In 1994, the world turned its back on Rwanda. In 100 days, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered while the international community did nothing. The Security Council sold UNAMIR down the river, events in the Balkans taking precedent over one of the most horrific and systematic acts of genocide since the Second World War.

But make no mistake; those that did nothing had their reasons. The French were flying some of the individuals involved in the masterminding of the genocide out of the country, even while it was occurring. They also supplied the Rwandan military at the time with arms. One of the revolving seats on the Security Council at the time was actually occupied by Rwanda, allowing those in power in Kigali a front row seat from which to observe the world’s response. The United States, gun shy due to previous events in Somalia, refused to intervene.

All of it led to the hobbling of any real, concerted effort that the UN could have taken. Thus, a skeleton force led by General Dallaire remained, despite the fact that the Security Council had ended UNAMIR’s mandate. Dallaire, and a handful of others, chose to remain and, at the very least, protect those that they had already given sanctuary to. In the end, they were able to save the lives of some 30,000 people without really firing a shot.

Now, consider what could have been accomplished had there been a real UN presence on the ground.

During a recent stop in Rwanda on his current tour of Africa, President Bush said the following…

“Evil must be confronted,” he said after touring the Kigali memorial.

He said the UN’s response to the crisis in Darfur “seems very bureaucratic to me, particularly with people suffering”.

Indeed it does, Mr. Bush. And being that your country has one of the most predominant voices on the Security Council, one has to wonder why more isn’t being done? True, UNAMID has been instituted, but the time for half measures has come and gone. The Sudanese government, with which your government has worked covertly, may refuse the presence of a substantial UN force in Darfur, the Chinese may very well fight you tooth and nail to stop a concerted intervention, but at least have the fortitude to make the issue one that is utterly unavoidable. Breath into it, sir, the urgency that it deserves.

There is the truth and then there is talk of it. In the case of African events of this nature, talk is all that is ever produced. The reality is that were an event comparable to Darfur to take place in, for example, the Balkans, the Western world’s actions would be considerable. In fact, it would become an issue that would dominate the headlines the world over. Unfortunately, when it comes to African nations, the horrible truth is that while the killing is occurring the world does nothing, and only after the fact laments it.

In comparison to UNAMID, UNMIK, empowered by UN resolution 1244, has been active in Kosovo since 1999. UNMIK is provided security by KFOR, which is a NATO led international force. In April of last year, KFOR’s numbers consisted of some 16,000 soldiers from 34 different nations – nine years after UNMIK’s mandate began. At its height, KFOR had 50,000 personnel in operation. As of January of this year, UNAMID, the joint UN-AU mission in Darfur, has a mere 9,065 personnel in place, of which 6,880 are soldiers, 645 are military staff and observers, 1,400 are police officers, 285 are civilian personnel, 552 are local civilian staff, and 63 and UN volunteers.

UNAMID’s actual mandate, as passed in UN resolution 1769 in July of last year, allows for - “Up to 19,555 military personnel; 6,432 police, including 3,772 police personnel and 19 formed police units comprising up to 140 personnel each; and a significant civilian component”.

So where are they?

Perhaps they’ve been employed writing speeches for the likes of Mr. Bush and other world leaders that use the issue when convenient and ignore it when it’s not.

In 1994, while the world was struggling to come to terms with the untimely death of Kurt Cobain, almost 1 million people died in Rwanda. Most of them, if not all of them, had never heard of Nirvana.

A few clarifications regarding my last entry. With regards to Afghanistan, obviously the rhetoric that I employed was extreme. My reason for doing so was simple – to show that, despite what many Canadians believe, there is really no middle ground when it comes to our participation in direct combat operations. Peacekeeping is another matter altogether, as is aiding in reconstruction efforts, the first obviously being required to provide security for the second, but under a mandate that is not overtly aggressive. But that is not where we find ourselves at present, and Canadians should realize the difference between the two.

I find it interesting that the force employed during past conflicts seems to get overlooked when it comes to present conflicts, as if war has become something in which death and horror is not a reality any longer, or at least comes as a surprise when we find out that it is. During the Second World War, the bombing campaigns against both Germany and Japan were devastating, and did not go out of their way to minimize collateral damage. In fact, civilian demoralization was a goal, and one that produced significant results.

Now, I do not say this as an advocate for the use of such force, simply as a reminder that that is what war entails. There is no such thing as a clean war, though many have come to believe that such a thing can exist.

