We have lost another three brave young men in Afghanistan because of a reckless foreign policy agenda bent more on placating our southern neighbours than ushering in any sort of realistic ‘new day’ in a country that has been at war for decades.

In a country where international relief supplies are easier to obtained on the Black Market than anywhere else, where promises made by foreign powers have rarely become a reality despite propaganda to the contrary, one has to seriously wonder why the people of this country have remained largely silent while 96 Canadians have returned home in coffins. To some that might not seem like a lot, but, in truth, we have lost more lives given the small size of our contingent in Afghanistan than any nation involved in combat operations.

As I have exhaustively pointed out in the past, there is a vast difference between supporting our fighting men and women and supporting the policies that place them in harms way. They are, by no means, one in the same. That said; I will not launch into a protracted entry about my views regarding the conflict itself, as I have written a myriad of entries that can be sourced using the search function.

The Looming Election

It’s no secret that Stephen Harper intends to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and force a federal election, most likely on October 14th, breaking a legislative election pledge passed in the House that there would not be a federal election until October 19th of 2009. Given the disarray of the Federal Liberal Party, and its lack of what I consider a real leader, it makes sense. By breaking the legislative promise that Harper himself proposed and was successful in passing, the Conservatives have a chance at gaining a majority.

The truth is that Stéphane Dion is not, in my opinion, PM material. The NDP, of course, do not have the sort of national support required to win the PM’s office, with the Bloc’s potential remaining as limited as ever given their mandate. Thus, by the end of next month we could very well see a Conservative majority in the House and the dawning of a new age of unobstructed Conservative rule in Canada. The groundwork is already being laid…

» Tories pledge $80M to reopen Ford plant in Windsor, Ont.
» Tories unveil $60 million of pre-election goodies.

From antiwar…

“As with yesterday’s story, the initial US report claimed that 30 militants were killed, including an al-Qaeda commander. Though the Afghan Defense Ministry reported several homes were destroyed and that civilians were among the dead, US officials denied that there were any civilians killed.

Shortly later, Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry released a statement regarding the incident. In it they announced that 76 people, all civilians, had actually been killed in the strike. Among those killed were seven men, 19 women, and 50 children under the age of 15. The Ministry expressed “profound regret” for the killings, which they described as accidental, and promised to dispatch a delegation to conduct a full investigation.”

The CBC has more.

According to Le Monde, the ten French troops killed recently in Afghanistan may not have been killed by insurgents during a recent ambush near Kabul but by NATO air strikes called in to aid them - which reportedly took four hours to arrive. French troops that survived the incident have claimed they were hit by friendly fire. NATO is currently claiming that it has no “sustentative information” confirming or denying the claims of the French soldiers. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan’s Laghman province, local authorities are claiming that 20 civilians were killed yesterday by a US air strike targeting insurgents. Elsewhere in Afghanistan, three Polish soldiers were killed today by a roadside bomb.

The United States is preparing to send a further 12,000 troops to Afghanistan to combat the rising level of violence in the country.

French forces in Afghanistan have suffered one of the biggest single day losses in the conflict’s history, losing ten soldiers and suffering 21 additional casualties in a single engagement. The soldiers were ambushed by insurgents a mere 50 kilometers from Kabul, solidifying concerns that insurgents are closing in on the capital.

France’s President, Nicolas Sarkozy, plans to travel to Afghanistan to reassure French forces, insisting that French participation in the mission will continue. Meanwhile, in France, two thirds of the population remains opposed to French involvement in Afghanistan.

From a Canadian perspective, given the size of Canada’s contingent as compared to those of other nations involved, Canada has suffered the highest mortality rate.

There’s a war on, remember? As far as Canadians are concerned, it’s the war in Afghanistan. As far was the world should be concerned, the occupation of Iraq is quickly approaching its sixth year – that’s longer than the Second World War for those of you playing along at home.

Over the last week, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost in the back pages - not that they haven’t been sliding into them for some time now. But it shouldn’t be overlooked that as soon as a conflict erupts that involves Caucasians, much of the Western world’s attention immediately shifts and the degree to which gasps of concern can be heard is considerably amplified.

Let’s face it – insurgents in Iraq (and by that I am referring to guerrilla forces opposed to foreign occupation, not what is painted as al-Qaeda in Iraq by the Western media) are popularly thought of as terrorists. South Ossetian separatists aren’t, despite the fact that there is a significant Muslim minority in South Ossetia. It doesn’t matter that actual parallels can be drawn between the goals of South Ossetian separatists and Iraqi insurgents fighting to oppose a foreign power occupying their country. What does matter is the racial and religious context involved and the massive stereotyping of those of the Islamic faith since 9/11.

