Cameron backs Pakistan's bin Laden myopia!

Gripping viewing as Osama bin Laden is "taken out"

David Cameron is saying sweet things this morning about the Pakistani Government. He said it would be wrong to "throw up our hands in despair and walk away" and not engage with Pakistan. Well, that may be true in part but it does not absolve President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan of being singularly slack in detecting the whereabouts of a man they kept saying was not in Pakistan. David Cameron goes on to say we should support the "democratic forces" of Pakistan. There is virtually nothing democratic about the country. If I'm to believe that's a democracy then I say Barbara Cartland never dressed in pink!

How can we support democratic forces that constantly cause Christians and other minorities grief and misery? That kill opposition leaders? That rig elections? Imran Khan, the cricketer turned politician bemoaned the lack of democratic decency in the country. Perhaps he should have a chat with Cameron?

Last year David Cameron was accusing Pakistan of looking "both ways" on terrorism. Most people murmured in agreement on hearing that. There will be muttering today rather than murmuring. He told the BBC's Today programme, "Of course there will be lots of questions about what sort of support system did Bin Laden have in Pakistan - and we need those questions answered - but as we stand today we simply don't know the answers.

"If we turn away from them and give up on them and say 'this is all too difficult and complicated because we don't always get what we want', you are left with a nuclear power in danger of massive extremism and massive instability."

So what are we to do? Go into Pakistan and run the show for them? That is not possible. However, 60 odd years of running things their way has not achieved much for most Pakistanis. It can't be a toss-up between a nuclear bomb and a group of nutters on one side and a nuclear bomb and a group of heavy-handed autocrats on the other. I doubt if we will ever get answers to the sort of support system Bin Laden had in Pakistan. That he got his groceries delivered is blindingly obvious. He had satellite TV, so he was watching something to keep his mind occupied. I mean, right next door to the military academy! "Keep it under your hats, fellas, but bin Laden's moved in next door!"

And Cameron's still linking the Taliban with al-Qaeda. The two may have links on occasions but are no better than hyenas grappling for morsels. One has to wonder who our enemies really are. It is said that the bin Laden family is made up of almost 800 kinsfolk. Osama bin Laden's father was a prolific breeder of humanity. Osama was his 17th child out of 54. And other bin Laden men contributed to the number. The Saudi Binladen Group manages all the cash that swirls around. It is a global oil and equity management conglomerate grossing $5 billion U.S. dollars annually, and one of the largest construction firms in the Islamic world, with offices in London and Geneva. According to an American diplomat, the bin Laden family owns part of Microsoft and Boeing among other companies. So what do we really know? Was Osama the only black sheep of this extended family?

Politics can get very murky indeed. According to this and several other websites "The Bush Administration gave the Taliban $43 million in May of 2001 for their destruction of Afghan opium crops in February. Drugs and terrorism go hand in hand. Afghanistan had been the world's largest producer of opium/heroin, claiming close to 70% of the world's total production. The amount of drug cash flowing into Wall Street and U.S. banks was estimated to be around $250-$300 billion a year. The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. The U.S., directly or indirectly, helped to fund the WTC attacks. George Bush, Sr. was in charge of all U.S. intelligence and narcotics operations from 1981 through 1989. It was Bush (the elder) who directly nourished and nurtured bin Laden's evolution."

But aren't the poppy crops still flourishing? Aren't the banks still flushing drug money through the system? Until the right questions are asked the wrong answers will be given to us! David Cameron needs a set of pithily pointed questions that give proper answers. We deserve no less.

Gordon Brown's Afghan egg displeases curate's congregation

The curate's egg was good in parts. He was implying that something which is partly good can be ruined by the bad bit.

Right Reverend Host. "I’m afraid you’ve got a bad Egg, Mr. Jones!"
The Curate. "Oh no, my Lord, I assure you! Parts of it are excellect!"

We could say the same about Gordon Brown's speech this morning. He is still trying to persuade us that his nemesis, Alky Ada, is about to strike out in London on a savage rampage all due to the problems starting in Kabul. Cut off the Afghan terrorists and Britain is a safer place. It's all poppycock. He ruins a basically good premise by including untruths and speculation. Al Queda are in Pakistan giving grief to that benighted country. If they ever were in Afghanistan they have long since fled. Terrorists are not insurgents. Fine point, maybe, but the aims are different. It is the Taliban, a group of warlords and displaced poppy farmers, that are the anti-social scourge of the Afghans. We don't wish to seize the moment in Pakistan to go after Al Queda. Probably because we would get an uprising in Britain as well as in Pakistan.

