Those new Alberta voters could bring much-needed change to a province mired in conservative orthodoxy for so long.

Probably the biggest news coming out of this year's speech is the promise by Stelmach to end health care premiums - a $900 million item that's long overdue. Charging premiums in this province, which has been drowning in oil money for decades, has been one of the Conservatives' most perverse taxes.

The move, which has been demanded by opposition parties and spending watchdogs for years, will save Alberta families $1,056 per year and individuals $528 annually. Municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals are expected to save more than $84 million annually.

Fellow Alberta blogger daveberta will also be following this race closely and here's a link to other Alberta blogs.

Updates as they come in...

- Kwong announced that health care premiums will be phased out over 4 years. That's just not fast enough.

- speaking of oil company money, Canadian Oil Sands profit quadruples. "Canadian Oil Sands said it earned $515-million, or $1.07 a unit, up from a year-earlier $128-million, or 27 cents a unit." That's just obscene.

- It's official: Steady Eddy just announced that our next election will be held March 3rd. Get out there and vote!