France Reluctant to Expose Themselves in Southern Afghanistan

Exerpt: 16-JUN-2008 - By Adrien Jaulmes, Le Figaro’s special correspondent in Kabul

Three days after the daring attack on the prison in Kandahar by the Taliban, which released last Friday over 1 000 prisoners, 400 of them, Afghan units stationed in the Kabul area were put on alert. They should be transported by air to Kandahar, to reinforce the Afghan troops and contingents from NATO that give hunting escaped in provinces near open rebellion against the central government.

Some of these battalions, or Kandaks, are supervised by French detachments. Called OMLTs (acronym for Operational Mentoring & Liaison Teams), these detachments provide advise, tactics, logistical support, and liaison, particularly with the air support of the coalition. They participate in operations conducted by the Afghan army against the Taliban. Last April, the French as OMLT stakeholders launched an operation against insurgents in the Alasay valley in the province of Kapissa, north-east of Kabul.

Yesterday, the 1st Kandak, the 201st Corps of the Afghan army was deployed without notice to Kandahar. His OMLT, composed of some fifty officers and NCOs of the Foreign Legion, should logically be deployed with the unit in Afghanistan that it supports.

But this sudden departure takes Paris court. While some logistical issues remain unresolved, especially on armored vehicles, which must be transported by road, the hesitation is mainly political. Deploying the French Kandahar OMLT means joining one of the most deadly theater of conflict which is one that looks increasingly to a stalemate without a foreseeable end.

The french commitment in Afghanistan has long been considered somewhat ambiguous by some allies of NATO. Present in the Kabul area since 2002, the French battalion has always remained confined in a relatively clear mission: to ensure the safety of the capital and its environs, [in order] to enable the Afghan government to gradually take up control of the country.

Top Obama Adviser Admits to the French that the July 2011 Withdrawal Date From Afghanistan Is Not to Be Taken Seriously, Being Purely Symbolic

In an interview with Le Monde's Sylvie Kauffmann and Gilles Paris during the National Security Advisor's brief stay in Paris, James Jones stated, rather unequivocally, that "the month of July 2011 will not signal the big departure of our forces" from Afghanistan (emphasis mine), adding, again rather unequivocally, that it is only a symbolic date (symbolic à la "positiveness", à la "new direction", à la "hope 'n' change", etc): "July 2011, that is a date to give us hope, that of being able to pull back some troops — the exact number is not predetermined — to show the Afghans as well as our own citizens, a new direction, a positive one, so that one day the responsibility for Afghanistan will revert to Afghan citizens."

Peut-on dire à la fois "nous allons gagner en Afghanistan" et "nous allons partir" ?

Vous avez oublié un mot : nous allons partir éventuellement. Ce qu'il faut bien comprendre, c'est que le mois de juillet 2011 ne marquera pas le grand départ de nos forces. C'est la période où nous pensons que nous pourrons transférer plus de responsabilités aux autorités afghanes. Il est raisonnable d'espérer qu'après dix ans de présence les Afghans puissent prendre en main leur destin. Il est impossible de se résigner à rester en Afghanistan une vingtaine d'années. Juillet 2011, ça nous donne un espoir, celui de pouvoir retirer quelques forces — le chiffre n'est pas prédéterminé —, pour montrer aux Afghans et à nos propres citoyens une nouvelle direction, positive, pour qu'un jour la responsabilité de l'Afghanistan revienne aux citoyens afghans.

Sylvie Kauffmann and Gilles Paris: Can one say both "We will win in Afghanistan" and "we will leave" at the same time?

James Jones: You forgot one word: we will leave eventually. What you need to understand is the month of July 2011 will not mark the great departure of our forces. This is the period when we believe we will be able to transfer more responsibility to Afghan authorities. It is reasonable to expect, after ten years of presence in the country, that Afghans can take control of their destiny. It is inconceivable to resign yourself to stay in Afghanistan for twenty years or so. July 2011, that is a date that gives us hope, that of withdrawing some forces — the exact figure is not predetermined — to show the Afghans and our own citizens a new direction, one of a positive kind, that one day the responsibility for Afghanistan will revert to Afghan citizens.