So the Afghan war is about telling us we are fighting terrorism to make Britain a safer place. The Taliban are enemies of the democratising process of Afghan society. We are telling Karzai about corruption. Gordon Brown lectures him on good governance, suggesting that a government must not stand back and let corruption take place. Excuse me! What has Brown beeen doing in Westminster? Trying to hide MPs expenses, his own cleaning bills and Sky Sports subscriptions, by invoking parliamentary privilege, stifling freedom of information and redacting documents. Nice one.

The country is not behind this war because the premise is false. We are behind our soldiers and each and every one of them has put themselves where virtually none of us would go. But the government needs to do far better than come up with this travesty of the truth.

There are four countries in the world that the "West" has difficulty with. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. Not one is a fully functioning democracy. All have despots waiting to take over. All have simmering grievances. The peoples of each country want peace and prosperity. They don't care if it is with democracy or with a benign overlord. They just want peace. In that, Gordon Brown is right to say that the first duty of a government is the security of the nation. But he negates his good reasons by including fancifully bad ones.

Until the truth is out, this war will go nowhere. Until our objectives are crystal clear, we have only the curate's opinion to guide us.

Sub-continental circumcision row!

This is a crazy world indeed. We are fighting a war in Afghanistan, euphemistically called a campaign by the government, and we are told categorically that the enemy is a terrorist organisation hell bent on exporting its beastliness to the streets of London and other western capitals.

Unfortunately, the people we are trying to help by extending democracy and civilisation as we know it do not know who the enemy is. Much debate is currently taking place on Pakistani internet forums about who is exactly who in terrorist circles. It has been "documented" that some Taliban fighters were not Muslims but Indians or other such. Uncircumcised males have been spotted in the numbers of corpses. So that concludes the Indians are up to their tricks. But hold on a minute, some people, like the Times of India are keen to point out this is not proof at all. "Pak blame fails Waziristan circumcision test!" trumpets this article. I like the term "Pak". Try using that in the Times of London! Many Waziris are so poor they can't afford to travel to a hospital or get a barber (ouch!) to do the operation for their boys.

So we don't really know who is who unless we get these Taliban types to drop their trousers! Maybe this is what General Stanley McChrystal should be doing if he wants to succeed in turning away from a "likely result in failure"?

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?t=9570&page=77

http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=83146

More terror plots likely

The New York Times is in a quandary. They are trying to answer this question - "Does the United States need a large and growing ground force in Afghanistan to prevent another major terrorist attack on American soil?" - and they don't seem any nearer the answer.

The trouble is that the powers-that-be have completely muddled up the Taliban with al-Queda. It is rather like linking Hitler's Lebensraum with Mussolini's prancing fascism. Mussolini was only tenously linked to the Nazi war effort. The British described the Italians as being "co-belligerents" as if they could be conveniently unhitched from Hitler's bandwagon without too much trouble. "Let the Eyeties sort it out after the war" seemed to be the slapdash approach.

Similarly the Muslim fighting forces that are the Taliban and al Queda have very different agendas. If I live to be 1000 I doubt very much if I will be bothered by a Taliban bomber in Solihull. al-Queda is another matter. But they are not in Afghanistan, but in that terrorist haven that is Pakistan. Trouble is that Pakistan is a former British colony and loads of Pakistanis live in Britain. Whereas the Afghan Taliban gets shot at for causing an anti-democratic regime to have been created (and for wanting it back!), the Pakistani al-Queda groups just get a wigging from half-hearted Pakistani generals (always with one eye open for a possible coup in Islamabad).

It would be totally inappropriate to invade Pakistan and root out the real terrorists, wouldn't it? Expensive trials that have convicted demonic would-be bombers have proved the point. Not one Afghan has been lifted by the Metropolitan police for being a terrorist in action.

