One can only imagine what it must be like for an adult prisoner to endure US treatment at Guantanamo. But for Omar Khadr, who was sent to the facility when he was just fifteen years of age, his experience must have been all the more traumatic.

Today the Toronto Star released video footage of Kadr, then sixteen, being question by CSIS agents. In the video, which was secretly shot through an air vent, Khadr appears to be suffering from complete emotional detachment. When the agents leave the room, and he is left alone, his fear and extremely heightened state of anxiety remain visibly amplified, indicating that either, at the age of sixteen, he deserves an academy award because he knew he was being filmed, or that he was indeed so traumatically enveloped as to render him in such a state.

Legally, Khadr should never have been taken to Guantanamo. International law dictates that he should have been classified a child soldier and treated as such. Instead he was shipped off to the world’s foremost black hole and has been a prisoner there ever since, subjected to God knows what. If FBI documents released this year are any indication, entirely unethical interrogation practices were certainly on the menu.

Of course, your average ‘kill-em-all pundit’ thinks it all pathetic, that the video demonstrates that the CSIS agents that questioned Khadr displayed a semblance of compassion. But let’s remember one thing – they left him there. In fact, they, and the government of this country at the time, and currently, are just as complicit as those holding Khadr.

So what does that make us, exactly?

If you’re a Canadian that believes that this nation is not the sort of nation that stands shoulder to shoulder with those that have been responsible for holding individuals for years only to discover that many of them are innocent (see the McClatchy reports from June), despite the fact that they’ve been denied their rights under the law and international conventions while, at the same time, those holding them profess to be globally instilling the virtues of the rule of law, then you have cause for serious concern. Because that is not what my grandfather and two of my great uncles fought to defend sixty some odd years ago, and that is certainly not the nation in which I want to die.

I have traveled across this country almost seventy times, coast to coast, and seen more of it, and its people, than the majority of Canadians ever will. And I can honestly say, given my experiences, the acceptance, and even the participation, in such criminality is not what this country stands for.

If CSIS agents interviewed Khadr that means that our government has been complicit in condoning US detentions and all that they entail.

From the Toronto Star article…

“Documents released by Khadr’s lawyers last week raised questions about just what Canada knew concerning Khadr’s treatment. Canadian officials have always publicly stated that they have “sought and received assurances” from the U.S. that Khadr has been treated humanely. But a foreign affairs document released last week revealed that Gould had been told that Khadr was subjected to a sleep deprivation regime the U.S. military dubbed the “frequent flyer program.”

The practice is considered mental torture, according to international law and the U.S. Army Field Manual that governs military interrogators.

“It is shocking to learn that as far back as five years ago Canadian officials knew of the torture and ill-treatment Omar Khadr had experienced but did not intervene on his behalf,” Amnesty International Canada wrote to Harper after the information was revealed.”

While contacting the office of the Prime Minister is somewhat of a futile gesture given that complaints from actual citizens are routinely disregarded, the action itself, with regards to the belief that this nation’s government is still accountable to the people, is important. I therefore urge you to email the office of the Prime Minister about this affair. You can also contact his office by mail or fax at the address listed below…

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

Fax: 613-941-6900

Jean-Pierre Bemba, the ex-Vice President of the DR Congo, has been extradited to The Hague to face war crime charges. While a rebel leader in 2002, forces under Bemba’s command have been accused of committing atrocities, an accusation that Bemba naturally denies.

The likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a cast of others will not share Bemba’s fate. The reason? Because the United States opted out of the ICC after 9/11 and because high level American officials, even ones that are no longer in office, never have to answer for their actions as they pertain to war crimes. Major world powers never do.

Prosecuting the little fish for their actions is one thing, and certainly keeps many believing that justice is something that has not altogether vanished. But the reality remains that those responsible for widespread crimes, such as the illegal invasion of nations based on fallacies and the subsequent loss of life produced, are not held accountable if they are undertaken by major world powers. The reason for that is, of course, quite simple – who has the power to bring them to justice?

The answer is, unfortunately, no one.

The United States is, according to the United States, a beacon of global freedom, of equality, and the protection of human rights. Of course, their implementation of such values when it comes to their deliverance at then end of a rifle is entirely hypocritical. They can point to others and claim that human rights abuses must not be tolerated while, at the same time, completely disregard international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration by indefinitely detaining individuals – not to mention creating a global network of secret facilities at which to employ torture to interrogate them. They can claim that they are a beacon of global freedom, but the fact remains that the freedom they strive to deliver others is one wholly steeped in their own best interests.