See also an interview with a French general: McChrystal Ripple: French General Also Is Summoned by Authorities to Cease Criticism of Obama's Strategy and of the "American" War

The American "Left" has no foreign policy except that of opposing whatever Bush and America do or ever have done — they might as well be French

For feminists today,

reality has no defining role in determining their thoughts or their actions

says Phyllis Chesler, adding that

the "Left" is aggressively secular and anti-religious; considers pornography to be "protected" hate speech; considers prostitution and trafficking to be forms of "sex work" which should be de-criminalized or legalized; views paternal sole-custody of children as the feminist solution to the problems that mothers have when they juggle child care and career responsibilities; believes that men and women are actually the "same"; has absolutely no foreign policy except that of opposing whatever President Bush and America do or ever have done — they really might as well be French; and has no universal feminist policy vis-à-vis jihadic Islam and its Muslim victims.

Speaking about feminism is Phyllis Chesler (shookhran to Jay), a woman who, when she "was very young and twice as foolish, [married her] college sweetheart who was, [she] thought, a very Westernized Muslim man from Afghanistan":

many academic feminists fear that any serious critique of veiling, purdah, or polygamy might be slandered as "racist." They are right. These days, telling the truth about indigenous Islamic barbarism towards women and men is quickly branded as "politically incorrect" and dismissed as "racist" and "imperialist" arrogance. It requires real courage and clarity to stay this particular course of truth-telling. While some feminists did sound the alarm about the Taliban, they did not rescue Afghan women physically, personally, militarily, or economically. In addition, feminists have not focused on the right to motherhood, but primarily on the right to abortion; they have not focused on creating a strong feminist foreign policy, but primarily on the rights of gays and lesbians. Personal sexual freedom and identity politics have trumped universal human rights.

I happen to support civil rights for gay people and women's reproductive freedom, but we are at war, and such rights will matter little if we are all bombed back to the tenth century. Iranian feminists have always marched for women's rights on International Women's Day. In the past, they have been roughed up, arrested, sometimes tortured. The fact that they are willing to march at all is heart-stoppingly brave. This year, they have been informed that if they march the police will shoot them down on the spot. Western feminists have been as shockingly quiet about this as they have been about the repeated gang-rapes in the Sudan perpetrated by genocidal ethnic Arab Muslims against black African Muslim and Christian women. …

I mourn the Stalinization and Palestinianization of the feminist postcolonial and postmodern academy and media. Because such feminists refuse to "judge" Islamic gender apartheid, they and their institutions and organizations have become anti-activist, anti-American, anti-Israeli, isolationist, and, at best, tools of the Democratic party. At worst, they are apologists for Islamist jihad. To avoid the McCarthyite charge of "racism," such feminists have been willing to sacrifice the victims of Islamism on their "multicultural" altars. …

My experience [in an Afghan marriage] taught me some important lessons that are currently of vital importance to Americans.

First, I learned that both evil and barbarism are indigenous to every culture and not caused by imperialism, colonialism, or Zionism — as the Western intelligentsia would have it. Afghanistan had never ever been occupied by the British, who literally died in droves trying to invade. The refusal to enter the 20th century was an entirely Afghan and Muslim decision. I was there in 1961, long before the Taliban made things much harsher for girls and women.

Second, I learned that Muslims who can pass for Westerners often have multiple cultural personalities. In the West, they are like us; in the East, they are not. In a jihadic era, when jihadists are moving among us and have access to our most advanced ideas about tolerance and to our technology, it is important to keep this in mind.

Third, I also learned that America may not be perfect, but it is not the worst country in the world; rather, it is the best country. It is a perspective that I would like other Americans, especially our academics, to ponder. What we have here would constitute a revolution in any Arab and Muslim country.

Fourth, I am not a cultural relativist. I have seen the lives of poor people and of women in a third-world country and believe that they are entitled to the same rights and freedoms that Western people enjoy. We have a moral imperative to assist in the modernization of all human cultures; how to do so, and at what cost, remain unanswered, burning questions.

Finally, … I became finely attuned to religious apartheid as well.