The second clarification that I would like to address is my reference to AFRICOM being headquartered in Ethiopia. If you research AFRICOM, which is the acronym for The United States Africa Command, you’ll discover that, according to the Department Of Defense, it is currently headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM was authorized in June of 2007 to the outrage of numerous African nations, among them Egypt, a long time US ally, who was ultimately excluded from its sphere of influence. The initial mandate of AFRICOM is similar to other US regional commands that were created after the Second World War. Though some of their names have been changed since, those initial commands are now represented by CENTCOM, EUCOM, PACOM, NORTHCOM, and SOUTHCOM. With the addition of AFRICOM, the United States now has joint military commands that encompass every region of the world. And while the Department of Defense lists the headquarters for all of them save EUCOM and AFRICOM as being on US soil, the reality is that adjunct regional command centers are, by no means, a thing of fantasy.

In the case of AFRICOM, there is widespread hostility towards it by many of the African nations that it covets. There are, of course, exceptions. Liberia, for example, has openly stated that it would host the command, though given the state of affairs in that nation it is entirely impractical (though that is not to say that some from of adjunct office might not ultimately be instituted there). Others that have been scouted include Gabon, Senegal, and Cameroon.

One nation, however, that has already stated that it will be working with AFRICOM is Ethiopia, a position that the country’s Prime Minister, Menes Zelawi, confirmed last fall. Ethiopia is also no stranger to US military training assistance. In 2004, a temporary base, Camp United, became home to training elements of the US 3rd Infantry, located near the Ethiopian Military Academy in Hurso, who were responsible for instruction in infantry fundamentals.

In December of 2006, Ethiopia, aided by the US Air Force and Special Forces teams, invaded Somalia to overthrow the ICU. In June of 2007, AFRICOM was authorized and then instituted in October of that year.

Added to this is the use of notorious Ethiopian prisons known for their use of torture to house detainees that have been used by the CIA and FBI for interrogation purposes.

Ultimately, AFRICOM’s ‘official’ residence might not ultimately be in Ethiopia, but there is no questioning the fact that, given US assistance to, and involvement with, Ethiopia, that its presence in that country is by no means slight. Of course, the United States has adamantly denied that AFRICOM’s purpose is geared towards the militarization of Africa. Unfortunately, given their complicity in the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, that stance is highly dubious.

Therefore, for the sake of factual accuracy, I will retract my previous assertion (for the time being, at least).

After years of cataloguing and commenting on world events on this website, I must admit that it has become somewhat of a chore. Obviously, my personal beliefs remain unaltered, but as the years have passed I have found myself suffering from a bizarre form of self induced anxiety because I feel that I’m unable to grant a myriad of subjects the attention that I feel they deserve, and in a manner that reflects their seriousness by providing the sort of attention to them that simply cannot be provided by a single person within a 24 hour time frame.

Being that the geopolitical landscape is fluid, it is very difficult to keep on top of a variety of events. Being that this website isn’t a news organization, nor do I have at my disposal the sorts of resources that such organizations have, it makes attempting to disseminate current events in a timely fashion rather difficult without simply posting an array of hyperlinks. In short, blogging isn’t supposed to be about directing readers to likeminded websites that contain information, but rather exist to provide an individual a platform to comment on those things that they feel important.

In my case, the problem is that so many of the things that I find important are interlinked with occurrences elsewhere, many of them steeped in the intrusions of foreign interventionism. Therefore, when commenting on, for example, the genocide in Sudan, a myriad of other factors become relevant, such as the fact that while the United States has declared it genocide, it works behind the scenes with the government in Khartoum on a program to use Sudanese nationals to infiltrate radical groups in Iraq. That, of course, then leads to Iraq and events regarding such radical groups. The same can be said of Somalia, where Ethiopian forces were backed by the United States to displace the ICU, which has led to one of the most overlooked humanitarian crises in Africa. In that instance, while the focus should be placed on the disastrous consequences of Ethiopia’s actions with regards to ordinary Somalis and what they have had to endure, it also cannot be overlooked that the United States not only supported the initial invasion of the country with Special Forces teams and air strikes, but that the US currently uses notoriously harsh Ethiopian jails to house detainees (Clarification with regards to my initial mention of AFRICOM).

Given these contradictions, it becomes extremely important to include them when dealing with base issues, those largely being the plights of the innocent simply caught in the middle, and who, while they have the world’s sympathy, remain in a state of perpetual limbo because ideological methodology remains at the root of such problems. In the case of Darfur, given China’s relationship with Sudan, the chances of the UN Security Council adopting a unanimous declaration that genocide is taking place in Darfur is slim to none. Were it to, given the UN Charter, immediate and substantial action would have to be taken. Therefore, it costs the Americans very little to claim it genocide. Knowing full well that China’s position will ensure that the Security Council does not reach a unanimous consensus, and therefore require that real action be taken, assuming the position that genocide is occurring costs the US nothing. And if that sounds ridiculous to some of you, consider Rwanda. At the time of the Rwandan genocide, much of the Security Council was unwilling to categorize it as genocide precisely because it would have meant that they would have had to intervene on a much greater level. Instead, they did not, and UNAMIR was left to wither, literally forcing its commander to go against his orders and refuse to leave the country after being told that UNAMIR’s mandate had been exhausted. In that instance, the French were particularly suspect being they had been involved in arming those that would ultimately undertake the slaughter, not to mention evacuating numerous individuals that were involved in masterminding it. Given the disaster that had befallen the US in Somalia prior to that, it too had very little desire to become involved in fear of a domestic backlash. Thus, while the world’s attention was on events in the Balkans, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred.