Of course, the United States is not alone when it comes to such hypocrisy. Every member of the United Nations Security Council is a global military enabler, as they constitute the most prolific arms manufacturers and retailers in the world. Ironically, when it comes to making UN sanctioned decisions as to who will and won’t be punished for transgressions, be they real or simply the result of foreign policy agendas, the same five nations represent the world’s most influential voices.

Bemba will face justice. But despite his transgressions, he is merely a little fish in a much larger ocean, onE in which sharks always have the final say.

The reaction by many US conservatives, including Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain, to the recent US Supreme Court decision to grant detainees held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus has been, dare I say, rather un-American. In fact, McCain has even gone so far as to call the decision the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. One wonders if Mr. McCain, and those who share his view, have read Thomas Paine’s Rights Of Man?

Of those detained at Guantanamo, how many are innocent? Some officials have claimed the number could be in the hundreds – all of them held without official charge and without legal recourse or access to council under the auspices of either US or International law. Basically – they have absolutely no rights. They can be disappeared, transferred to undisclosed locations, and can be made to endure whatever their captors decide is “acceptable” given the circumstances.

Some of you might view the facility at Guantanamo as essential with regards to US national security. Some of you might agree that granting detainees the right to Habeas Corpus is a disastrous decision because it’s gifting them rights that they don’t deserve given the now familiar mantra that the War On Terror is a “new kind of war” that requires the employment of a strong and determined mindset to fight. Unfortunately, when it comes to the rule of law, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a global champion of it while completely denying due process to a select few. Because if that precedent can be established and its hypocrisy not confronted, then the question ultimately has to be asked – where does it end?

True democratic principles do not conform to the whims of a Presidential administration, nor those that support its flagrant abuse of the rule of law. They demand the existence of impartiality, of legal representation, and the right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus three times. The United States Constitution specifies that it can only be suspended “…when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”. Of course, many disagreed with the legality of Lincoln’s right to impose the suspension, but the circumstances were, of course, much different than those now faced, though it is still an issue that is argued over to this very day.

Legally, can those that have been held by the United States in legal limbo for the last seven years be viewed as invaders? Did 9/11 technically constitute a military invasion of the United States? Obviously they cannot be classified as individuals in revolt as they are not US citizens. Therefore, according to the Constitution, they have to be labeled as members of an invading force for Habeas Corpus to be suspended. The problem, of course, is that the majority of them were apprehended in foreign countries, and therefore not a part of any invasion force. In that case, International Law should take precedent, not to mention articles of the Geneva Conventions, but the protections of both have also been denied them.

The Red Cross was granted access to the facility at Guantanamo, had the courage to attack its conditions and hypocrisy, and have since been denied access to it. The United Nations followed suit, with the UNHRC coming to similar conclusions. Of course, neither had any impact on US policy.

So, after seven years in legal limbo, the US Supreme Court has granted those being held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus, which, in layman’s terms, means that detainees can individually take their cases to US courts and contest unlawful imprisonment. But the Supreme Court’s decision is not without its caveats. The ruling, in part, reads…

“United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.”

Thus, while detainees have been granted the possibility of redress, US courts possess the right to consider challenges to the legality of their detention. That stipulation is, in truth, a loophole that provides US courts, on a case by case basis, the right to consider whether the auspices of Habeas Corpus will be granted. One very important of the ruling though is that it does provide the chance for a precedent to be set with regards to finally clarifying the legal status of detainees.

McClatchy’s eight-month investigation into the US detention system post 9/11 and wrongful imprisonments is, in my opinion, a must read. McClatchy describes the journalistic investigation as follows…

“An eight-month McClatchy investigation of the detention system created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has found that the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into a school for jihad.”

The following is an excerpt from Guantanamo: Beyond The Law…

“The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted “Allahu Akbar” — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar’s head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as “the worst of the worst.”

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo’s Camp Four who hissed “infidel” and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn’t: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

“He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government,” a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.”

To view the report’s complete table of contents click here.

One of the most important aspects of this report, though it should come as no surprise, is that it exposes the fact that the projection that the United States knew what it was doing with regards to the capture and imprisonment of those deemed a threat was, in many cases, simply guesswork, a system aimed at presenting the façade of action rather than achieving real goals. In effect, the method employed was akin to fishing with explosives.

