Target Centermass

Category: Central Asia

  • Iran Bans Western Music

    In a further step toward returning to the radicalism of their 1979 revolution, the leaders of Iran have made a very dumb move.

    The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has banned western music from state radio and TV stations, it was announced today.

    In a move reminiscent of the 1979 Islamic revolution, when popular music was outlawed, Mr Ahmadinejad – the head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council – ordered the implementation of a ruling prohibiting all forms of western music.

    It means music including classical compositions will be barred from public service broadcast outlets, local media said. “Blocking indecent and western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required,” a statement on the council’s website said.

    The move will silence the hip-hop that can frequently be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran’s streets.

    It means music including Rush, by Eric Clapton, and Hotel California, by the Eagles, both of which regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts, will be outlawed.

    Sending popular music underground will only further chafe large portions of the Iranian population already restless. As they race towards becoming a nuclear power, the radical Iranian rulers apparently weren’t satisfied with just stirring the international pot. Now, they’ve decided to kick some stones at home.

    Make no mistake, the Islamist movement is not just about the destruction of Israel, but also the demise of Western culture and civilization. Unfortunately, the Iranian tyrants may find the many of their own populace want, at least to some degree, Western culture.

  • Iran, Iran, Iran

    A real quick link dump about a brewing topic that should cause everyone much concern.

    Fear of Iranian nuclear arms high on Gulf states’ agenda

    Fearful of a nuclear-armed state on their borders, leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states meeting in Abu Dhabi contemplated Sunday declaring the Persian Gulf a nuclear weapons-free zone in the hope that their neighbor Iran would join.

    “None of the GCC states support any country having nuclear power,” said Mona Mohammed al-Hashemi of the Emirates Center For Strategic Studies and Research in a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post. “As you know, Iran is a very strong country, but the GCC can say something about this issue. They can discuss and see how they should stand on this issue and see what they can do that won’t harm them,” he added

    If only in terms of being caught up in a nuclear maelstrom not of their own making, the Gulf states should have a very real concern about a nuke-armed and radical Iran. Beyond that, they bear a geopolitical concern, as such an Iran would force a huge shift in recognized power in the Moslem world at the expense of the Gulf states.

    According to GCC secretary-general Abdul Rahman Hamad al-Attiyah, quoted on the United Arab Emirates’ official Emirates News Agency, the summit will not issue any statements condemning Iran’s controversial nuclear program. That reflected Gulf nations’ reluctance to provoke Iran and to be seen as siding with the West in the confrontation over Teheran’s nuclear plans.

    […]

    But what worries the GCC most is Iran’s nuclear potential. Many in the West and in Arab countries believe Iran will use its nuclear energy program to develop nuclear weapons. The Arab countries fear such weapons would make Iran a superpower in the region. Iran denies the charge, saying its program is intended only to produce electricity.

    “We have confidence in Iran, but we don’t want to see an Iranian nuclear reactor that is closer to our territorial waters than it is to Teheran. This causes danger and harm to us,” the Emirates News Agency quoted Attiyah as saying.

    The issue has become even more important to the GCC as tensions have risen in the region following the recent anti-Israel statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Not even a statement? Despite their stake in the matter, the Gulf states are currently ranking slightly behind the Europeans in the role of an almost being a speed bump for Iranian endeavors.

    Iran tells West to be tolerant of Holocaust views

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust is a matter for academic discussion and the West should be more tolerant of his views, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman said on Sunday.

    Ahmadinejad last week called the Holocaust a myth and suggested Israel be moved to Germany or Alaska, remarks that sparked international uproar and threaten diplomatic talks with Europe over Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi defended the president’s remarks, which also drew a rebuke from the U.N. Security Council.

    “What the president said is an academic issue. The West’s reaction shows their continued support for Zionists,” Asefi told a weekly news conference.

    “Westerners are used to leading a monologue but they should learn to listen to different views,” he added.

    Some 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their allies between 1933 and 1945.

    Ahmadinejad, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who was elected president, also said in October Israel was a “tumour” that must be “wiped off the map”.

    A statement drafted by European Union leaders described last week’s Holocaust comment as “wholly unacceptable”. The White House termed the remarks “outrageous”.