If you think that such an assertion ridiculous, look no further than what is currently atop the New York Times best sellers list - The Obama Nation, by Jerome R. Corsi [1]. In it, Corsi, who was also a co-author of 2004’s Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, spends time criticizing Obama’s supposed past links with the Muslim faith, attempting to make a case that it renders him unfit for the Presidency. The book has already been widely assailed as misleading and replete with falsehoods…

“The Times further noted that while Obama is a Christian, the book contains statements indicating he has “extensive connections to Islam”. One of Corsi’s statements is that Obama’s childhood friend, Zulfin Adi, had stated that Obama was a practicing Muslim; this claim has been refuted by multiple newspapers and people close to Obama.”

The question is, what would it matter if Obama had, as a child, been a practicing Muslim, or even simply been exposed to the faith and then converted to Christianity? Even though it’s a baseless accusation, why is it something that would have to be politically denounced with regards to securing the White House? When, exactly, did Islam come to represent such a negative that a Presidential candidate has to defend himself against such literary detritus? Which leads to the inevitable question – why has Islam been denigrated in the West to the point of being viewed as universally dangerous and how, exactly, did that happen?

Well, wars need opposing ideologies to be fought, and to complicate matters only leads to the diminishment of public support. Therefore a blanket enemy ideology is something that must be promoted. To claim that 2 billion people are bent on global dominance through the employment of violence is, of course, ignorant beyond reckoning. And yet that is precisely the image that has been constructed over the last seven years and, to a significant extent, swallowed whole. That is certainly not to say that there aren’t radical elements within the Islamic world that are troublesome, but to paint an entire faith with a single brush to support an aggressive foreign policy agenda is another matter altogether – one that is mired in an evil all its own, and one that ensures that through the employment of such propaganda paints Islamic moderates into a corner.

How many innocent Iraqis and Afghans have perished since 2001 and 2003? Every time a report is released that attempts to address the realities of the civilian costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they are immediately challenged or dismissed as overblown. And yet it is somehow perfectly reasonable to decry the loss of civilian life in Georgia as monstrous and entirely criminal in just seven days.

The United Nations is reporting that some 100,000 people have been displaced because of the recent conflict in Georgia. In comparison, as of May of this year, some 1 million Somalis were internally displaced as fighting between ICU insurgents and US backed Ethiopian forces, bolstering the forces of Somalia’s new government, continued to clash. According to Oxfam, at least 4 million Iraqis have been displaced since the 2003 invasion, some fleeing the country altogether, some relocating to other parts of it.

That’s 5 million or more people whose plight has gone largely overlooked in the West. And that’s not even counting those displaced in Darfur, the Western cause du jour.

While it might sound callous, Caucasian refugees tend to get more press, especially when it suits the political ends of Western governments. That’s just reality.

1. In the case of the sales figures of Corsi’s book it should not be overlooked that it is very common for right-wing organizations to buy such publications in bulk and then distribute them for free, rendering the actual sales figures misrepresentative.

It started on Thursday and now it’s blown open…

» Pakistan denies ISI behind Indian embassy attack.
» U.S. Presses Pakistan on Control of Its Spy Agency.
» Pakistan vows to ‘weed out’ pro-Taliban agents.
» Why Pakistan is unlikely to crack down on Islamic militants.
» India says ties with Pakistan lowest in 4 years.

From today’s New York Times (linked above)…

“The Bush administration is increasing pressure on Pakistan’s fledgling civilian government to bring the country’s spy service under civilian control, according to American and Pakistani officials.

During meetings in Washington this week with Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, senior Bush administration officials pressed their Pakistani counterparts to assert control over Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, the American officials said. The pressure comes as relations between India and Pakistan deteriorate following reports of ISI involvement in the recent bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.

The American pressure reflects heightened concerns at the State Department, Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency that operatives in the ISI, who have long been believed to have close ties to Pakistani militants, have become bolder and more open in their support for militant Islamist organizations.”

While statements can be made by the US administration regarding its concerns, the truth of the matter is that most knowledgeable annalists know that it’s just rhetoric. The Pakistani government is already in the midst of defending the ISI with regards to accusations that it was involved in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, which it may very well have been. They may even go so far as to promise that rogue elements within the ISI will be weeded out. In truth, the ISI may very well play ball with Pakistan’s new coalition government for the sake of placation, but will, by no means, abandon any of its power in my opinion.

