Canadians watching military developments around Kandahar City should be in no doubt about one thing. The 300 petrified families from villages surrounding the city who took refuge there when their homes were occupied by the Taliban, hate the Taliban. The last thing they want to see right now is foreign troops going home.
That NATO troops have the backing of ordinary Afghans is a good thing for Canadians to keep in mind. Much has been written of the sadistic caricature of Islamic law that was Taliban rule before 2002 and it needs no repetition here. Suffice it to say the Afghan people have had their fill: By helping them help themselves, this country is doing a good thing. Yet, a Taliban remnant has survived. How can one account for its persistence?
What is the significance of their recent offensive, even though it appears to have been thoroughly countered by Canadian and allied forces? In April, Afghan President Hamid Karzai survived an attempted assassination, while last week 390 insurgents were among more than 800 prisoners sprung from Kandahar's Sarpoza Prison, a spectacular operation that severely embarrassed Karzai's government. This latest fighting near Kandahar may have been a defeat, but does the Taliban have the staying power to outlast allied forces and eventually return to power in Afghanistan?
Part of the Taliban's continued enthusiasm may well be that, for many of these illiterates, religious enforcer was the best job they could ever aspire to, or were ever likely to get. In no other endeavour but upholding their mullah's peculiar interpretation of religion could a thug enjoy the deference bred of fear and the smug appropriation of righteousness for simply thrashing women who showed an ankle, or men who shaved.
As for the means, they enjoy the safe haven of Pakistan where like-minded souls will shelter them and for a consideration, help them move the drugs that pay their bills to market. For those at the tip of the Taliban's organizational pyramid, it's a good living; for those further down, it's good wages if they live to collect them.
Ideology thus reinforced by economics may prove surprisingly durable, despite repeated battlefield defeats. Also, that Afghanistan has a general election next year colours everything -- there would be no better time for the Taliban to attempt to portray Karzai as impotent outside Kabul, and even there survives only with foreign support. Observers on the spot predict a very tough summer and fall this year, intensifying through next year, but, nobody ever said it would be over by Christmas. Notwithstanding the Taliban's continued viability, the recent action around Kandahar has some positives.
First, much of the fighting was carried out by the Afghan National Army, albeit with Canadian support. That an indigenous military force has defeated Taliban insurgents with slight losses to itself -- two dead -- is good news for NATO allies hoping to redefine their role from combat to training and support.
Second, there's no question where local loyalties lie. Kandahar is Taliban heartland, yet clearly the Taliban no longer possess the hearts and minds of those living there -- if they ever did. Those familiar with Afghan politics describe a tangle of competing interests and a hierarchy of loyalties westerners can barely comprehend.
For all the talk about militant Islam, religion is less of a driving force than clan or family ties -- and Karzai's bellicose gestures towards Pakistan and his serpentine manoeuvres frustrate his western friends as much as his Afghan foes. (In an effort to bolster his bona fides with Afghan fundamentalists, his government is busily attempting to suppress a popular Indian soap opera on the one truly independent TV station. So much for implanting liberal values.)
Even so, ordinary Afghans now have better access to schools and health services and more confidence in their personal security than they have enjoyed for decades. Something good is gestating. While it may not look like much from the comfort of a Canadian suburb, it is hope to a courageous people.
There really can be no turning back now.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
a Taliban remnant has survived. How can one account for its persistence?
ISI and Pakis keeping them going just across the border so they (the ISI and Pakis) can stay on the opium gravy train.
#4
Part of the Taliban's continued enthusiasm may well be that, for many of these illiterates, religious enforcer was the best job they could ever aspire to, or were ever likely to get. In no other endeavour but upholding their mullah's peculiar interpretation of religion could a thug enjoy the deference bred of fear and the smug appropriation of righteousness for simply thrashing women who showed an ankle, or men who shaved.