The following from Phyllis Chesler might almost sound like a description of Europe:

Today, the level of anti-American and anti-Jewish propaganda in the Islamic world is lethal, toxic, and has unleashed a global jihad against both Israel and the West. We cannot afford to tolerate the intolerant nor can we afford to minimize the dangers to our civilization posed by Islamist fanatics who have successfully hijacked their religion and peoples. There were also "good" and moderate Germans during Hitler's reign. What matters is that they did not stand up to Hitler. What matters is that otherwise "good" people appeased him as well....

…as I write in The Death of Feminism, the level of anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda and intolerance towards all those who do not kow-tow to it is fairly monumental on many feminist list-serv groups. If one does not believe that America "deserved" 9/11; if one does not view America as the true "terrorist"; if one does not believe that Arabs and Muslims are being persecuted in America for "racist" reasons; and if one does not simultaneously believe that the Jews are "imagining" or "exaggerating" anti-Semitism — then one is not welcome on such list-serv groups. In fact, I was literally "purged," Stalinist-style from one such group for my various pro-America and pro-Israel "Thought Crimes."

The following from Phyllis Chesler sounds what it is like to be a writer in France these days:

The kind of closed-minded "political correctness" which I have just described above is typical of groupthink and totalitarian thinking. If someone thinks for herself in an independent and creative way and dares to come up with non-party-line conclusions, she or he is then, in classic Orwellian style, deemed the enemy, a traitor, a non-person. Their work will not be read or discussed. They will not be invited to debate or to debate in a civilized and honorable way. They will be called a "racist" and a "neoconservative." If a feminist dares raise the specter of Jew-hatred and the demonization of the Jewish state among leftists and feminists, she will quickly discover that she has become unwelcome in the mainstream media and among leftists (who actually think of themselves as liberals), and among feminists. Palestinianized Western feminists are more concerned with the so-called occupation of a country that does not exist (Palestine), than with the occupation of women's bodies worldwide under Islam. The fact that feminists and leftists still continue to call for boycotts of Israel and to actively demonstrate against a war-time president even after 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 tells me that they have literally been brainwashed and that reality has no defining role in determining their thoughts or their actions.

Clearly, they have work to do.

American Enterprise Magazine distills some conclusions about the elitist European hatred of Americans and the unremarkable history of it. It is definitely rooted in a contempt not of some world view, but of the stubbornness of their emotive views requiring some sort of reason and action.

«Unlike some forms of bigotry, anti-Americanism is most virulent among Europe's elites. Everyday Germans and Brits and Italians tend to be more appreciative of American culture, economic achievement, and government than their political lords. But ordinary Europeans have relatively little influence on the direction of their societies. The thing about European governance most striking to American eyes today is its comparatively undemocratic nature. In much of the continent, elections mean little, unaccountable bureaucracies and elites commandeer the most important decisions, the same people hang onto power endlessly, and policies that would not survive the test of popular opinion are simply instituted by administrative fiat. To cite just one example, direct election of mayors has been blocked in many localities, with national authorities insisting on appointing local leaders themselves.

Because of this unrepresentative politics, lots of ideas supported by a majority of the European public--like the death penalty--have no chance of becoming law. The tradition of a peasantry ruled by its "betters" endures in numerous ways.»

So as far as bad soap opera and histrionics are concerned, the continent offers the best in one-stop shopping.

«For evidence that obstruction of the U.S. is more important to many European elites than making progress in the world’s most dangerous flashpoints, look no farther than Afghanistan. The Afghan war was not controversial in Old Europe. It was universally agreed that the Taliban was a blight on central Asia, and that the al-Qaeda cells incubating in Afghanistan were a menace to the entire globe. Europeans accepted the urgent necessity of rooting out both entities militarily, and then rebuilding the Afghan government and civil society.

But once U.S. forces had done the dirty work of eliminating Afghanistan’s fanatical ruling cliques, did our European allies live up to their promises to help update that nation’s infrastructure, train its police, build up its courts, revive its social sector and economy? Scandalously, no.