There are those that you antagonize because you know that there won’t be serious repercussions and those that you do not. Heated rhetoric aimed at Iran is one thing, but outing the Pakistani ISI is another matter altogether. Like it or not, agree with it or not, the reality is that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence is an extremely powerful entity, one that routinely transcends the authority of Pakistan’s government. The ISI has been referred to as Pakistan’s Ghost Government on more than one occasion, and even Pervez Musharraf, who was, for all intents and purposes, a military dictator, lived with the reality that if you do not possess the confidence and favour of the ISI then you are in the wilderness.

After the assassination of Benazir Bhutto it was speculated by many that the ISI was complicit, even if their involvement was limited to the employment or financing of others to accomplish the deed itself. Bhutto must have been fully aware when she returned to Pakistan that the ISI would be a problem were she to succeed in securing her old office. She must have also been aware of the fact that they most likely viewed her as little more than a US political proxy. Those in and around Washington that pushed for her return given the state of Pakistani politics at the time severely underestimated the ISI’s resolve in my opinion, and it ultimately cost Bhutto her life.

One thing that should be taken into account is that the ISI is, more than likely, not afraid of the United States. They have, in the past, worked closely with the CIA, and are by no means strangers with regards to American covert practices. In truth, they have probably been the most significant force behind Pakistan’s double dealings with the US since 9/11, placating US interests when it suits their purposed while supporting those that serve their own, the Taliban included.

In yesterday’s New York Times, an article by Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt was published entitled Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say. An excerpt…

“American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Concerns about the role played by Pakistani intelligence not only has strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, a longtime ally, but also has fanned tensions between Pakistan and its archrival, India. Within days of the bombings, Indian officials accused the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of helping to orchestrate the attack in Kabul, which killed 54, including an Indian defense attaché.

This week, Pakistani troops clashed with Indian forces in the contested region of Kashmir, threatening to fray an uneasy cease-fire that has held since November 2003.

The New York Times reported this week that a top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled to Pakistan this month to confront senior Pakistani officials with information about support provided by members of the ISI to militant groups. It had not been known that American intelligence agencies concluded that elements of Pakistani intelligence provided direct support for the attack in Kabul.”

The publication of this story has, of course, spread like wildfire, resulting in a statement today by the Pakistani government claiming that the ISI was not involved in the Kabul bombing. Among those that have picked up on it are The BBC, The CBC, The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and Reuters, just to name a brief few. The point being, the world is out, and now a very dangerous game of US covert interventionism and Pakistani culpable deniability will no doubt ensue. But the real motivation behind the revelation of the ISI’s involvement in the Kabul bombing by the CIA could have very little to do with an attempt to egregiously expose the ISI’s support of insurgents that operate along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier and use the information to fan another flame altogether.

The Probable Squeeze Play

First, this morning finds the article penned by the New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt in yesterday’s publication ‘updated’. The exact same body of text quoted above now reads…

“A top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled secretly to Islamabad this month to confront Pakistan’s most senior officials with new information about ties between the country’s powerful spy service and militants operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas, according to American military and intelligence officials.

The C.I.A. emissary presented evidence showing that members of the spy service had deepened their ties with some militant groups that were responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the officials said.

The decision to confront Pakistan with what the officials described as a new C.I.A. assessment of the spy service’s activities seemed to be the bluntest American warning to Pakistan since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks about the ties between the spy service and Islamic militants.

The C.I.A. assessment specifically points to links between members of the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the militant network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, which American officials believe maintains close ties to senior figures of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The C.I.A. has depended heavily on the ISI for information about militants in Pakistan, despite longstanding concerns about divided loyalties within the Pakistani spy service, which had close relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks.

That ISI officers have maintained important ties to anti-American militants has been the subject of previous reports in The New York Times. But the C.I.A. and the Bush administration have generally sought to avoid criticism of Pakistan, which they regard as a crucial ally in the fight against terrorism.

The visit to Pakistan by the C.I.A. official, Stephen R. Kappes, the agency’s deputy director, was described by several American military and intelligence officials in interviews in recent days. Some of those who were interviewed made clear that they welcomed the decision by the C.I.A. to take a harder line toward the ISI’s dealings with militant groups.”

You will note that mention of tensions with India have been removed. This passage from yesterday’s version of the story is of paramount importance…

“Within days of the bombings, Indian officials accused the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of helping to orchestrate the attack in Kabul, which killed 54, including an Indian defense attaché.”