#2
In answer to the question posed by the title: Nope. Even if anything's being contemplated, look for the Foggy Bottom/media axis to swing into action to stop it cold.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/24/2008 3:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Here's an interesting post at the bottom of the article. What do you make of this?
It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president for the following reason:
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986.
Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal .
US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."
Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16 5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time; his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. ***
Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his
birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia.
Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery.
This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.
Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
NoCrud, AmericaJun 20, 2008 @ 07:50
#4
I think the comment has been removed. I think it was attributed to Thomas Sowell but doesn't appear to be one of his columns (at least not that i can find). Therefore I think it's garbage. If Sowell did indeed write that I would tend to trust it as he's pretty careful with being accurate (which is why I believe his name was used).
#6
Go to Candidate Obama's rumour-debunking site. His birth certificate is shown there -- I saw it either via Instapundit or Lucianne.com a few days ago. The man has serious problems as a candidate; there's no need to scrape up distractions.
#7
he's a damaged product - don't let him claim "swiftboating" (which means calling you on the truth, no matter how the left defines it). He's a flawed empty suit. Pin him on the votes and speeches. Don't let him change the subject!
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/24/2008 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
The American left can be divided into three distinct strands, each with its own characteristics, identifiers, and methods of operation: the wimp left, the weird left, and the hard left.
#1
Good article, good points, although I would have liked the sidetrack of an explanation of the hard-left ideas fronted by wimp-left slogans. It took me a good fifteen minutes to explain to trailing daughter #1 why gay marriage is a Left issue.
Its not easy being a U.S. senator. People trick you into taking special favors you didnt even know existed. Shame on these unscrupulous people!
Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, both Democrats, fell victim to the machinations of Countrywide Financial, which gave them breaks on mortgages as part of the Friends of Angelo program; the Angelo in question is Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.
Most alleged victims of Countrywide were gulled into taking loans with onerous interest rates and excessive fees. But they dont know the agony of life as a U.S. senator, when at any moment a powerful, well-heeled interest might take advantage of you with cut-rate loans. Consider the plight of Conrad. . . . Countrywide waived a one-point fee for Conrad on a 2004 loan and financed his purchase of an eight-unit apartment building even though the company usually didnt finance the purchase of buildings with more than four units. Yes, unbeknownst to him, Conrad had been maneuvered into saving more than $10,000: I did not think for one moment and no one ever suggested to me that I was getting preferential treatment.
Dastardly Countrywide had given it to him anyway. No wonder Democrats have condemned Countrywide so loudly (Sen. Chuck Schumer: a vulture mentality; Sen. Barack Obama: these executives crossed the line). But Conrad got off easy, considering the misfortune of his colleague Dodd.
The Connecticut senator has been saddled with favors that may save him as much as $75,000 on his mortgages. Dodd says he knew he was part of a VIP program, but figured it was nothing unusual who in the senate is not very important? Dodd can be forgiven his lack of curiosity given that hes very busy as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and cant be bothered with questions of who might be trying to influence him with which particular favors.
To his credit, Dodd holds no grudges. Even though Countrywide so badly served him by shaving points off his loans, he is honchoing a $300 billion mortgage bail-out bill that will benefit Countrywide by allowing it to unload its worst loans onto the federal government. When duty calls, Dodd answers.
Bank of America is on the verge of buying Countrywide, and an internal Bank of America discussion document from a few months ago happens to coincide with the bailout provisions of Dodds bill. According to the Washington Examiner newspaper, Bank of Americas PAC has given Dodd $20,000 since he became chairman of the Banking Committee last year, and Bank of America employees have given him $50,000. This can only be described as a string of very bad luck for Dodd, who given his selfless gullibility probably figures everyone is showered with donations from the financial industry.
Times are tough out there. Gas prices are high and the housing market has yet to hit bottom. But keep in mind Sens. Conrad and Dodd, and remember it could be much worse: You could be a U.S. senator.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/24/2008 13:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hey, whatever happened to that "Culture of Corruption" we used to read about all the time?
