So this is what had the Wikileaks founder so jumpy. No wonder the government wanted to keep this under wraps:

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Timesand the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and over 1,000 US troops.

Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama's "surge" strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US navy sailors captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday.

From Steve Hynd over at Newshoggers:

The newspapers admit they kept some secrets too sensitive for publication buried and the details in the document dump seem to be of the kind well known already to wonks who have followed Afghanistan reporting over the years, but the manner and volume of the War Log's release will doubtless crystallize the opinions of many who were only casual readers of news from the West's occupation there. With public opinion against that occupation running at some 60% in the U.S. and over 70% in the UK and Germany, these leaks will put further pressure on Western governments to find an exit sooner rather than later.

Among the stories on which new light has been shed:

-- Pakistan and to a far lesser extent Iran have been offering funding and other direct aid to Taliban groups for years. Pakistan's ISI is reported to have been behind many Taliban targeting decisions, including on U.S. and coalition troops, despite it being an ostensible ally.

-- The U.S. has been using an undisclosed "black" unit of special forces, Task Force 373, to hunt down targets for death or detention without trial. This team has been responsible for the deaths of Afghan policemen and civilians, including children but authorities seem to have been more concerned with keeping its operations secret than curtailing its zeal.

-- There have been over 50 incidents of "Green on Green" fire - where Afghan police or soldiers opened fire on their fellow uniformed countrymen, many begun by drug use, corruption or indiscipline.

-- There are reports of hundreds of border clashes between Pakistani troops and their Afghan or American opposite numbers - far more than previously reported.

-- The 140 reports of incidents involving the shooting and blowing up of civilians by Coalition troops reveal a casual disregard for human life, including "nearly 100 occasions by jumpy troops at checkpoints, near bases or on convoys...'warning shots' often seem to cause death or injury, generally ascribed to ricochets."

The reason why governments don't want us to see war too closely is that they see how little point there is to the whole bloody mess. Why are we still there? Why are we destroying all these lives?

Bush's puppet. Afghanistan leader Karzai says he may consider joining the Taliban. No, really.

– Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban if he continued to come under outside pressure to reform, several members of parliament said Monday.

Karzai made the unusual statement at a closed-door meeting Saturday with selected lawmakers — just days after kicking up a diplomatic controversy with remarks alleging foreigners were behind fraud in last year's disputed elections.

Lawmakers dismissed the latest comment as hyperbole, but it will add to the impression the president — who relies on tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO forces to fight the insurgency and prop up his government — is growing increasingly erratic and unable to exert authority without attacking his foreign backers.

"He said that 'if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban'," said Farooq Marenai, who represents the eastern province of Nangarhar.

"He said rebelling would change to resistance," Marenai said — apparently suggesting that the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign occupation rather than a rebellion against an elected government.

Marenai said Karzai appeared nervous and repeatedly demanded to know why parliament last week had rejected legal reforms that would have strengthened the president's authority over the country's electoral institutions.

Two other lawmakers said Karzai twice raised the threat to join the insurgency.

The White House is not very happy at his remarks. I mean we're spilling a lot of blood and treasure at the expense of this war and the American public already hates it so what does he think he's accomplishing by saying this?

The lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of political repercussions, said Karzai also dismissed concerns over possible damage his comments had caused to relations with the United States. He told them he had already explained himself in a telephone conversation Saturday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that came after the White House described his comments last week as troubling.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said reports Karzai threatened to abandon the political process and join the Taliban insurgency if he continued to receive pressure from Western backers to reform his government are troubling.

"On behalf of the American people, we're frustrated with the remarks," Gibbs told reporters.

The lawmakers said they felt Karzai was pandering to hard-line or pro-Taliban members of parliament and had no real intention of joining the insurgency.

Peter Galbraith, the former US Ambassador to Afghanistan hinted that Karzai was partaking in Afghanistan's vast drug business.

Former U.N. envoy to Afghanistan Peter Galbraith on MSNBC's Daily Rundown this morning charged that Afghan President Hamid Karzai's "continued tirade raises questions about his mental stability." He then added, "In fact, some of the palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan's most profitable exports." Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world's opium from poppy -- used for heroin production.

He certainly is acting erratically. If you know anything about Afghanistan and their immense drug trade then you have to figure that a good portion of the people there are probably stoned out on drugs.

Spencer Ackerman, in tweet, says that Galbraith is not being serious:

Dear Entire Media Landscape: Peter Galbraith is not being serious re Karzai being on drugs. Read this int & calm down http://bit.ly/aziYoW

DOWNLOADS: (1212)

PLAYS: (1003)

Embed

Lindsey Graham uses the news that eight American troops were just killed by the Taliban in a remote outpost to try and make it seem like President Obama doesn't support the troops if he doesn't bow down to Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan on FOX News Sunday.