First, McClatchy Newspapers has conducted an eight-month investigation of the US detention system created in the aftermath of 9/11. Guantanamo: Beyond the Law is an unprecedented examination of the detention system, one which every free thinking person should seriously examine. It is a five part series that will begin publication on the 15th of this month.

“Reporter Tom Lasseter, with help from Matt Schofield, conducted in-person interviews with 66 former detainees now living mostly in the Middle East and South Asia. No other news organization has matched the scope of this investigation, which covered 11 countries on three continents.

The McClatchy investigation’s conclusion: The United States rounded up scores of people who were innocent of any connection to terrorist groups or were only low-level Taliban grunts or common criminals.

In several cases, detainees had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government when they were picked up. This happened because the U.S. relied on tips from rival Afghans or bounty hunters seeking cash rewards, and because the U.S. underestimated the complexity of the warlord culture. Guards then routinely brutalized detainees at the Kandahar and Bagram air bases in Afghanistan, where the investigation found that abuse was much worse than it was in Guantanamo.

At Guantanamo, however, innocent men, adventure-seekers and low-level Taliban grunts were thrown together with hardcore Islamic militants who quickly took advantage of the prison camp’s rules to turn Guantanamo into a school for jihad, McClatchy found.

Bush administration lawyers created a legal system that deprived detainees of any rights under international law and made it nearly impossible for them to defend themselves, with no ability to call witnesses, seek legal help or appeal their imprisonment, even though they’d never been charged with a crime.

The U.S. held these detainees for years and then simply released them with no explanations, no apologies, no compensation.”

The Façade Of Iraqi Sovereignty

In the following quote, which comes from an article published in today’s Independent, take particular note the employment of the term “gets away with” within the context of the greater issue…

“American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.”

Get away with? Isn’t a large swath of the US population under the impression that the government of Iraq was democratically elected? Was that not the point of the whole ‘purple finger’ affair? Is the government of Iraq not that of a sovereign country? Or is it one that simply exists as cover for a US hegemonic agenda?

The article continues…

“The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.

Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.”

Isn’t it reassuring to know that US personnel in Iraq have the ability to start their day with a double macchiato while the people that they’ve been told they’re there to liberate and defend have lived without basic sanitation, intermittent electricity, a devastated national healthcare infrastructure, and other basic fundamentals for years?

Now that’s a war.

I can think of nothing more insulting to veterans of, for example, the 101st Airborne, who slugged their way through some of the most vicious combat in Europe during World War Two, or the Marines in the Pacific Theatre at the same time for that matter, than the fact that Pizza Huts and swimming pools are waiting for those at the end of patrols. That’s not meant to take anything away from the unique and highly stressful situation that US combat troops in Iraq have to face – but it still remains a significant irony.

Ultimately, will the Iraqi government get its way? Obviously the question that has to be seriously asked is – will it even matter if they do?

On A Side Note…

Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The boogieman whose importance was over-amplified by the Bush Administration to justify the ongoing occupation, a “group” that did not exist in the country prior to the invasion in 2003, and one that, while the insurgency was in full swing, represented 5% or less of it (and it should be noted at this point that the other 95% of the insurgency was not aligned with them, and most would have gladly done away with them as well). Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is actually nothing more than a small part of a larger Salafi Jihadi movement, consists primarily of foreign fighters, the majority of which come from Saudi Arabia. Next to Saudi fights, Syrians and Libyans round out the top three of those that comprise the backbone of what is known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi contingent is, in truth, smaller.

That said; according to The Times Online, the CIA has declared that al-Qaeda in Iraq is all but defeated. Unfortunately, the information presented is a little strange…

“The CIA has declared that al-Qaeda is virtually defeated in Iraq and that the country is seeing its lowest level of violence for four years.

Nineteen US military personnel have died in Iraq this month, according to the Pentagon, making May the least deadly month for US troops since the beginning of the war.

The deadliest month for US troops was May 2007, when 126 died as the insurgency in Baghdad raged.

The main reason for the drop in violence, which has also seen a big decline in Iraqi civilian deaths, is a ceasefire by the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose forces have been directly confronted by US and Iraqi troops for over a month.”

First, lower levels of violence compared to the level of violence during the height of the insurgency cannot be attributed to al-Qaeda in Iraq, as the majority of Iraqi insurgents were not affiliated with them.

Second, Moqtada al-Sadr and the substantial Shi’ite militia that he commands are about as far away as one can get from al-Qaeda. In truth, as it stands now, they represent the most powerful militia in Iraq.