#2
'Culture of Corruption' only applies to Conservatives. Didn't you get the memo?
The Bank of American bribes donations may not be related to Countrywide.
Considering how Bank of America has been granting loans to Illegal Aliens for some time now they are probably very much interested in making sure that any housing bailouts include Illegals.
Posted by: Sen. Christopher Dodd ||
06/24/2008 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Dems don't have a "culture of corruption", they have an "alternative lifestyle of corruption". Only the most bigoted neo-cons would be against an "alternative lifestyle".
Posted by: bruce ||
06/24/2008 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
Two lines of note in this week's Economist, in an article on potential Obama running mate Jim Webb.
Webb is an indifferent campaigner. His speeches are awkward, he clearly dislikes all the flesh-pressing and he looks like an angry potato.
That's [stifled chuckle] not funny. Not funny... [holding back laughter] at all. Senator Webb does not look at all like [biting inside of cheek to control guffaws] an "angry potato."
But forbidden laughs aside, this line is a quietly devastating indictment:
The main worry about Mr Webb, however, is that he is a genuine fire-breathing economic populist. He appears actually to believe the sort of stuff that Mr Obama only says during Democratic primaries.
The idea that vast swaths of Obama's rhetoric on economic issues were "just words" and not to be taken seriously took root awfully quickly, didn't it?
Posted by: Mike ||
06/24/2008 07:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
some rhetoric. Obama DOES beleive in national health insurance, progressive taxes, and stuff like that, AFAICT. but hes NOT a protectionist/economic isolationist. Webb, OTOH, is a former Reaganite playing the angry Jacksonian, and while he has no historic ties to the above social democratic policies, he very much rode to office on (aside from Iraq discontent) populist anger on H1B visas, outsourcing, etc. He ran over Harris Miller, a more conventional moderate Clintonian soc dem that way ( a guy with longstanding activist support for nat health Insur, but whod been a lobbyist for Silicon Valley and so was on the wrong side of the H1b Visa thing) in the primary.
On for policiy, hes something of a beligerent hawk - on China - well the man did build a Navy good to bankrupt us when the Soviet navy was deep in terminal decline - but hes on the warpath against eevil neocons.
Needless to say, I dont like Webb very much. His pick would be virtually a deal killer for me.
#2
Webb's a pretty angry guy most days. He wrote a couple of good books, and Born Fighting was an interesting political manifesto. Not clear to me if he's ever happy.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/24/2008 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've read that around DC he's referred to as "One-Term Jim." As a Virginia voter, I certainly intend to do my best to insure he lives up to his nickname.
The bastard MSM lynched George Allen in the last campaign.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
06/24/2008 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Webb had no hesitance to throw his aide under the bus for toting Webb's gun through security. A perfect match for Obama, if the bus has high-ground-clearance carriage.
I find his stupid populist assholisheness perturbing
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/24/2008 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.
In these circumstances, its amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.
Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.
Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.
In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.
Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.
On May 31, 2008, a massive gathering of Muslims was held at the historic Ram Lila Ground in Delhi, led by clerics who issued a fatwa against terrorism, which was unanimously accepted. This is a major development, whose significance cannot be under-estimated. The fatwa is especially relevant coming as it does from the Dar-ul-Uloom, Indias most respected Islamic seminary. If one understands its meaning, it is that there are no longer any takers for the jihadi agenda of outside elements within the Muslim community in India which will henceforth work on the theory that its destiny is irrevocably linked with the land of their birth. So far so good. But there are Muslims and Muslims.
There are elements among Muslims who take their orders from Pakistans Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). There are blind followers of the United Jihad Council (UJC) whose chief, Syed Salahuddin, stationed in Pakistan recently called for renewed offensive against India and openly urged cadres to advance the cause of jihad in Kashmir. Then we have followers of the Bangladesh-based Harkatul Jihadi-e-Islami (HUJI) and the banned Students Islamic Movement of India(SIMI) both of which have been very active in recent times.