With regards to Darfur, initially AMIS (whose mandate forbade them to use force to protect civilians) was instituted after the UN found itself in the position of facing funding problems because many of the world’s wealthier nations refused to commit military resources to a substantial peacekeeping initiative. Obviously there were underlying issues, such as China’s opposition given their reliance on Sudanese oil and the fact that they are the primary supplier of arms to the Sudanese. But last summer, after things has become far too catastrophic to ignore any longer, UNAMID was instituted, which is a joint UN-AU force authorized by UN resolution 1769 whose mandate is set to last one year. It is under the command of Nigerian General Martin Luther Agwai.

Nothing is easy, not even responding to a genocidal situation. Like an onion, it has layers of conditions and corruptions, all of which must not only be seen to before the killing of innocents can be addressed, but must also be examined when confronting the reality of why such a situation is allowed to continue. Thus, while simply blogging about what has occurred in Sudan on a base level is important, is it equally as important to seriously confront such issues to reveal the hypocrisies of those who have, all along, possessed the ability to act, or to even aggressively demand that action be taken, but have failed to do so in a timely fashion. That includes the government of Sudan itself, which forbade the presence of UN peacekeepers until last year, and which, with regards to culpability and crimes against humanity, makes them susceptible to applicable international laws regarding genocide. Unfortunately, given the damage done the ICC since the invasion of Iraq and the US position that it will not adhere to its authority, the Sudanese find themselves in a comfortable gray area in which they too can ignore international law, having been provided precedent to fall back on with regards to war crimes prosecution.

That said; there’s an example of how a simple statement can become multidimensional in a matter of a few paragraphs. And, in truth, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most crucial aspects is, of course, personal experience. When it comes to Darfur, I will say that I deeply regret not going when I was offered the opportunity several years ago. Unfortunately, I was scheduled to begin touring at the time and therefore had to turn it down.

What Is Simple And What Is Not

Complexities reign. No situation is as black and white as it’s made out to be, not even those that are painted as struggles of good against evil.

I commented after the release of The Manley Report that if we’re to take confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan seriously then we must face the hard, cold truth that the abandonment of our morality is something that we are going to have to come to terms with. With most in government adamantly opposed to any process of negotiation, the alternative is – what? The pretense of nobly confronting and overcoming the Taliban? And how is that to be accomplished? By holding down the fort long enough for the Afghan military to reach a level of professionalism to deal with the problem? The truth is, a considerable portion of the Afghan military, including its leadership, is comprised of ex-Northern Alliance members that are, by no means, strangers to conflict, specifically fighting the Taliban. Therefore, how long will we have to wait before they’re able to return to doing what they did prior to the 2001 invasion, which was fighting the Taliban?

Of course, they did a piss poor job of it, and infighting didn’t help their cause either. That being the case, having tens of thousands of foreign troops around to work towards accomplishing what they couldn’t doesn’t seem like something they’d be in favour of disparaging. Which brings us back to our confrontation of the Taliban and what we hope to achieve.

If there is no place for the Taliban in the new Afghanistan, then it only stands to reason that they have to be eliminated, which means the application of overwhelming and inhumane force to decimate their will to wage war and disenfranchise that portion of the civilian population that supports them. That means that everyone, fighters and civilians alike, are equal opportunity targets. And given that the United States has ruled that Omar Kahdr, who was 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan, can be classified an enemy combatant because he belonged to an organization that is not recognized as a legitimate military force, child soldiers are fair game as well.

If you’re labouring under the misconception that there’s a more noble way to go about it, you’re dreaming. Unless, that is, you want Canadians to be in Afghanistan until hell freezes over and believe that the Taliban can actually be ‘waited out’. Because the reality is that were international forces to leave the country tomorrow, Mr. Karzai would be on a plane a day later headed for a life in exile and Kabul would be overrun in a matter of weeks. Therefore, given that reality, the most prudent course of action is to abandon this arrogant assumption that we’re ‘better’ than those we’re fighting and get to the business of eradicating them with extreme prejudice.

As for the inevitable backlash that it will occur on a global scale, what would it matter? We’re already in bed with the most despised nation on earth, no need to split hairs. We can’t retain our reputation and be involved in the sort of undertaking required to ensure victory without it being pissed on.