The article continues…

“Mr Hayden gave warning that al-Qaeda still posed a serious threat. Such caution appeared justified after two suicide bombers struck in northern Iraq on Thursday, killing a total of 20 people in separate attacks.”

One minute they’re defeated, the next they’re still a serious threat. There’s nothing better than the propaganda required to keep the flames fanned.

It’s eight o’clock in the morning. I have no idea what I am doing up, other than the fact that I went to bed pretty early. I watched The Other Boleyn Girl last night after rehearsal and prior to passing out. Why is it that no one can portray the Tudors with any historical accuracy?

Recent Catastrophes

Matters in China are looking grimmer by the day, as are conditions in Burma. One searches for words to put such catastrophes into context, but there are few. The best that I can offer is to suggest donating to the following relief efforts:

Oxfam
The Red Cross

Oxfam
The Red Cross

News Of Note

Congratulations are due the Supreme Court Of California who ruled yesterday that the State law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

According to a recent report, the United States has detained some 2,500 children in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at the US facility at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. While that number has decreased, there are still some 500 juveniles being detained in Iraq, 10 at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and of the 8 youths detained at Guantanamo, only two remain that were under 18 years of age when they first arrived. Of course, such detentions fly in the face of International Law as it pertains to Child Soldiers and juveniles, but there really is not point in arguing that fact being that the tenets of International Law only apply to those situations that the Bush Administration considers to be in their interest.

Speaking of juveniles, it seems that the United States is violating an international protocol forbidding the recruitment of youths under the age of 18 for service in the military. In the report entitled Soldiers Of Misfortune, it was found that the military is also disproportionately targeting poor and minority public school students. This, of course, should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. It’s conveniently always the “dregs of American society” that seem to be “compelled” to defend the “American way of life” while middle and upper class white kids sit at home watching them die on television. The sad reality of modern American wars is that if you want to see one brought to an abrupt end, have rich white kids come home in metal boxes.

The “N” Word

President Bush, who recently claimed that he gave up golf because he thought it sent the wrong message to those that have lost loved ones in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, addressed the Israeli Parliament yesterday claiming that negotiating with militant organizations and radical governments was no different than the appeasement of the Nazi’s…

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, Mr. Bush, the United States did nothing. It did not declare war on Germany, nor would it until Germany declared war on the United States on December 11th, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Habour. It would not act when France and the low countries were invaded and occupied, nor would it act when British cities were being decimated by German bombers.

For almost three years, while members of my family were in uniform, and their comrades were being stranded on French beaches having the crap kicked out of them only to be evacuated by civilian pleasure craft, the people of the United States wanted nothing to do with what was transpiring in Europe. By the time the “appeasement”, that you so casually referred to yesterday, had taken its toll, and Western Europe and parts of Africa were in German hands, the American public was still overwhelmingly against US involvement. Let’s also not forget that while Germany was being “appeased” by governments that had seen an entire generation devastated by war not two decades prior, major US financial institutions and corporations were doing business with the Reich, and would make millions in the process while those that would eventually fight along side American troops were being killed.

The reason, Mr. Bush, that you evoked the word “Nazi” yesterday was solely because you were in Israel, which is rather ironic being that an American company, that being IBM, sold the very machinery to the Nazi’s that they would later use to calculate the number of Jews, and others, eliminated during the Holocaust. Even more, that your own grandfather was the director of the Union Banking Corporation, with a convenient single share to his name, the assets of which were seized in 1942 under the Trading With The Enemy Act.

Like it or not, an American President addressing the Israeli Parliament is little more than a corporate president addressing shareholders.

I will give one thing to the government of Jean Chrétien – on September 13th of 2002 a letter was sent by the Canadian government to the United States government regarding the detention of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen captured at the age of fifteen in Afghanistan and charged with killing a US soldier. Despite his age, we was still classified by the United States as an ‘enemy combatant’.

In the letter, which was issued from the Canadian Embassy in Washington, the Canadian government argued that due to Khadr’s age his detention at Guantanamo was “inappropriate” and not in accordance with laws shared by the US and Canada regarding “young suspects”. In truth, under international law, Khadr’s age should have automatically categorized him as a child soldier, but given that the United States had usurped international law by creating an ambiguous category for those detained in the War On Terror, Khadr was not treated as such and thus transferred to the facility.

No matter Khadr’s background, or that of his family, the fact remains - under international law he was a child soldier when captured and should have been treated as such. The reality that he is now set to become one of the first people to face an American War Crimes tribunal since the Second World War is utterly ridiculous.