The terror challenge has become all the more serious following reports that Pakistans ISI has made Dawood Ibrahims gang D-company to merge with the Lashkar-e-Taiba terror network. It is well-known that Dawoods gang has a formidable smuggling network in India but Pakistan still refuses to hand over the gangster to India on the plea that his presence in the country is not verifiable. According to M.K.Narayan, National Security Adviser, Indias high-value oil assets are being targeted by an unholy nexus of the underworld and terrorist groups such as the Jaish-e-Mohammad. Interestingly, the entire Dawood Ibrahim family, according to reports has been awarded high educational qualifications by the ISI to facilitate fake travel documents and visas. Pakistans duplicity become evident when it is noted that it has released the Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar from house-arrest and lifted restraint on the Lashkar.
Meanwhile, let it be noted that in the thirteen major blasts since August 2003, about 560 people have been killed and more than thrice the number have been wounded, a clear testimony that terrorism is not yet dead in the country, but, on the other hand, is very much alive. The law moves slowly. It took the country nearly 14 years to get convictions in the 1993 Bombay blasts. There have been virtually no break-throughs in cases of terrorist attacks in Malegaon (September 2006), Samjhauta Express (February 2007), Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad (May 2007), Gokul Chat and Lumbini Park, Hyderabad (August 2007) and the serial bombings in U.P. courts (November 2007). The cycle bombings in Jaipur cost at least 63 lives, forget the number of people injured. All these were professionally planned and it is clear that the terrorists have enough manpower in the country to back their murderous activities.
No doubt, the Grand Mufti of Deobands Dar-ul-Uloom, Habibur Rehman is aware of all this and feels frustrated. He has taken the first step; the next step is to establish an anti-terrorist network throughout the country and report suspects to the police without delay. Muslim patriots alone can do that; intelligence agencies have their limitations. But the worst enemies of the country are our secularists who would rather turn a blind eye to terrorism then act swiftly to contain it. The Supreme Court had decreed that Mohammad Afzal, the man involved in the murderous attack on Parliament should be hanged. But the UPA government with one eye on the Muslim vote bank has been reluctant to implement law. The condemned man has had enough of solitary confinement and would prefer to be executed and is praying for L.K.Advani to be the next Prime Minister; but the self-styled secularists seem to believe that that would offend Muslim sentiment. Afzal is a criminal who has been found guilty. One may be against capital punishment, but that is another matter.
Not to obey the Supreme Court is to show cowardice and fear of Islamic fundamentalists. We have had enough of secularist double talk. If the government does not implement the Supreme Court decision, what is the Supreme Court for? The time has come to take this matter of minorities seriously. We must stop dividing the country along these lines. It hasnt in the least helped Muslims. On the other hand they have for all purposes been marginalised because the whole lot has been taken to be sworn enemies of India. In part they have to accept blame because they wanted to be treated as minorities. There are no minorities in India. There are only people. One of the most sensible thing that the BJP government in Karnataka did was to co-opt a leading Muslim into the cabinet. And he has already shown his courage by exposing corruption in handling of wakf properties.
But a more urgent problem is facing the country and that is the recourse to violence taken by people over the silliest of issues. The Gujjars have done incalculable harm to themselves and the country by their behaviour. Their leaders should have been arrested, tried and sentenced to rigourous imprisonment. It is shocking to learn that Indias Corporate Sector has lost over Rs.5,300 crore since May 23 due to Gujjar stir, apart from cancellation of at least 75 trains by the railways. The losses are in addition to the physical damage done to train tracks. Violence should never be tolerated for howsoever right a cause it is supposedly resorted to and punishment must be swift, adequate and drastic. The damage done to public transport in Hubli-Dharwar because shops selling fertilisers had gone out of stock is shocking.