    Asefi denounced international condemnation as emotional and illogical.

    “The EU statement is not based on international diplomatic norms. They should avoid illogical methods,” he said.

    You see, when the radical president of a bloody Iranian government seeking nukes says that Israel should be destroyed and the history of the Holocaust is a hoax, he’s merely embracing a diverse view and others should be more tolerant. Geez, with those buzzwords, how could the left fail to embrace this man?

    Meanwhile, Ace at Ace of Spades begins to embrace what he perceives as a need for a new version of an old policy, mutually-assured destruction (MAD).

    Nuking Iran

    Iran is such a depressing topic for me I haven’t blogged about it much. Iran is mere months away from developing a bomb, their hardline lunatic leadership is quite forthright about their desire to wipe Israel off the map, and they would have few qualms about delivering a bomb to Al Qaeda.

    I’d like to do the military-bluster thing and start advocating airstrikes on all their nuclear facilities, command and control sites, even their oil wells. But I don’t think that will actually solve things. Their uranium enrichment program is hidden, probably underground, and almost certainly well-dispersed. We could not end their atomic ambitions through mere airstrikes.

    For those of you counting on Israel to end this problem for us– forget it. The comparison to Iraq’s reactor is inapposite. That was a big identifiable target. The Iranian sites are largely unknown, even by the vaunted Israeli intelligence organizations.

    We’re not going to invade. We don’t have the troops and the nation doesn’t have the stomach.

    Which means that Iran will have a bomb soon.

    […]

    It is time for Bush to spell out clearly what our nuclear policy is in regard to nuclear-armed rogue states. And this is not the time for diplomatic nicety. Bush must announce, clearly and solemnly, that any nuclear-armed nation invites a nuclear attack, and that a nuclear attack by such a nation will be met with the complete destruction of that nation by nuclear fire.

    The fundamentalist religious crazies thuggishly ruling Iran may have little fear of that. They will consider giving up their own lives to strike a mighty nuclear blow for Allah a small sacrifice for greater Islamist glory.

    We have to put the fear of God Himself into those who value life more than seventy-two viriginal whores in the afterlife. The Iranian citizens, the generals, the scientists building the doomsday devices.

    We have to be clear on our response to such an attack, and we have to be resolved about carrying it out with clinical, murderous deadliness.

    And we need to inform the world, and Iran of course, of all of this in advance. We need to be quite clear on our policy, so that the world will know that Iran was forewarned.

    Ace goes on to explain his unfortunately lucid reasoning behind a devastating policy, one that could be termed as MADOIB, mutually-assured destruction on Israel’s behalf. A nuke-capable Iran could not dream to destroy the U.S. in any short- or mid-term scenario, but they could play a role in a long-term nightmare. They could, however, destroy Israel, and Ace looks at how different responses to an Iranian attack on Israel could proceed. As Ace points out, MAD is a policy that only carries weight among the rational, thus the need for the clear publication of such a policy so that external and internal pressures may be brought to bear on the history-denying, blood-craving Iranian government.

    WunderKraut also gives his thoughts on the eventuality of an Iranian nuke. That’s twice I’ve linked WunderKraut in recent weeks. I really need to update my blogroll.

  • Iran: Crashing the Iraqi Election High

    I’ll leave it to Charles Krauthammer to provide the big come-down, as he looks at the brewing danger in Iraq’s next-door neighboor, Iran.

    Lest you get carried away with today’s good news from Iraq, consider what’s happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president [previously discussed here, here and here], Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old extermination camp?

    Except that there were no such camps, indeed no Holocaust at all, says Ahmadinejad. Nothing but “myth,” a “legend” that was “fabricated … under the name ‘Massacre of the Jews.’”

    […]

    To be sure, Holocaust denial and calls for Israel’s destruction are commonplace in the Middle East. They can be seen every day on Hezbollah TV, in Syrian media, in Egyptian editorials appearing in semiofficial newspapers. But none of these aspiring mass murderers are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that could do in one afternoon what it took Hitler six years to do — destroy an entire Jewish civilization and extinguish 6 million souls.