The fact that some action was at least taken by the last government is something. The fact that Mr. Harper’s government has done nothing but placate the Americans regarding this issue speaks volumes, especially given the fact that even foreign governments with no stake in the matter have weighed in on the fact that Khadr should have been treated as a child soldier. It’s truly shameful.

For those of you that view Khadr as a murderer, and might point to the fact that a US soldier lost his life, I would recommend you do some reading regarding child soldiers, the indoctrination, physical, and mental abuse that they are subjected to that turns them into ‘soldiers’. What child in a situation in which they have no control, in which their own life might be threatened if they do not comply, has the ability to resist? That is not a situation in which any child should ever be placed, and that is precisely why international laws exist to protect them.

A reader, Kevin Mejlholm, recommended the following lecture (*See update below) by David Ray Griffin regarding 9/11. I am posting this not to promote the ideas presented by Griffin, but rather to simply present information that I think should be presented. Therefore, if you want to spend the time watching this lecture, which is one hour and thirty-eight minutes in length, I would be interested to hear your views in the comments as an exercise in open public debate.

The video is too large to post directly on this page, meaning that its frame width is large, so please visit the YouTube page directly.

In the past I have not truly delved into my own personal beliefs regarding the events of September 11th as they relate to the need for such a catastrophic event to occur to support the birth of an American hegemonic era. The roots of the Bush Doctrine, when objectively examined, provide insight into a much deeper American global agenda. That, in itself, could be taken as a ridiculous notion, but the reality remains that a post Cold War preemptive and unilateralist foreign policy platform was first outlined in 1992 by then members of the United States government, individuals that would, during the Clinton era, cultivate and refine their beliefs. After 9/11, some of the same individuals involved in the initial creation and subsequent refinement of that policy were, and are, members of government, among them Paul Wolfowitz, who, at the time, held the position of Deputy Secretary Of Defense. It was Wolfowitz’s Defense Planning Guidance, written at the instruction of then Secretary Of Defense Dick Cheney that initially outlined the initiatives required to exploit US global military and economic dominance in the post Cold War world.

By saying this I am not going to take the position that 9/11 was orchestrated, but I do firmly believe that it was used as a catalyst with which to indoctrinate the Western public and therefore allow for the implementation of a hegemonic reality that, since 9/11, has been proven by US operations and initiatives abroad.

To get away with murder in a war zone you have to have a few things going for you. For example…

1) No international body has the power to independently investigate allegations of war crimes, nor prosecute those found guilty under international law.

3) Only the internal judicial infrastructure of the body to which the accused belongs possesses the right to prosecute based on their findings alone.

That is how just powers get away with murder – by ensuring that when it comes to the possibility of negative attention due to criminality they retain the right to investigate themselves to ensure satisfactory outcomes, or at least those that placate domestic despondency, as domestic perceptions far outweigh other considerations. Winning hearts and minds in Iraq is by no means as important as, for example, punishing a few ‘bad apples’ involved at the lowest level of the Abu Ghraib scandal to placate the American public’s superior sense of morality. Even with a 30% approval rating, a democracy can continue to justify a military action simply because the buffer created by that 30% often means that the silent majority of the remaining 70% never really voice their dissatisfaction. That’s precisely how unpopular, costly, and wholly ludicrous wars endure in the face of seemingly overwhelming domestic disapproval. Added to that is the bizarre inability of so many to be able to grasp the difference between policy and support for those sent to enact it – who are always overwhelmingly represented by the nation’s poorest. Once upper middle class kids start coming home in metal boxes the acceleration of dissent becomes glaringly apparent, a phenomenon that was sadly crucial in helping turn public support against US involvement in Vietnam.

Some months ago I was emailed and provided a link to a story regarding the Haditha massacre. The email went on to ask if, given the contents of that story - which was that some of those involved that day had been cleared of wrong doing - would I be writing a retraction given my initial response to the event. My answer to that question remains the same. Until those Marines are tried in an Iraqi court of law, which was good enough for Saddam Hussein and his henchmen in the eyes of the American people and the current administration, or tried by the ICC, then no, I will not write a retraction. Because when wolves are allowed to investigate other wolves there is no security in the rule of law. Especially when the eyewitness reports of Iraqi civilians are treated as dubious or bias, once again reinforcing an engrained sense of Western moral superiority.

In truth, we will never know the full extent of US and British transgressions in Iraq. That reality was preordained prior to the invasion, a precedent that ensured that the Western public would only ever be presented with a one sided reality.

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.