It is now believed that Congressmen were behind this vile exhibition of violence. The idea, apparently, was to embarrass the newly established BJP government right from the start. People take to violence at the slightest or no provocation because it has become the accepted thing in politics, whether at Singur in West Bengal or Samba in Kashmir. That it is not and it must be impressed on every section of society, including Congress adherents. Public property is sacrosanct and anybody who damages it must be made to pay for it by the heaviest punishment possible. It is time our people learn to behave like adults. India is not for burning. And anybody who indulges in it should know that they will not be spared.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
Photos at the link. Click through and take a look.
There's something for everyone in Basra (and Baghdad, London, Detroit and DC, too). You can get photos that show stark reality, and others that are suitable for viewing by readers of the NY Times. Gloomy grim and black and white or in vibrant living color - unless you're actually there how you see Iraq depends on lenses and filters. Not necessarily those used by photographers - some are selected for you by helpful editors or political leaders - while others might be of your own choosing.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/24/2008 08:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
An oldie but still very pertinent goodie from John Derbyshire at the National Review.
The journalists-are-scum assumption has a long pedigree in the land of my birth. It is almost as if, since show business became respectable, British journalists have inherited the old prejudices about the acting profession 'vagabonds and strumpets.' When the London satirical magazine Private Eye, back in the 1960s, wanted to invent an archetypal denizen of Fleet Street, they named him Lunchtime O'Booze. Forty years earlier Humbert Wolfe had written:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God! The British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
Un-bribed, there's no occasion to.
I think newspaper people have generally been held in higher regard in this country than in Britain. The tone over here was set by George Washington Cutter:
Soul of the world! the Press! the Press!
What wonders hast thou wrought?
Thou rainbow realm of mental bliss;
Thou starry sky of thought!
The professionalization and credentialization of American journalism soared to new heights, especially after the Watergate crisis allowed two mediocre Washington Post reporters to present themselves as national heroes. Bill Deedes, my old editor at the London Daily Telegraph, started working as a national-newspaper reporter in 1930 at age 17, after the Wall Street Crash wiped out his family's finances. Nowadays you need several years' worth of college degrees on your résumé before a big-city American newspaper will let you in the door. The main effect of all that education, of course, is to dull the mind and fill up its empty spaces with left-wing flapdoodle. Newspaper reporting isn't difficult work; an intelligent person can pick up the essentials in a few weeks on the job. To say such things out loud, though, is of course gross heresy in this over-educated, over-credentialed age.
The older sensibility survives in Britain, where there are still four heavyweight national broadsheets and half a dozen lesser national titles. Each one has a carefully cultivated personality of its own, and growing up in Britain you get a strong impression of each, as if they are family members.
In Britain they have a fizzing variety of fascinating newspapers written by people whom everyone believes to be drunks, misfits, dropouts and lowlifes. In the United States we have vast gray broadsheets that are about as much fun to read as Kant's 'Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic', but which are staffed and written by people generally believed to be credentialed experts of unimpeachable integrity, pillars of society, and tribunes of the people.
Personally, I shall hold on to the beliefs I grew up with. I refuse to take journalists seriously, and shall continue to believe that they all invent a good proportion of what they sell us. After all, journalists know what is expected of them.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/24/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
newspapers written by people whom everyone believes to be drunks, misfits, dropouts and lowlifes.
lol! Drunk on a barstool is the new impression of today's American journalist. It's all just agenda driven crap and everyone knows it, except maybe grandma.
I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are.
William Tecumseh Sherman
#4
Journalists as scum was the generally held opinion in this country until WWII. But the Greatest Generation had a media that served it with Ernie Pyle et al. It wasn't until we discovered Uncle Walter lied about Tet that the scales began to fall off and we realized what every previous generation had known. They are scum.
#5
consider the dim bulbs that come out of J-school, and you understand why, when combined with Hubris and general ignorance of most subjects they report on, we get the biased mush we get.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/24/2008 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Our impending victory in Iraq will be the worst setback for activist journalism since Goebbels shot himself.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