GRAHAM: Well, the one thing I can tell you for sure, without reinforcing our troops, you’re going to hear more of what happened today. General McChrystal said without reinforcements we cannot change the momentum that the Taliban has achieved, and the insurgency cannot be defeated in a year if something doesn’t change.

We had this very dilemma in Iraq. We didn’t have enough troops. Everybody thought Maliki was a sectarian prime minister. The country wasn’t governing itself. The security environment became terrible.

The one thing I can tell you, if we don’t add more troops, you’re going to see more of what happened yesterday. The security situation’s going to get worse. And any hope of better governance is lost, and the Taliban will re-emerge.

If you send troops in, we’ll have a second chance at governance. You need to put Karzai’s feet to the fire, or the next government’s feet to the fire, to do a better job. But it’s impossible to bring about better governance without security.

American troops have been getting killed in Afghanistan for a long time and Graham never made that claim before. Are their lives any less meaningful before McChrystal's request? And the troops were stationed in a position that would not be occupied by McChrystal's plan so Goober Graham is wrong on that front too if I understand the strategy correctly.

Eight U.S. troops died in tribal militia attacks on two remote American outposts in eastern Afghanistan Saturday, military officials said.

The attacks, which also killed two Afghan security officers, were the deadliest in months for American troops, The New York Times reported Sunday.

The coordinated attacks by tribal militia occurred in the Nuristan province, along the Pakistan border, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.

The tribal fighters mounted the attacks from a mosque and a village in the Kamdish district in the eastern part of the province, and American forces "effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties," the U.S .military said.

U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal has outlined a new strategy to close down many of the remote outposts like those that came under attack.

And you'll never hear a FOX host or a republican talk about Iraq with any real honesty. A major reason why the violence went down in Iraq was because we paid off a whole lot of Sunni leaders with big bucks so they would stop the violence.

Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

A google search helps me find this from a blog called Political Impressions:

In an April 2008 report, The Christian Science Monitor stated,

He (Abu Abdullah of the Islamic Army of Iraq) also maintains that while the US has succeeded in driving a wedge between AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) and Sunnis in Anbar Province, many of the tribesmen there who are now on the American payroll are still aiding IAI and other insurgent groups.

Members of these US-backed militias now number almost 91,000 and are paid a total of $16 million a month in salaries by the US. They are often lauded by President Bush in his speeches on Iraq.

Who do we pay in Afghanistan? Can the Taliban be bribed in different regions? I don't think so. The two countries are completely different in every way and so the comparisons of a surge between the two are absurd.

Don't forget abput Blue America's Afghanistn action called "No Means No!"

Why do I feel like I've seen this movie before? I'm hoping against hope for a different ending this time: America having the strength to walk away from something that will drain our resources with no clear goals in sight.

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

But Obama is trying to figure out whether that's actually the road he wants to take:

Instead of debating whether to give McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, more troops, the discussion in the White House is now focused on whether, after eight years of war, the United States should vastly expand counterinsurgency efforts along the lines he has proposed -- which involve an intensive program to improve security and governance in key population centers -- or whether it should begin shifting its approach away from such initiatives and simply target leaders of terrorist groups who try to return to Afghanistan.

McChrystal's assessment, in the view of two senior administration officials, is just "one input" in the White House's decision-making process. The president, another senior administration official said, "has embarked on a very, very serious review of all options." The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

Obama, appearing on several Sunday-morning television news shows, left little doubt that key assumptions in the earlier White House strategy are now on the table. "The first question is: Are we doing the right thing?" the president said on CNN. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

"Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there -- beyond what we already have," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press." If an expanded counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan contributes to the goal of defeating al-Qaeda, "then we'll move forward," he said. "But, if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or . . . sending a message that America is here for the duration."

"We were walking, I was holding my grandson's hand, then there was a loud noise and everything went white. When I opened my eyes, everybody was screaming. I was lying metres from where I had been, I was still holding my grandson's hand but the rest of him was gone. I looked around and saw pieces of bodies everywhere. I couldn't make out which part was which."

That's the testimony of one man caught up in the disastrous airstrike on a Afghan bridal party wrongfully identified as a Taliban force back in July. The carnage was so complete they had to bury the 47 victims in 28 graves. US and NATO troops have denied the attack, but say they are investigating. In another similiar attack back in August they denied involvement at first too. Then investigated and found themselves blameless, only to finally admit their culpability and apologise once independent footage of the destruction surfaced. In a third such incident, in November, footage surfaced before the kabuki dance could begin. So far this year, such mistakes have cost over 600 Afghans their lives.

The Guardian report from which the above quotation was taken also includes a video report which contains footage of Afghans mutilated and crippled by mistaken Western airstrikes.