In March, this country may very well go to the polls over this issue, at great expense to the people of this country to boot. Thus, if you’re willing to support our continued role in combat operations in Afghanistan, stop hiding behind lame preconceived notions of nobility and justice and at least have the guts to admit that the only way that the job is going to get done is if we start displaying the same zealotry as those we’re fighting.

Handing prisoners over to be tortured by local authorities? It’s a waste of valuable time. We should just do it ourselves, on the spot, and forgo having to wait for actionable intelligence. If nothing comes of it, well, at least that’s one less enemy combatant to worry about. A sympathetic bullet to the back of the head and on with the business of winning. Because that’s what we’re there to do, win. Not fuck about worrying whether the people of the country we’re saving on their behalf have a problem with our tactics, not to mention bleeding hearts here at home. According to The Manley Report, the majority of Afghans want us there anyway, so our alteration in tactics is just going to have to be something they get used to if liberty is at all important to them.

Pakistan, of course, remains a problem. Our actions will, without question, plunge that nation into a further state of chaos, which means that we might have to be prepared to deal with it as well. Given that Bhutto is dead, and out best chance at implementing a puppet regime that would allow us free reign in Waziristan is gone, we’ll have to tread lightly until we see what becomes of Musharraf’s government. If Musharraf were willing to help us undertake the elimination of those in his own military establishment that have ties to radical groups, we could offer him some future considerations with regards to Afghanistan (what’s Karzai going to say, honestly?). We could even demand that the IAEA be granted access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, which would, of course, provide us a backdoor with which to compromise it, and in doing so throw Musharraf a few extra bones, such as gifting him arms and promises that we will aid in any effort to protect his regime from other political elements within the country. Of course, we’ll also have to make him President as well, which, after putting a few key ‘international electoral observes’ in place, shouldn’t be a problem.

If any of that sounds dirty to you, and completely counter to everything that we stand for, it’s time to get your head out of the dark recesses of your ass and see the world for what it is. Because justice and decency are only as good as their domestic projections. They win elections, they don’t win wars, nor do they have any place in foreign policy when it comes to global interests.

This is the game we’re now playing, and it’s time that Canadians got used to it. We did our bit in the Great Wars, that was all well and good, but times change. We can no longer fall back on the past to comfort ourselves with regards to what now must be done and the ugliness that we must be willing to embrace to see it accomplished.

We live in a free country and have an all-volunteer army. If our elected officials send those volunteers into harms way, it only stands to reason that some of them are going to come home in boxes. The hard reality facing Canadians is the differentiation between casting those deaths in some wholly romantic and patriotic light, or one that represents the reality that they were ordered into action to kill and therefore run the risk of being killed. But, most importantly – to kill.

That must, at the end of the day, be the goal. And it is here that the hard, cold mathematics of warfare have to be applied and seen for what they are. If ten Canadian deaths mean the deaths of 100 Taliban fighters, or those civilians that support them, then it was worth it. During the Second World War, those sorts of numbers would have been cause for celebration. In this case, being that we are engaged in a global war against terrorism, its primary front being in Afghanistan, it only stands to reason that they should be cause for celebration as well. Of course, the loss of any of our fighting men and women is always terrible, but that’s what soldiers are ultimately for, is it not? If our government orders them into a situation in which they are to kill an enemy, then it only stands to reason that their role is accept death as a consequence. Despite what many might believe, especially given that we haven’t been involved in a serious conflict for generations, that’s the reality of the combat soldier. They are tools with which to kill and be killed in turn. If that were not the case, then they would not be trained to kill because simple logic dictates that when you’re profession is to go to war and kill others, your own death is something that might also come with the package.

So here we are, on the raggedy edge.

A suicide bombing has killed a women and wounded nine others in the Israeli town of Dimona. Nothing can justify such an action, not even what has befallen Palestinians in Gaza because of the recent blockade, though I am sure that was the impetus. While some might think it justifiable, I’ll not condone such actions; just I do not condone the Israeli blockade and the miserable sufferings that it has caused, which is something considering conditions in Gaza prior to its institution. It should also be pointed out that the attack was not the work of Hamas, but rather that of Fatah’s military wing.

President Bush has unveiled the largest budget proposal in US history - $3.1 trillion dollars. As one might expect, the national security budget is being increased while other areas are being deceased, such as healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Today the Pentagon is also revealing its 2009 budget which, if approved in its entirety, and when adjusted for inflation, will be the largest of its kind since the Second World War.

The situation in Chad continues to deteriorate.