    Everyone knows where Iran’s nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows they will be put on Shahab rockets that have been modified so they can now reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed, it will be the end of Israel.

    But it gets worse.

    Go read.

    Realize that, while the greatest dream of Iran’s rulers is the destruction of Israel and the United States, their greatest fear is neither the destruction of their nuclear capabilities by those same nations, nor is it the rather laughable speedbump that has been the European opposition to Iranian nuclear ambitions to date; rather, that fear is the success of a free and democratic society, a society not dominated by Iranian dominion or a Saddam-like tyrant but a truly free society dictating its own future, sitting next door in Iraq. That is why the Iranian puzzle must be approached from two directions: stopping a madly-led society from weapons it seems quite willing to use, and providing those in Iran already thirsting for democracy an alternative to their current radical state.

  • Iran’s Leader Criticized at Home, Abroad

    The recent statements by the hard-line Iranian president that Israel should be moved to Europe and that the Holocaust is a myth have continued to cause an international tempest that even angered the Saudis and some Iranians.

    Saudis fumed Friday that Iran’s hard-line president marred a summit dedicated to showing Islam’s moderate face by calling for Israel to be moved to Europe, and the chief U.N. nuclear inspector said he was losing patience with the Tehran regime.

    Even some of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s conservative allies in Iran were growing disillusioned, fearing he has hurt the country with his wild rhetoric.

    “The president has to choose his words carefully. He can convey his message to the world in better language tone,” Hamid Reza Taraqi, a leader of a hard-line party, the Islamic Coalition Society, told the Associated Press.

    The U.S., Israel, Europe and Russia condemned Ahmadinejad over his remarks, made Thursday on the sidelines of the Mecca, Saudi Arabia, summit of more than 50 Islamic nations.

    Hours before the participants issued the summit’s centerpiece — the Mecca Declaration, promising to stamp out extremist thought — Ahmadinejad spoke at a news conference, casting doubt on whether the Holocaust took place and suggesting Europe give land for a Jewish state if it felt guilty.

    Privately, Saudi officials were furious Friday. Three senior Saudi officials complained that the comments contradicted and diverted attention from the message of tolerance the summit was trying to project.

    One Saudi official compared Ahmadinejad to Saddam Hussein and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, whose renegade statements frequently infuriated Arab leaders.

    The Saudi reaction is somewhat surprising, and there’s even more about their anger in this article, which takes pains to point out that the anti-Israeli comment were not carried in the Saudi written press. The best quote of the article is the following:

    “The Iranian president seems to have lost his direction,” said Gilan al-Ghamidi, a prominent commentator in Saudi media. “Iran should be logical if it wants to receive the support of the world. The president didn’t score any points. He lost points.”

    Lost points? Well, let’s run a little tally. Who, besides the Saudis, has come out against Ahmadinejad’s comments?

    Is anybody getting Ahmadinejad’s back on this matter? Well, of course there is, as the world is more chockful of crazies than Microsoft products are of bugs (theoretically, as it would be difficult to actually run the figures). Chief among the nutcases supporting Ahmadinejad’s statements is his nation’s supreme religious leader and de facto boss.

    Iran’s supreme leader has backed the country’s President, who said the state of Israel should be moved to Europe.

    In a TV interview last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cast doubt on whether the Holocaust happened, and then suggested that Israel should be moved to Europe.

    […]

    Iranian state radio is quoting the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, as describing the international criticism as weakness and fear, dismissing it as nothing more than the sensitivity of the Zionists and the American supporters.

    Ahmadinejad may or may not actually believe his own words, but it is quite certain that he knows where his Iranian bread is buttered.

  • 6,000 NATO troops set for Afghanistan

    There was a rather interesting development in NATO yesterday, as the alliance members agreed to shoulder a little more of the burden in Afghanistan.

    NATO foreign ministers approved plans yesterday to send up to 6,000 troops into southern Afghanistan, a major expansion of the alliance’s peacekeeping mission into some of the most dangerous parts of the country.

    The deployment next year of mostly European and Canadian troops will free United States forces to focus on counter-insurgency operations against Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan’s volatile south and east.