To many this might seem of little consequence given historical tensions between the two nations, but the inevitable question must be asked – who furnished the Indians with information that the ISI was involved? Of course, given that the Indian embassy was the target, they could have come to that conclusion on their own, it’s not as if they lack the intelligence capability to unearth such information. But given the revelations now being provided by the United States, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the US provided the Indian government with that information in an attempt to open what could be referred to as ‘a second front’ with regards to using the Indians as part of a ‘squeeze play’ to regionally box the Pakistanis in. In that sense, Kashmir becomes the inevitable playing field in that arena, one which, if properly exploited, could result in the diversion of support intended for insurgents operating along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier. As was also pointed out in the initial article run by the New York Times yesterday…

“This week, Pakistani troops clashed with Indian forces in the contested region of Kashmir, threatening to fray an uneasy cease-fire that has held since November 2003.”

Reuters is also reporting the following…

“India said on Friday that peace talks with Pakistan were at the lowest point in their four-year history after a spate of bombings in Indian cities and at the country’s embassy in Kabul.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said the blasts had “affected the future” of negotiations between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

“If you ask me to describe the state of the dialogue, it is in a place where it hasn’t been in the last four years,” Menon told reporters.

“We face a situation where things have happened in the recent past which were unfortunate and which quite frankly have affected the future of the dialogue.”

India blames Pakistan for a breach of a 2003 ceasefire on its de facto border in disputed Kashmir, and accuses its spy agency of involvement in last month’s bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, in which two senior diplomats were among 58 people killed.”

In situations such as this, motive is always a factor. US motives are plain enough – there must be a serious transformation of the Pakistani political landscape so that the ISI’s powers are either limited or altogether removed. Bhutto’s return was certainly a part of US efforts to upset that balance. Of course, the ISI aren’t fools, and are well aware of how the United States operates when it comes to the differentiation between promoted initiatives and covert ones. They, themselves, have been running the very same game against the US since 9/11. Publicly they claim that they are not aiding militants involved in operations in Afghanistan, or that if elements with the ISI are involved in such activities that they will be rooted out. Privately they continue to support those groups that they view, and have viewed for some time, as vital to the spread of Pakistani influence in the region. And they will, make no mistake, be patient and wait for the United States to act rashly with regards to unilateral military operations within Pakistan itself, which will only further their domination over the Pakistani government and ultimately lead to a growth in public support as it pertains to confronting the United States as a foreign aggressor that is threatening Pakistani sovereignty.

This is where the Indians become a crucial part of the equation, and again, motive must be examined. If the United States did furnish the Indian government intelligence with regards to the ISI’s role in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, what do the Americans get out of it – or, better, yet, what leverage do they possess to help ensure that the Indian government plays ball. Well, interestingly enough, and only a day after that initial New York Times article was published…

“The governors of the U.N. nuclear watchdog approved an inspections plan for India on Friday, an important step towards completing a nuclear cooperation deal between New Delhi and the United States.

The plan, approved by consensus by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors, will permit regular IAEA surveillance of India’s declared civilian nuclear energy plants — 14 of 22 existing or planned reactors.

This clears a hurdle to an accord that would allow sales of atomic materials and technology for civilian use to India. The deal has been criticized because New Delhi has not signed the global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).”

This is, I am sad to report, how things work. There are back channels for back channels when it comes to the covert agendas of nations that are often conveniently appropriated through openly negotiated dealings. It is no secret that the United States and India have been working on this deal for some time now, but given the situation in Pakistan, and the fact that Afghanistan is beginning to resemble its former self more and more, securing the favour of traditional regional allies is quintessential.

The reason is clear enough.

Pakistan Has Always Been The Crux Of The Problem

After the Taliban was overthrown in 2001, were Pakistan not a regional factor, the reconstitution of the Taliban would never have occurred. The reality is, and has always been, that the war in Afghanistan is perpetuated by the support provided by those within Pakistan that view the success of what they view as military proxies as quintessential with regards to securing Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. That was why Benazir Bhutto backed supporting the Taliban in the 90’s and why the ISI supports them today.

It is very important to remember that, prior to 9/11, the United States possessed a very cool outlook towards Pakistan, one fermented by their acquisition and development of a nuclear weapons program. Despite the fact that the United States has never seriously condemned the Indians regarding theirs, the Pakistanis have always been another matter altogether, a position very likely cultivated during US cooperation with the ISI in the 80’s and their exposure to the organization’s mindset. Of course, there is a significant deal of hypocrisy involved as it pertains to the United States during that era, but that does not change the fact that both the CIA and the ISI are by no means strangers with regards to each others governing mindsets.