The legal team representing Canadian Guantanamo detainee, Omar Khadr, have asked that the charges against him be dropped. Khadr was only 15 years of age when he was taken into US custody, which, given precedents, made him a child soldier at the time. France has also recently claimed that the case against Khadr is suspect because of that very reason. US military prosecutors disagree, of course, claiming that Khadr ‘conducted surveillance in civilian clothing’ and that he was not a member of any recognized force, but rather a terrorist organization.

A US Surge in Afghanistan may be in the works.

The US Military has killed nine civilians during operations south of Baghdad. An internal investigation is, of course, underway, which will, as is usually the case, lead to nothing more than an apology and monetary compensation. Local witnesses claim that the death toll was, in fact, higher, and that a significant number of them were members of a single family.

There is new emerging evidence that Philip Zelikow, the head of the 9/11 Commission, had to ‘go through Karl Rove’ despite the fact that the inquiry was passed off as being independent of White House scrutiny.

Lastly, tomorrow is Super Tuesday. Should be interesting.

Former Un Secretary General Kofi Annan has made an important observation regarding the unrest currently gripping Kenya, and it is one that Kenyan politicians should not overlook – the fact that while political turmoil might have been the impetus for the country’s current strife, it is, in the words of Mr. Annan, evolving into “something else” altogether.

Despite the fact that Mwai Kibaki met opposition leader Raila Odinga last Thursday in an attempt to make progress and stem the violence that began after that country’s recently disputed election results, systematic human rights abuses continue to occur in what has evolved into a conflict that is rooted in something more than simple tribalism. As the BBC’s Fergal Keane reported last week, the simplicity of labeling what is unfolding as purely “tribal violence” does not truly represent the situation…

“…the tribal issues are only the symptom. Go into the muddy, filthy lanes of Kibera and you find something approaching root causes.

I have spent the past few weeks warning people not to make facile comparisons with Rwanda, where up to a million people died in 100 days.

That was a state-planned and executed genocide. What is happening in Kenya is nothing like that either in scale or intent.

But one thing did strike me as scarily familiar. This is a conflict in which the poor are set at one another’s throats.

In Kibera it is a matter of degrees. Those who have nothing are looting those who have a little bit more.

More than 50% of the people who live in this slum are unemployed. It has a child mortality rate that is between five to seven times the national average. There are tens of thousands of AIDS orphans. And there is no proper water or sanitation or electricity.

All this in a place with nearly a million people. As Walter Kibet, clinical officer with the charity Afrem put it to me: “You see the children getting sick and it affects every aspect of their development.”

This population has seen successive governments rob billions from the public purse in well-documented scandal.

Add all this together and you get a sense of what might be driving the rage. It certainly isn’t a simple issue of tribalism.

In the middle of all this are families like that of Ruth Awuma. She is married with six children and a husband who cannot work due to dreadful burn injuries. A lit candle fell on his bed while he slept.

Ruth rises every day at dawn and travels to work as a maid in Nairobi, returning home every evening just in time to put her younger children to bed.

I asked what her dream was. She didn’t talk about a new president or democracy. Such things seemed abstract in her dark and claustrophobic home.

“I would love a water supply in my house,” she said.

But you must know that is unlikely, I said.

Ruth laughed. “But I can pray,” she replied.

It was about as eloquent a statement of hope as you could hear in Kenya these days.”

I’m tired. Not a lot of sleep last night. I spent it in one of those semi-states of sleep, the sort where you’re aware that you have to be mindful of something that requires that you remain somewhat conscious but are still trying to sleep at the same time.

It’s clear and sunny here again today, as it has been this past week. In fact, it’s been uncommonly beautiful for this time of year, even given the chill the wind provides here on the West Coast that has the annoying ability to cut through everything that you’re wearing and go straight to your bones. We share that phenomenon with the UK, where it’s routine business as well.

I’m rambling, and I’m aware of it. I’m rambling because I’m having one of those mornings that I’m finding it difficult to concentrate. I’m having one of those mornings because, as has been the case over the last month, the list of things to touch upon grows so quickly every day that it seems almost impossible to retain it all and then translate it into something cogent.

Just off the top of my head there’s…

The recent revelation that the Canadian Armed Forces have stopped the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities because of a report of abuse on the 5th of November of last year despite the fact that last May, after a scandal broke regarding the Canadian transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities that were known for their use of torture, the government claimed that it was taking steps to immediately rectify the situation.