    “They will bring peace to more people in Afghanistan,” said Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the secretary-general of NATO.

    “They will help to ensure that terrorism cannot take hold again of this country and use it as a base from which to threaten the world.”

    […]

    The Pentagon has yet to say how many troops it is likely to withdraw.

    The plans give the NATO peacekeepers a stronger self-defence mandate and guaranteed support from US combat troops if they face a serious attack, and set out rules for handling detainees – all issues which have concerned some European allies mulling participation in the expanded force.

    Why is this interesting? NATO has been dragging its heals on any deployment to the Afghan hinterlands, forcing the Brits and the Commonwealth to express a willingness to step up to help the Americans (previously discussed here and here). Obviously, this should then be considered quite a step forward. However, I do not feel that it is as big a step as the following article seems believe.

    Analysis: ‘Zombie’ NATO springs to life

    “A zombie organization,” is how former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar described NATO in an interview with United Press International last week.

    Some zombie.

    At a meeting in Brussels Thursday foreign ministers agreed to expand alliance operations in southern Afghanistan and boost the number of troops in the war-torn state from 10,000 to 16,000. They defused an increasingly bitter transatlantic row about alleged C.I.A. camps in Europe after receiving reassurances from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that suspected terrorists would not be tortured or sent to countries where they would be tortured. And they penciled in two summits of NATO leaders on transforming and enlarging the military bloc in 2006 and 2008.

    That is just the tip of the iceberg of the alliance’s activities.

    Since the terrorist attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, NATO ships have been monitoring the waters of the Mediterranean to help prevent rogue strikes against vessels and ports. In just over four years, 60,000 ships have been monitored and almost 500 non-military vessels escorted.

    In the mid-1990s there was a torturous debate within the alliance about whether NATO forces could act out of area — that is, outside the borders of its member states. As leaders argued, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Bosnia and Croatia were killed before NATO planes finally forced Serb strongman Slobodan Milosevic to the negotiating table.

    The next time violence erupted in the Balkans — in Kosovo — NATO had less qualms about leaving its cozy confines. After a robust intervention lasting just 78 days, the bloodletting was ended, although there are still 17,000 alliance troops keeping a fragile peace in the country.

    Since Kosovo, the 26-member alliance has not just gone out of area, it has gone out of Europe altogether. It leads the 16,000-strong International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, is training Iraqi officers outside Baghdad and helping the African Union airlift troops and equipment to the Darfur region of Sudan.

    […]

    For all the alliance’s slights, setbacks and self-doubts, it is difficult to argue — as Aznar does — that it remains mired in a cold-war mind-set based of tanks facing each other across the Fulda Gap. By the end of next year it will have a 25,000-strong rapid reaction force capable of intervening anywhere in the world within five days. It is slowly acquiring airlift capacity to transport troops long distances and its primary focus is now fighting terrorism and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, not stopping a land invasion of Europe from the east.

    This transformation is set to continue in the run-up to the next leaders’ summit in the Latvian capital Riga next November. The very fact that NATO is holding a top-level meeting in a member state that was a Soviet republic less than 15 years ago is testimony to how much the alliance has changed. It also reflects its magnetic pull for neighboring countries. An organization that started off with 12 members in 1949 now has 26. Three more states — Croatia, Macedonia and Albania — are expected to join shortly after the 2008 enlargement summit and Ukraine and the remaining Balkan countries look set to come on board next decade.

    NATO may have its problems — it is under-funded, its mission statement is in need of a rewrite and there is a chronic capabilities mismatch between its European and American members — but this does not seem to dissuade states applying to join the Brussels-based club. Nor does it seem to put off people calling for the alliance to intervene when there are humanitarian disasters or looming conflicts. If it is a zombie organization, NATO is doing a good impression of looking like an body in rude health.

    I’d say it’s not very complimentary to brag that NATO, an alliance based upon mutual defense, can heartily be relied upon for humanitarian disasters but is rather pick-and-choose on military assistance, always quite willing to find a reason to avoid exposure to potential danger. That is not a strong foundation for mutual defense. NATO really must be re-envisioned or cast away as a Cold War relic.