Following 9/11, unilaterally striking Pakistan was off the table - most likely because of their possession of a nuclear deterrent. Instead, the Bush Administration decided to ally itself with Pakistan’s military dictator, ironically casting him in an altogether ‘just’ light for as long as it served the administration’s ends. By the time it became clear that the Taliban were not defeated, and that their military prowess was growing, Musharraf became an obstacle that needed to be removed. Thus, various actions taken by his government to do with the diminishment of democratic freedoms were highlighted and Bhutto was ultimately thrust into the fray as a US-backed hopeful.

We all know how that turned out, and, as I stated earlier, the involvement of the ISI in her assassination should not be disregarded as mere speculation. In truth, if we’re to talk brass tacks, it was a move that the ISI had to make to ensure that foreign interventionism would not gain a significant foothold in the country.

But the fact remains that the war in Afghanistan is a war for Afghanistan, not a war to emancipate a people from a once ruthless regime. It is a conflict that is being fought by Western powers against insurgents supported by one of the region’s foremost covert military organizations that possess decades worth of experience when it comes to using regional militants to their advantage. Seven years after the fact, Western powers are finally waking up to that reality, though there is little that they can do about it without purposely orchestrating a coup within Pakistan or targeting both insurgent and Pakistani forces within the country itself without hesitation or excuse. Unfortunately, Pakistan is not Afghanistan, and to do so would lead to an outcome that would make the war in Iraq look like a child’s birthday party.

Calling a spade a spade is one thing. But the game that has seemingly been initiated by the United States regarding the ISI’s culpability is a very dangerous one indeed.

As a follow up to an entry posted a few days ago, an article of note from the New York Times entitled - C.I.A. Outlines Pakistan Links With Militants…

“The C.I.A. emissary presented evidence showing that members of the spy service had deepened their ties with some militant groups that were responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the officials said.

The decision to confront Pakistan with what the officials described as a new C.I.A. assessment of the spy service’s activities seemed to be the bluntest American warning to Pakistan since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks about the ties between the spy service and Islamic militants.

The C.I.A. assessment specifically points to links between members of the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the militant network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, which American officials believe maintains close ties to senior figures of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The C.I.A. has depended heavily on the ISI for information about militants in Pakistan, despite longstanding concerns about divided loyalties within the Pakistani spy service, which had close relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks.

That ISI officers have maintained important ties to anti-American militants has been the subject of previous reports in The New York Times. But the C.I.A. and the Bush administration have generally sought to avoid criticism of Pakistan, which they regard as a crucial ally in the fight against terrorism.”

This should come as absolutely no surprise whatsoever, least of all to the Central Intelligence Agency who used the ISI as their primary conduit with regards to supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80’s. The CIA is, by no means, in the dark when it comes to the reality of the ghost government that the ISI represents. To present information that they are, in any way, shocked that elements within the ISI (or as a whole) have continued to support those that they have, for years, considered invaluably quintessential with regards to the injection of Pakistani influence in the region is a stretch to say the least.

According to Foreign Affairs Minister David Emerson, Canada may be expanding its role in Afghanistan from 2,500 members of the Canadian Armed Forces to 2,700. The additional 200 troops would, according to Emerson, be deployed to service six Chinook helicopters that are destined for the theatre as well as unmanned aerial drones.

The majority of the Canadian contingent of ISAF is stationed in the southern Province of Kandahar where they have suffered one of the worst casualty rates of the conflict. That is a fact that seems to get lost when many examine the size of our force in Afghanistan, but it remains a fact nonetheless. We have, given the size of our contingent, paid dearly.

In the end it will have been for nothing – I firmly believe that. Those who have given their lives in the line of duty, doing their jobs, will be rendered victims of policy, and that is also something that should not be overlooked. We are, to put it lightly, pawns in a game of global hegemony that think ourselves anything but, and it is high time that we woke up to that fact.

Of course, the counter arguments are many, though steeped in contradiction. The Taliban, whom I would never dream of defending, had to be stopped. Mind you, they only had to be stopped after 9/11. Prior to that the Canadian government did nothing of significance regarding the suffering of the people that endured their rule. The same is true of the United States. In fact, prior to 9/11, US oil giant Unocal was in negotiations with the Taliban in an attempt to secure the rights to build a natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea into Pakistan, a project that is, not surprisingly, currently being lauded as one of the country’s economic saving graces. Hamid Karzai, the current President of Afghanistan, was, at the time, a corporate consultant for Unocal, having turned down an offer from the Taliban to act as their Ambassador to the United Nations.