The recently released Manley Report, which, although critical of numerous aspects of the mission in Afghanistan, has basically provided the government with what can only be viewed as a blank cheque with regards to Canadian combat operations in that country. Of course, the report is non-binding, but its ramifications on a political level are extremely convenient. Canada, of course, is only one of three nations involved in direct combat operations in Afghanistan, and of the three represents the smallest contingent. That being the case, our losses, compared to those of the United States and the UK, are wholly disproportionate. The debate, however, remains transfixed on our continued support of the mission’s objectives, to help stabilize the nation and provide it security, even though other members of ISAF, with considerably larger forces in country, continue to refuse to have their contingents involved in direct combat operations. There is also the concern that even though our efforts are aimed at ensuring democratic stability in Afghanistan, that its implementation is, in effect, the representation of Western regional aspirations, and therefore not dissimilar to Soviet regional aspirations in the 70’s when the USSR was responsible for aiding in the supplanting of a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Thus, the real test of Afghan democracy will come when the nation has been secured and Western exploitative practices begin in earnest.

That is certainly not to say that the Taliban should be allowed to run rampant and plunge the nation into complete chaos, only that precluding the possibility of negotiations for the purposes of resolution is counter productive. Ultimately, there are always going to be those that support some, if not all, of the Taliban’s agenda, which raises a very important question: must those that do be wholly eliminated before progress can be made? And if they are not, what assurances do we have that there will not be a resurgence in the future that could seriously threaten the stability of the country, even after it possesses a well trained and equipped military? Given that, is it not fair to say that Western military involvement, on even the smallest of levels, will be required in Afghanistan for years to come?

Of course, all of that doesn’t even touch on the realities of the Pakistani frontier and the support covertly supplied those in opposition to the current Afghan government by elements within the Pakistani military establishment itself.

The possibility that Kenya could explode at any moment despite last minute attempts at political reconciliation aimed at stemming violence. As it stands now, the country is already in the early stages of a humanitarian crisis and also on the cusp of what could quickly turn into a genocidal event.

The recent disparity of global markets.

The continuing unrest in Pakistan.

The case of Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, who has been held at the facility since 2002. Khadr was captured at the age of 15 and, as the French Foreign Ministry recently pointed out…

“…all children associated with an armed conflict should be treated accordingly. As a minor at the time of the events, Mr. Khadr must be given special treatment — a point on which there is a universal consensus.”

The Canadian government has refused to intercede in Khadr’s case.

Gaza. While many have taken to illegally entering Egypt so that they can attempt to get food, fuel, and other sundries, Israel’s position remains steadfast, that being that the blockade is a move against the continued rocket attacks emanating from Gaza into Israel. The majority of the United Nations Security Council has labeled the blockade a violation of international humanitarian law and a collective punishment against the entire population, but the United States refuses to support that position without the inclusion of language that supports Israel’s concerns regarding the actions of Palestinian militants. Caught in the middle are, as usual, the 1.5 million residents of Gaza itself.

The firing of Linda Keen, President of The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, hours before she was to appear before a House committee in Ottawa. Keen was fired, according to Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, due to the government’s ‘lack of confidence in her leadership’. This, of course, happened after the Commission’s attempt to have the Chalk River facility closed due to safety concerns and government’s decision to ignore the Commission.

The realities of the sanctions against Iran.

The ruinous economic reality of America’s imperialist adventures.

The frightening resurgence of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Media attacks on Heath Ledger following his death.

The Jose Padilla affair.

The continued humanitarian crisis unfolding in Somalia.

The Sudanese government’s decision to make Musa Hilal, a man accused of coordinating the Janjiweed militias in Darfur, an advisor to Federal Affairs Minister Abdel Basit Sabderat.

And So Forth

In truth, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Iraq is, of course, absent – primarily recent events in Baquba - as is the ever-evolving telecommunications scandal in the US and the Sibel Edmonds affair, the unrest in Zimbabwe, and events in Chiapas.

Last, but certainly not least, there are also those voices that tend to make excellent arguments on a routine basis, such as Robert Fisk, Stephen Zunes, and (for your viewing pleasure), the always brilliant Chalmers Johnson…

Events in Kenya are becoming increasingly more disturbing. It is, of course, difficult to focus on them without the genocide in Darfur creeping into the back of one’s mind, a catastrophe of considerable scope that has largely been disregarded. I suppose, when examining African conflicts, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. In 100 days in Rwanda in 1994, an estimated 800,000 people were massacred. While the Western world’s attention was on the Balkans, the United Nations hung UNAMIR, and its commander, out to dry, leaving the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi with free reign over much of the country until it was too late.

It is a terrible thing to admit that, with regards to what is transpiring in Kenya, we will have to wait and see what happens. One is hopeful that something of a horrific nature does not transpire, or commence, in the interim. Thus far, a quarter of a million people have fled their homes because of the violence.

If you spend some time doing some investigating today you’ll quickly discover that the unrest overtaking Kenya has a very dark side to it, one that is steeped in ethnic tensions that the country’s recent election results have pushed to the forefront.