    To be honest, part of the hemming and hawing about commitment into southern Afghanistan is understandable, as there are lessons to be learned from previous NATO efforts.

    ‘Shades of Srebrenica’ overshadow Nato’s mission in Afghanistan

    The Srebrenica massacre, the worst atrocity in Europe since the Nazi era, cast a shadow over Afghanistan yesterday when the Dutch government demanded guarantees that its troops would not face a similar disaster again.

    A plan by Nato to send 6,000 troops into southern Afghanistan was subject to last-minute wrangling as the Dutch government voiced fears that its troops could be stranded.

    Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and other Nato foreign ministers, offered reassurances that around 1,000 Dutch troops would be supported when the new peacekeeping mission was launched next year.

    The intervention by Ben Bot, the Dutch foreign minister, shows what a sensitive issue Srebrenica is in the Netherlands, a decade after 8,000 Muslim refugees were massacred by Bosnian Serb forces under the eyes of Dutch peacekeepers in what was meant to be a safe haven. A report on the massacre, which found that the peacekeepers handed over the refugees to the Serbs knowing what awaited them, prompted the mass resignation of Wim Kok’s Labour government in 2002.

    “There were shades of Srebrenica in today’s talks,” one Nato official said yesterday.

    The last-minute wrangling came as Nato foreign ministers approved plans to send 6,000 troops to southern Afghanistan to expand its peacekeeping mission. Under the plans, which are expected to come into effect in May, the number of Nato peacekeepers will increase to 16,000 as the alliance takes responsibility for security in 75% of the country. Washington has been pushing for the extra troops, who will mostly be Dutch, British and Canadian, to allow US forces to concentrate on Taliban and al-Qaida forces.

    Nato has responded to European fears that peacekeeping troops could become embroiled in offensive operations by improving links between the two missions. It insists that its troops will be equipped to deal with threats. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato general secretary, said: “There should be no doubt, our forces will have the equipment and the support they need to do the job.”

    I find it sad that an alliance was relied upon to fight tooth-and-nail across Europe against the feared onslaught of the Red Horde has to provide assurances that it can be equipped to provide security and handle some patrols in a handful of Afghan provinces.

    All that said, thumbs up for this development.

  • Iran President: Israel Should Move to Europe

    The new Iranian president quickly showed himself to be a hardliner true to the spirit of the radical 1979 takeover by calling for the destruction of Israel. Now, he is showing himself to be as deluded as too many in the Moslem world are by denying the Holocaust, one of the cornerstones for Israel’s creation.

    Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, reignited the controversy provoked by his recent calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map” yesterday by casting doubt on the historical authenticity of the Holocaust and demanding that an alternative Jewish homeland be established in Europe.

    In remarks that sparked outrage in Washington and Jerusalem, Mr Ahmadinejad rejected the “claim” that millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis, but called on those who believe to set up a Jewish state in countries such as Germany and Austria.

    He told journalists at an international Islamic conference in Mecca: “Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail. Although we don’t accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: ‘Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?’

    “If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe – like in Germany, Austria or other countries – to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it.”

    Okay, let’s get this straight: the Holocaust didn’t happen so Israel shouldn’t exist but, if it did happen, Israel shouldn’t exist in the Middle East. Well, apparently this guy could find a sad way to twist the statement “water is wet” into a reason for Israel to not exist.

    Under Ahmadinejad, Iran is pushing at breakneck speed towards two goals — becoming a power with nuclear weapons and positioning itself as the key opponent to Israel in the eyes of the Moslem world.

    Israel quickly responded to the Holocaust-denying, move-Israel claptrap.

    Last night an Israeli government spokesman, Raanan Gissin, decried “the consensus that exists in many circles in the Arab world that the Jewish people … do not have the right to establish a Jewish, democratic state in their ancestral homeland”. He added: “Just to remind Mr Ahmadinejad, we’ve been here long before his ancestors were here.”

    Had this Israeli spokesman been typing up his response on an internet forum, the previous statement would have been closed with the following:

    Osiraq, beotch!

    Perhaps unfortunately, while appropriate, such a closing is not yet welcome in diplospeak. Also, definitely unfortunate is the fact that a repeat of Osiraq, Iranian-style, would be rather difficult for the Israelis.