Afghans understand what's going on here in a way that Western leaders don't seem to.

Continue reading »

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

More proof that being part of the neocon cabal that makes up the Bush administration and their hangers on means that you never are accountable for words, no matter how much blood is shed due to them.

First up is Republican candidate John McSame as Bush McCain, who has backpedaled from his touted "League of Democracies" idea as some in his party express alarm at the concept. Not so neocon Charles Krauthammer, who claims authorship of the idea, and touted it from his regular gig as a FOXNews Analyst as a way to "essentially kill the U.N." I can see how that's going to play on the world stage, can't you? Remind me again how someone like Krauthammer still gets a national platform?

Then there is the story we brought to you yesterday about the DoD sending out retired generals on the payroll to help shape public opinion on the war by serving as uncritical military analysts. While it is understandable that Olbermann sought to defend MSNBC's in house analysts, I've heard them tout the White House line on occasion as well. The second part of Keith's question still needs to be answered: how do we know they're still not doing it?

And finally, we have my personal nominee for Worst. Secretary of State. Ever. Condoleezza Rice and her tone-deaf taunting of Muqtada al-Sadr which, as Olbermann points out, can only lead to certain conclusions about Rice's motives:

Nobody has any use for (al-Sadr), but it’s interesting to note that ever since he agreed to a government request from the Iraqis for a cease-fire for his part of the insurgency – still the most effective part of the insurgency – we’ve called him a loser because he went for that cease-fire, and now the Secretary of State is calling him a coward. See, Madam Secretary, you keep mocking this bozo and it begins to look like you want him to start the full-scale bloodshed, because that of course would make it easier for you to keep this damn war going. And even if that’s not the motive, who was it who wrote, ‘if you make your enemy look foolish, you lose the justification for taking him on’? Oh yeah, the author John LeCarre, who started out life as David Cornwell, British spy and diplomat.

Diplomacy? I don't think that Condi plays that. Oh hell, let's be honest, nobody in the Bush administration does.

Download | play Download | play

Flippity, floppity, flip, flop. Just like a fish on the deck of a boat, John McCain is gasping for the life of his campaign. Knowing full well that tying his campaign to staying in Iraq and the "success" of the "surge" (quick, McCain, explain what that means!) and that the majority of Americans just aren't willing to buy it, McCain executes a perfect "cut and run" from his earlier statement of staying in Iraq for 100 years.

By the way, that reminds me of that “100 year thing”. My friends, the war will be over soon. The war, for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us.

Huh? The war will be "over soon"??? Mission Accomplished redux? But the insurgency will go on. But that's not a war. But the Iraqis will handle it. Aren't the insurgents Iraqis too? Can anyone make heads or tails of this ridiculous excuse of a back pedal?

How in the hell does McCain think he can get away with this?

So far, I hold Adm. Mike Mullen, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in much higher regard than his predecessor, Gen. Peter Pace.

A few weeks ago, he banned the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror” in his office, and prohibited using it “in any future correspondence.” In July, he acknowledged “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq. In June, we learned Mullen didn’t approve of the “surge” policy from the outset.

And this week, Mullen apparently has rejected the Cheney worldview that has dominated Bush administration’s thinking for more than six years.

The new chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, expressed deep concerns that the long counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have so consumed the military that the Army and Marine Corps may be unprepared for a high-intensity war against a major adversary.

He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.

With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.

I guess it’s only a matter of time before Limbaugh smears the Admiral as a “phony” soldier, but in the meantime, it’s refreshing to hear the Chairman of the JCS saying so many sensible things.

Michael from The Reaction here. So much good stuff, let's get right to it:

Mustang Bobby at BBWW: Don't ignore the Malkins and Coulters of the world, make fun of them. (And, I would add, call them out on their bigotry and stupidity.)

Pam with the steamin' House Blend: Oh no! Sexual addition among female fundies! Internet porn! Masturbation! Good times.

Maha of Mahablog: Dalai Lama Derangement Syndrome.

Libby Spencer at The Impolitic (who also blogs at my place and at the very fine Newshoggers): Bush's new "Family Planning czar," yet another anti-sex wingnut. See also Thought Theater.

The Gun Toting Liberal: American Oligarchy -- Verizon, AT&T, and the corporatist police state.

Eric at Total Information Awareness: The insurgency in Somalia, and the brutality of America's allies in the region. (Yes, Bush is destroying America's image everywhere.)

Finally, L-girl at We Move to Canada reacts positively to the Doris Lessing Nobel win.

I'm sorry I can't link to everyone, but keep the e-mails coming: mjwstickings [at] yahoo [dot] ca

It took a couple of weeks, but the New York Times caught up with Glenn Greenwald with a solid article today:

In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Of course, the critics are right.