What took place in Eldoret, in Western Kenya, where 80 children were burned alive in a church along with an estimated 20 adults was, in truth, an act of ethnic cleansing undertaken by members of the Kalenjin tribe, most of them youths. After setting the church on fire, having already killed numerous local males, they waited outside of it as it burned, hacking to pieces many of those that attempted to climb out of the blazing building through windows.

Asked by journalists about the incident, those involved has no qualms about their participation, as The Guardian today revealed…

“At Ngeria Junction, hundreds of angry youths and men, all Kalenjin, gathered. They said they felt cheated by the election, awarded in dubious circumstances to President Mwai Kibaki over opposition leader Raila Odinga. They wanted revenge, and it was Kibaki’s Kikuyu ethnic group, who were going to suffer.

Asked if they knew about the church massacre, all the youths nodded. “We were there,” said one man, who said his name was Patrick. “We got a message that the Kikuyus were arming near the church. So we went to give reinforcements to the Kalenjins there.”

Another man carried on: “The men and women had babies and small children, but they carried pangas to defend themselves. Is someone with a panga innocent? It is not our custom to kill women and children. We told them to come out of the church, but they locked the door and refused to come out. So we burned them.”

A third youth spoke. “They were not worshipping in the church. They were hiding. That makes it a cave not a church. Let Kibaki send a plane for the Kikuyus. They can go … or they will be killed.”

There is speculation abounding that this situation could develop into a genocidal state, which both sides are accusing each other of promoting. Kenyan opposition leader, Raila Odinga, is holding firm to his position that the recent election was rigged; while Mwai Kibaki’s position is that it was obviously lawful. In response, members of Parliament that belong to Mr. Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement have thus far refused to meet with the government to discuss the growing state of violence and political reconciliation.

When you’re fighting a proxy war on behalf of the United States, damage control is something that comes as part of the deal. In the case of Ethiopia’s ongoing military involvement in Somalia, that is precisely what Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is doing – damage control.

Zenawi’s target is the United Nations, which has recently categorized the catastrophe in Somalia as one of the fasted growing humanitarian crises in Africa. According to UN estimations, some 60% of Mogadishu’s residents have fled their homes. Further, UNICEF has said that 1.5 million children have been affected by the conflict and are in need of ‘safe zones’.

Mr. Zenawi’s response? That the United Nations could “do less with hype and exaggeration”, claiming that they should play a more “positive role” in the country. Because as we’re all aware, UNICEF is in the business of over exaggerating the plight of children.

Of course, the Ethiopian military is waiting on an African Union force to arrive in strength before withdrawing. There are currently 1,600 Ugandan AU peacekeepers in Somalia out of an expected 8,000. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. African Union peacekeeping initiatives are massively under funded, basically to the point of being entirely ineffectual. Darfur is proof positive of that. Without the creation of a UN mission, nothing will change, and given the UN’s past involvement in Somalia, from a US standpoint, the employment of the Ethiopian military is far more useful given that the Ethiopians are willing to play ball directly with Washington.

Let’s face it; AFRICOM’s lair is reportedly based in Ethiopia, US personnel have been training Ethiopian forces at Camp United since 2004, and notorious Ethiopian prisons just happen to be the hot new destination for African terror suspects. You do the math.

I love the War on Terror. Let’s face it, without it, what would I really have to write about on a daily basis? The world has been plunged into the most ambiguous event in modern history, placing those on all sides – and there is certainly more than one – in positions of ensuring their survival at any price. In that regard, even the perpetuation of the ‘war’ itself represents the survival of radical ideologies, be they those engineered in Washington or in the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Ironically, both existed long before the World Trade Center fell.

Since 9/11, that tragedy has been used to justify actions that, in truth, no sane society would ever permit unless something of that magnitude existed to provide manipulation. Then again, the people of the United States have been kept in the dark for so long with regards to the covert actions of their own country as to render them little more than four-year robots, required to help facilitate the democratic façade. When the DOD and the CIA have both operated outside of the Constitution since their inception without that fact being seriously debated or challenged, what other conclusion is there to reach?

Usury and indoctrination are not solely the tools of religious radicals. In truth, the technique was gleaned from far more experienced employers of that mechanism. And that is not to say that the United States, or even the Soviets, wrote the book on it, as it’s a text that spans centuries. Just that they simply added a chapter or two.

The beauty of the War on Terror it that it is a conflict without sides precisely so that they don’t have to be taken. Sure, the common perception of it is that it’s a war against terrorism, but that is such an impossibly grandiose statement that, were it true, it would require action to be taken all over the world, not just in those nations in which radical Islam exists. In truth, it would also require that action even be taken against those that instituted the War on Terror in the first place.