  • Seven Killed, 50 Hurt in Bangladesh Bomb Blast

    Just in case you hadn’t heard, and that seems very likely, there was a bloody suicide bombing today in Bangladesh. It should not be a surprise that apparently radical Islamists are to blame.

    At least seven people were killed and more than 50 wounded in Bangladesh on Thursday in a suicide bomb attack during the morning rush hour on a crowded street in a district town, police said.

    Two bombs went off within the space of a few minutes in Netrokona, 360 km (220 miles) north of the capital Dhaka.

    Police said the wounded included three policemen. Many of the victims were people on their way to work at offices, colleges and markets, witnesses said.

    No one claimed responsibility for the blasts, but police blamed Islamist suicide bombers fighting for the introduction of sharia law in the mainly Muslim democracy.

    Police said they found a suicide bomber among the wounded, with an unexploded bomb strapped to his body. He was taken to hospital unconscious, police added.

    Another suicide bomber was believed to be among the dead.

    “Two of the dead, including a woman, have been identified, but identities of the rest are yet to be ascertained,” one police officer said.

    “We have reasons to believe that one among the dead was a suicide bomber, who arrived on the spot on a bicycle just moments before the blast,” he added.

    The bombs exploded near the local office of a cultural organization, Udichi, which police believe was the target. At least one member of the group was among the dead, said a police officer.

    Ten people were killed and over 50 were injured when a bomb exploded at an open-air concert of Udichi in western Jessore town in March 1999.

    Many Islamic groups dislike Udichi, which organizes open-air shows of drama, music and poetry recitals. It pursues a strong secular philosophy.

    Thursday’s deaths took the number of people killed by suspected suicide bombers to 25 in three weeks, including judges, lawyers and policemen.

    Bangladesh has been hit by a wave of bomb attacks since August by militants of banned groups, including the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, which seeks to turn mainly Muslim Bangladesh into a sharia-based Islamic state.

    Secular, not anti-Islamic but secular, entertainment is a worthy target that must be destroyed in the eyes of the Islamists. The radicals of the religion comprise a global virus, seemingly unable to live peacably in any place on the globe where they find themselves in sizable numbers but unable to behead and stone at will.

  • Looking Around the Blogroll

    I just thought I’d stall on any possible blogging tonight by throwing up a few links from some of the fine folk on my blogroll.

    War on Islamic Terror Updates

    First, the campaign in Iraq graphically compared to Viet Nam, courtesy Bastard Sword. No comparison. I may have to swipe … err … borrow this chart.

    Second, Jay Tea at Wizbang! examines the bankruptcy of strategy in Iraq, but he isn’t talking about the good guys or President Bush. Instead, he’s nailing the insurgents and terrorists. Okay, yeah, there’s a swipe or two at the Democrats.

    Third, In the Bullpen‘s Chad Evans points to a story that Iran may only be months away from atomic weapons. Well, that’s comforting.

    Fourth, Mrs. Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette is asking for Christmastime support for our wounded soldiers via the very worthy Soldiers’ Angels.

    2005 Weblog Awards

    Finalists for the Wizbang‘s Bloggies, 2005 style, have been named and voting is open. No, Target Centermass is neither a finalist nor even a nominee (as far as I bothered to notice), and that’s quite understandable given the worthy blogs on the ballot.

    Unsurprisingly, my favorite category is the Best Military Blog. John at finalist Argghhh!!! pays a brief, humble tribute to the competition and a few not on the ballot.

    Eric of Eric’s Grumbles Before the Grave, founder of the Life, Liberty, Property community, almost sounds like a proud father listing the six members of the community that have been named finalists.

    Also, the Llama Butchers, finalists for Best Culture/Gossip Blog, have started a rather interesting campaign.

    Miscellaneous

    Protein Wisdom‘s Jeff Goldstein waxes poetic, doing that haiku voodoo that only Jeff can do so well.

  • India calls for scrutiny of AQ Khan network

    Not a bad idea here, but perhaps it’s more of a case of proposing shutting the barn door after the animals have taken to the hills.