So what are we doing in Afghanistan? It appears we are hopelessly inadequate when it comes to checking up on the democratic process. Ballot stuffing under our noses! We are woefuly inadequate in destroying the poppy crops, so the cocaine trade carries on as usual and we have not found a single al-Queda terrorist in Kabul or the whole of Afghanistan. The Taliban may be a cruel and crazed mob, but they are just that and keep to the hills. It is the terrorists in Pakistan, linked to the "home-grown" bomb plotters that we have to be concerned with.

So maybe the answer to the question that the New York Times poses is this. Look for the terrorists in Pakistan and not Afghanistan. Tell the Pakistani government they've got a month to clean up or they face a desert storm. That's the real answer. However, I suspect this present cloud-cuckooland battle will continue and we will all be the worse for it.

Joe Biden's not really sure, is he?

Joe Biden's been chatting to the BBC. His take on the war in Afghanistan is that it is in the interests of the US and the UK. "It is worth the effort we are making," he said, warning that the terror groups on the border with Pakistan could "wreak havoc" on Europe and the US. He reiterated the Obama administration's rationale for the conflict. "This is the place from which the attacks of 9/11 and all those attacks in Europe that came from al-Qaeda have flowed from that place - between Afghanistan and Pakistan." So we should be in Pakistan too, then, clearing out the caves and cosy hiding places there? I doubt it.

This is a war without a clear purpose. On Mondays it's about democracy in Kabul. Tuesdays it's about fighting the Taliban. Wednesday it's back to the terrorist agenda of al-Qaeda. Biden says the terror groups who shelter along the Afghan-Pakistan border combine with the country's role in the international drug trade - supplying 90% of the world's heroin - means the war in Afghanistan needs to succeed. So are we trying to suppress and eradicate the drugs trade, fight terrorism or put democracy in place? Or do all three at once?

I would think such incoherent thinking is just fuel to the average Afghan cave-dweller. These guys have been living rough since they started to walk upright. Their only respect for modernity is mobile phones and designer specs. Taking pot shots at the beggars isn't going to change the mindset much.

If it was down to me, I'd hire a fleet of planes to spray the poppy crops, I'd give ten minutes warning that exocet missiles were coming at those caves, I'd put extreme pressure on the Pakistani, Somali and other governments to shape up, and I'd chuck out the bearded wonders wandering the streets of London and other cities as undesirable aliens.

But it isn't down to me!

Slow work in nobbling the Taliban's poppy crop!

I thought I'd investigate a bit more about the Taliban and the opium poppy. This is going to be a long hard slog seeing as we've got cretins running the war (politicians that is!).

Nice piece from the New York Times by James Risen. "Donald H. Rumsfeld and military leaders also played down or dismissed growing signs that drug money was being funneled to the Taliban, the Pentagon officials said." One has to wonder what use Rumsfeld was to the American people. A man who shook hands with Saddam Hussein once and really thought the war in Iraq could help his oil baron buddies!

"The eradication program is rife with corruption. Farmers know they must offer bribes to avoid having their crops destroyed, American and Afghan drug officials said. It is often only those who lack money or political connections whose fields are singled out." Is this war being waged in your name? Perhaps the British Army could march into Downing Street and remove the hapless Brown?

Here's how the slow progress at destroying the poppies is done. One man and a tractor! Sounds like a title for a BBC show.

Brown is no leader!

Gordon Brown is the last man to defend the interests of the fighting soldier. He tells the House of Commons - "The British armed forces are better equipped today than they have been at any time in 40 years but we are not complacent". Are they better equipped? Perhaps they are compared with the squaddies of 1969.

However are they properly equipped? The answer is NO!

Gordon Brown also implies that the war in Afghanistan is to prevent terrorism on the streets of London. This is nonsense and a cheap smokescreen. The Taliban, however ghastly they may be in our eyes, have no desire whatsoever to be strutting the streets of London. What the Taliban are is a group of malcontents quite capable of using the drug trade to further their fantasies.

Our war is one against Al-Qaeda (or Alkie Ada as Gordon Brown calls them). These are the terrorists, the murderers and the psycopaths. They wander freely around the Arabian penisular and drift in and out of Pakistani villages at will.

If we are going to war, let's really understand who the enemy is first. And if the Taliban is so well equipped themselves, they must be exchanging something for weapons. That something is opium. When is the spraying of the poppy fields going to start?

If we hadn't bombed German munition factories during Word War II we'd have had all manner of stuff land on us. Get rid of the poppy fields and you cut the Taliban off at the pass!