For those that, following the end of the Cold War, waited patiently for a chance to unleash an imperialistic US foreign policy doctrine steeped in the arrogance of a one world power, and all the benefits that come with it, the War on Terror is tantamount to Christmas 365 days a year. It is a war without rules, without defined goals, without a conclusion. It is a war in which those that are prosecuted by it can also be used as facilitators for its objectives. Take, for example, US relations with Sudan.

As some of you might be aware, the United States officially classified what has taken place in Darfur as genocide. Of course, when one examines what has, and continues to, take place there, there is no question that Khartoum aided the Janjiweed militias that have been largely responsible for what has transpired in Darfur. Khartoum has denied any connection, of course, despite the fact that last year much of the Janjiweed was absorbed into the Sudanese Armed Forces, primarily the Popular Defense Forces and Border Guards.

So what does that have to do with the War on Terror and the United States?

Well, even though the Bush administration has condemned what is taking place in Darfur as genocide, and even gone so far as to impose sanctions against Sudan, they have also been working with the government in Khartoum on initiatives to do with the war in Iraq, primarily focused on infiltrating Salafi Jihadi groups. The sanctions, while real, are soft, and thus meant to placate a world view that is decidedly critical of the Sudanese government’s complicity in Darfur while maintaining its ‘extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan’ – as the Los Angeles times put it in June of this year…

“The relationship underscores the complex realities of the post-Sept. 11 world, in which the United States has relied heavily on intelligence and military cooperation from countries, including Sudan and Uzbekistan, that are considered pariah states for their records on human rights.

“Intelligence cooperation takes place for a whole lot of reasons,” said a U.S. intelligence official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing intelligence assessments. “It’s not always between people who love each other deeply.”

Sudan has become increasingly valuable to the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks because the Sunni Arab nation is a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan.

That steady flow of foreign fighters has provided cover for Sudan’s Mukhabarat intelligence service to insert spies into Iraq, officials said.

“If you’ve got jihadists traveling via Sudan to get into Iraq, there’s a pattern there in and of itself that would not raise suspicion,” said a former high-ranking CIA official familiar with Sudan’s cooperation with the agency. “It creates an opportunity to send Sudanese into that pipeline.”

So, in short, you condemn the government of Sudan for being complicit in what you have termed genocide and yet you willingly conduct intelligence operations with them.

That, in a nutshell, defines the War on Terror. Right and wrong have no place in it primarily because no defined enemy has ever been established. At first it was Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, which then grew into an ambiguous global network of terrorists, as Bin Laden’s capture became less likely – and, for all intents and purposes – less of a priority. Actions undertaken in various locations, such as in London, by individuals acting independently of any known or established terrorist group then filled the void, providing the war’s spin doctors the opportunity to place it in an improper context, that being that terrorism is alive and well and not, as in the case of the London attacks, based on racial or religious tensions within a specific society or something undertaken as a response to the US occupation of Iraq, among other things. In a sense, such occurrences are little more than blowback entirely respondent to a reckless and hypocritical US foreign policy doctrine, though they are never reported as such by much of the media. Instead, they remain vague in their purpose, with any door left open that infers a connection to a greater evil.

It is, in truth, difficult to find a historical comparison to the sweeping power provided by the ambiguity of the War on terror. Not even the National Socialists in Germany were gifted such an all-encompassing blank cheque with regards to indoctrination and public subversion. In truth, they would have probably marveled at the unprecedented, manipulative power that it has provided the United States and its allies. In their case, the restriction of civil liberties, etc, was overt, harsh, and decisive. Fear was employed on a much more basic and forceful level - nowhere nearly as subversively as it has been with regards to Western societies since 9/11. The crucial element, of course, is that public cooperation because of that fear has led to the acceptance of something that has not only been globally justified as both necessary and just, but completely open ended without limitation or a definition of finality.

If you do business with those guilty of genocide what does that say about you? There was a time when it would say very little, but given the ability to evoke the term ‘War on Terror’, the rules have changed. A world away, we view what has transpired in Darfur as a massive tragedy, but many, faced with the knowledge that the US government still has a relationship with the Sudanese government that is based on counter-terrorism initiatives, view the latter as being of equal importance. True, what has befallen those innocents in Darfur is horrific, but then again, so was 9/11. And that, when it comes to Western perceptions, is all that need be said. It doesn’t matter that the ratio of deaths is not even closely comparable, because, like it or not, admit it or not, we’re talking about the lives of foreigners in a part of the world that is wholly alien to us.

The War on Terror has amplified the need to ensure our security to a global level, enveloping the lives of others, allowing us to use who we will in attempt to ensure our ends no matter the transgressions of those that would aid us in doing so, or the innocent lives lost in the pursuit.

Like it or not, that truth alone renders the War on Terror already lost, though it will most probably take decades for most to come to terms with it.