    India has demanded a scrutiny of the “Pakistan-based AQ Khan network” for greater transparency in non-proliferation.

    In his statement at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Saturday, India’s permanent representative Dr Sheel Kant Sharma called for “greater clarity” regarding clandestine proliferation activities. He singled out the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network, saying that Pakistan needed to shed greater light on its activities.

    “Greater clarity and transparency in this area will serve the objectives of non-proliferation, to which we are all committed,” the Indian representative said. “This would also enhance the IAEA’s credibility.” India also expressed “happiness and relief” that Iran’s controversial nuclear programme was not put to a vote for referral to the UN Security Council at the IAEA meeting. “We are extremely happy and relieved that there was no vote,” a senior Indian official said. The meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors — of which India is a member — even refrained from passing a fresh resolution on Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran claims that its programme is for peaceful purposes, but the US and Europe suspect that it is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

    At the nuclear watchdog’s last meeting in September, India had surprisingly sided with the West on a resolution criticising Iran’s nuclear activities and threatening referral to the UN Security Council. India’s vote had caused an uproar in the country, with both government allies and opposition criticising it. The left-wing parties, whose 60 seats in parliament provide crucial support to the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), had vowed to oppose a fresh Indian vote against Iran.

    External Affairs Ministry officials claimed that the outcome was the result of a diplomatic campaign launched by India with some other countries, including the US, several European nations, Russia and China. “It has kept the door open for resolving the issue between Iran and the EU-3 through negotiations,” a Foreign Ministry official said.

    Indian officials said that the West had the numbers on the 35-member IAEA board to refer the issue to the Security Council, but the “divisive” move would have created fresh tensions in the already-volatile region.

    Negotiations between the EU-3 — Britain, France and Germany — and Iran are scheduled to begin early next month. All key players are now discussing a proposal that allows Iran’s enrichment programme to be outsourced to Russia. Tehran has so far opposed this. “Every country has a public position on the issue. However, it remains to be seen how willing they are to be flexible to find a solution,” the Indian official said.

    And, just because I can: Khan!!!

  • The Commonwealth Preps for Afghan Burden

    They are the scum of the earth. English soldiers are fellows who have enlisted for drink, that is the plain fact; they have all enlisted for drink.

    —Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington

    Well, that may have once been the case, but it looks like they’re headed for a dry and dangerous place.

    After NATO refused to participate in an plan to engage the alliance in counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan, Britain is preparing to step up to the plate.

    Questions the Army must ask before going into Afghanistan

    Small Army reconnaissance teams have already deployed to Helmand, Afghanistan’s most dangerous province in the south to study the situation before a major deployment of an estimated 2,000 British troops takes place there in the spring. Another 1,500-2,000 troops will be deployed elsewhere.

    Although the British deployment is fraught with risks, it is deemed necessary to stem a growing Taliban insurgency now spreading to urban areas and to deal with a burgeoning drugs trade that is providing new funds and resources to al-Qa’eda and the Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, before any deployment, it is essential that the British high command demand and receive certain binding assurances from Whitehall and the Afghan government.

    Next spring, more than 1,000 British troops, backed by civilian engineers and other experts and diplomats, will form a provincial reconstruction team (PRT) under Nato command to speed up reconstruction efforts and combat the opium trade from a base in Lashkagarh, capital of Helmand.

    Another 1,000 troops, backed by Apache helicopters, will deploy at a separate base in Helmand as a fighting force under the American-led coalition to combat the Taliban insurgency in the south. Another 500-800 troops will deploy at Kandahar to beef up the main command centre of coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, while roughly the same number will deploy to Kabul as Britain takes over command of the Nato lead peacekeeping force in the capital.

    The British deployment has now become much more serious and critical to stability in Afghanistan, after the US Defence Department announced that it would be withdrawing 4,000 troops from southern Afghanistan next spring. The 20,000-strong US force that does the bulk of the fighting against the Taliban is preparing more withdrawals later in the year and Washington is insisting that Nato take over more responsibility for fighting the Taliban – something few countries are prepared to do.