Representatives of the Taliban visited the United States twice during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and once during George Bush’s Presidency prior to 9/11. On all three occasions it was made very clear that the United States did not recognize the regime as the official government of Afghanistan. After all, these were people responsible for using tanks to crush individuals to death in football stadiums. Recognizing them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan was never an option. But allowing them to be courted by a major US oil giant was.

On the first two visits to the US the Taliban’s delegation met with representatives of Unocal, actually visiting the home of Unocal’s Vice President during the second visit. During the third visit, Said Ramatullah Hashemi, then the Taliban’s Foreign Minister, met with State Department officials as well as the Afghanistan desk officer for the Office of Counter Terrorism. During that visit he delivered a letter to the Bush Administration calling for improved relations. Following the meetings Richard Boucher commented that they did not represent any US recognition of the Taliban and that the United States did not recognize any government in the country at all. That said - and this should not be overlooked - during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 the United States employed the Northern Alliance as a proxy force.

Historical reality shows that the Pakistanis have played a significant role in supporting the Taliban. It was covertly funded in the past by the government of Benazir Bhutto, a fact that was conveniently overlooked upon her return to Pakistan and certainly overlooked when she was being sainted after her assassination. But as Steve Coll’s ‘Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden’ accurately points out…

“Benazir Bhutto, who was secretly authorizing the Taliban’s covert aid, did not let the Americans know. She visited Washington in the spring of 1995, met with President Clinton, and promoted the Taliban as a pro-Pakistan force that could help stabilize Afghanistan… During her visit and for many months afterward Bhutto and her aides repeatedly lied to American government officials and members of Congress about the extent of Pakistani military and financial aid to the Taliban… Bhutto had decided it was more important to appease the Pakistani army and intelligence service than to level with her American friends.”

It is no mystery that tensions have increased along the Pakistan-Afghan border of late, with cross border raids occurring in Pakistani tribal areas. While certain prominent voices within Pakistan have warned that unilateral operations conducted inside Pakistan represent a serious breach of the country’s sovereignty, the country’s new Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, claimed yesterday…

“Extremism and terrorism are our own problems. This is our own fight. This is our own cause”.

…an indicator that Pakistan is not open to obliging Western forces in Afghanistan with regards to independent military operations against the Taliban that include incursions into Pakistan itself.

There are several million Pashtun refugees still displaced along the Pashtun belt, providing the Taliban with a resource pool from which to draw. Given what they are prepared to pay those willing to fight, the economics of poverty have played a significant role in the Taliban’s reconstitution. Of course, the Taliban’s financial resources are not simply appearing out of thin air, another indication that aid from within Pakistan, be it from sympathetic groups within the country’s tribal areas or, dare I say, even the ISI itself, most likely represents the majority of their assistance.

If anything, the Taliban, if even uneasily, remains a Pakistani proxy force in the region, one that can be used to further Pakistan’s interests with regards to Afghanistan. To discount such ambitions is, in my view, to seriously underestimate the view that many within Pakistan’s military apparatus hold – that they are a significant player within the region and not one to be trifled with or treated as lackeys by foreign powers.

In the midst of this mess are several thousand Canadian combat troops, all of whom have been fed post September 11th propaganda without a serious study of the region’s conflict history entering into the equation.

Just as I posted this morning’s entry – and I mean when I literally clicked ‘publish’ – the power went out. It’s not expected to come back on until tomorrow, the result of an underground transformer exploding. A few people were trapped in the elevator in the building when I left, as in the event of an outage one of the elevators remains active, powered by a generator, so people have continued to use it throughout the day. But being that the building is so hot, there was little point in trying to ride it out.

Casey

Casey is doing a little better out here at my parent’s place. He’s moving around and trying to coax my father into throwing his ball. Today I applied some Polysporin to his feet, as parts of them look raw and almost puss filled. I don’t think that he’s in any immediate danger, but will continue to watch him. He’s eating regularly and isn’t exhibiting any other signs of distress, though he continues to lick his feet.

Follow Up

I was going to suggest, after posting this morning’s entry, that we start some sort of action to send the Department Of National Defence a few hundred copies of Lester Grau’s The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan. It was published in 1996, so you’d think someone over there would have perused it by now.