    The American withdrawal has now forced London to seek a wider coalition with other Commonwealth countries to plug the gap left by the Americans, after European countries refused to join either the British-led PRT or the fighting force in Helmand.

    Britain is the first country since the American deployment after the defeat of the Taliban to be both providing a PRT as well as a fighting force in the same region. Britain will also have the single largest PRT in the country. Almost all of the 22 PRTs scattered around the country are 100-150 strong and their effectiveness has been seriously questioned: each country sets its own rules.

    No PRT is combating the drugs trade or doing large scale reconstruction work. Other caveats set by individual governments have been crippling. The Spanish PRT has not left its compound after six months in the country, while the German PRT allows only German troops to travel in its helicopters.

    An ambitious Britain is trying to kill two birds with stone. Establish a PRT large enough to provide real security for aid agencies and the Afghan government to do long-term reconstruction projects and provide alternative crops to farmers to help eradicate opium, while also providing a fighting force to take on the Taliban and glean better intelligence about al-Qa’eda leadership.

    Heading into the deployment, the Telegraph is properly asking for clear lines in what is expected of British troops. Tranparent rules of conduct and engagement are indeed reasonable ground to cover.

    However British troops must have an unequivocal mandate for what they will do and not do. Downing Street is adamant that the Army help Kabul interdict drug convoys and traffickers, even if British troops do not actually get involved in eradication of the poppy crop on the ground.

    The Army has been resisting, saying even interdiction could create enormous resentment among the Afghan population. A similar battle is being waged in Washington, where the US army has been resisting the State Department’s overtures to carry out interdiction. Helmand is the centre of the opium trade in Afghanistan. Helmand’s drug mafia exports farmers, poppy seed and expertise to warlords in other Afghan provinces.

    It is also vital that Britain establish clear ground rules with President Hamid Karzai’s government. The British PRT is expected to work with the local governor, police chief, administration and militia forces in Helmand, but they are deeply corrupt and also involved in the drugs trade. Karzai has to be forcefully told to get rid of several leading Afghan figures in Helmand who are drugs-tainted.

    A major role for the PRT would be to train local Afghan security forces and help build a local bureaucracy that could sustain reconstruction in the future. It would be an exercise in futility if British troops captured drugs traffickers and then handed them over to Afghan officials who were themselves drug traffickers.

    British troops also have to be clear as to how far they can operate. Helmand is the gateway for Taliban and al-Qa’eda leaders travelling between Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, and is also the main exit point for the new line of communication with Iraq. Several Taliban commanders have trained with Iraqi insurgents and have brought their new skills home.

    It is expected that the Brits will turn to the Commonwealth to assist where NATO feared to tread, and at least Australia is readying for the mission.

    Aussie troops in line for Afghanistan

    Britain is expected to hold talks with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other countries early next month about forming a force to replace the reducing United States presence early next year.

    A commitment by Australia would put Australian troops amidst a volatile situation in Afghanistan as it seeks to stabilise the nation in the post-Taliban period.

    “The debate is not whether, but to what extent these troops will get into counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics,” a British military source was quoted to say in The Guardian.

    “We are not talking war fighting.

    “But there is potential for armed conflict in some areas.

    “The reality is that there are warlords, drug traffickers, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda wannabes and Taliban.

    “It could take longer to crack than Iraq. It could take ten years.”

    Australia was already involved in talks with Britain about committing some troops to southern Afghanistan, pending cabinet approval.

    Are there any doubts that America’s strongest allies in the war against radical Islamist terror and, to be honest, just about any other threat, are the Brits and Aussies? Oh, don’t get me wrong, other countries are extremely deserving of consideration, especially Poland. It’s also long past due that we realize that Russia is facing the same foe, radical and expansionist Islamic scum, that we are currently squaring off against.

    Oh yeah, maybe, just maybe, the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has run its course. If France can militarily bow out during the heart of the Cold War and the remaining bulk of its membership is happily willing to duck any serious danger in the one country the U.S. supposedly went into non-unilaterally post-9/11, does the alliance really serve any current purpose other than sustaining a rotating presence in Bosnia? Bosnia — talk about your previously-checked countries on the needing-an-exit-strategy list.