...the Europeans immediately fell way behind on their financial pledges. Their troop commitments were not met. The German promise to train the Afghan police became a joke. European offers to reconstruct the justice system went nowhere. In all of these areas, America had to step into the breach to help suffering Afghans, and stave off disorder and a re-emergence of terror cells.
[ … ]
Having for years refused to fund their militaries, and lacking sufficient numbers of young men with patriotic martial spirit, the continental European nations could not project much righteous military power today even if they did have the will. You will often hear gassy rhetoric at European conclaves about how, as Spanish prime minister Zapatero recently put it, “Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power.” But the stark reality is that only 3 to 5 percent of the 2.5 million personnel under arms in Europe today can be deployed, even for a short time. Due to its military weakness and diplomatic vacillation, “Europe is nearly irrelevant to the great issues of the future” in today’s conflict zones, notes my colleague Tom Donnelly in a new book.»

The question is, how much of the actions of European society and government are NOT driven by propping up prior failures? Is this an extended period of soul-searching on their part, or is it an unbreakable pattern?

«This kind of bilious grandstanding now dominates European diplomacy. Indeed, Europe no longer even attempts a serious and constructive foreign policy in many important areas. Quick: Name one thing the old continental European powers have done to help stabilize Iraq. O.K., France has detailed one officer (literally) to help train the Iraqi police. But when Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi wanted to meet with France’s president last year, he was refused. Instead of offering practical guidance to the new leader of one of the globe’s hotspots, Jacques Chirac rushed off to the deathbed of Yasser Arafat, whom he fawned over and called “a hero.”
[ … ]
“A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile General Augusto Pinochet eight years after he’s left office, and becomes a human rights hero... Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing—Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria, and until yesterday Hussein and his sons— nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America’s courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.”

Krauthammer's conclusion is that the European Left's "concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism."»

Time seems to be running out.

«And it’s not just Americans whom Europeans are falling behind. The people who invented industrialism are now also being outstripped by residents of Asian and Latin American countries that have embraced globalization. Kotkin reports that Europe’s share of world Gross Domestic Product (which inevitably corresponds to international influence) shrank from 34 percent to 20 percent over the latest lifetime.

It was by adopting free-market capitalism that Asians and Latin Americans bolted upward—and in particular by copying productive ideas from the world’s largest economy (the U.S.) as fast as they could figure them out.
[ … ]
The irony is that for all their insistence on portraying the U.S. as a land of fired workers, poverty, and economic insecurity, it is now Europe where unemployment is twice as high and four times as deep, where immigrants and the young have far fewer openings, where the ladder of upward mobility has fallen to pieces. In terms of spending power, homeownership, educational opportunities, and so forth, even relatively low income.

Americans are now demonstrably better off than typical Europeans.

So which economic alternative is actually more “harsh on the poor and economically underprivileged”? Today’s socialized European economies bill themselves as generous and progressive, but in cold practice they are proving illiberal and reactionary. Reforms that could open up new fresh opportunities for stagnated workers are being blocked by Europe’s dominant class, for fear that a more freewheeling system might reduce the privileges of those currently in command.»

h/t – to RV

No! There. Are. No. WMD. In Iraq! Isn't That Clear Enough For You?! And No, Of Course There Are No Hidden Ammo Dumps in Afghani—Wait a Minute…

Let's make this perfectly clear, okay? Listen carefully, now: If within the space of eight weeks or so (that was the amount of time it took after the fall of Baghdad for the media to start calling Bush and Blair "liars"), American troops did not find WMD in a country of 170,000 square miles of desert, mountains, valleys, canyons, caves, cities, and other natural and not-so-natural features, it can only mean one thing:

That the weapons of mass destruction do not exist and never did; that Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMD and never meant to have any; that the psychopath should have been trusted when he said as much; that the Bush administration, the CIA, and the NSC can only have been aware of that; that therefore they were treacherous and duplicitous (no, not Saddam's thugs — the Americans!); and that Dubya is nothing but a fraud who lied to his people and to the world.

No American serviceman discovered any hidden weapons (of mass destruction or other) and therefore such stocks don't exist. (Just like when you play hide and seek, if you don't discover the friend who's hiding, it turns out that the only plausible conclusion is that he doesn't really exist and that he never did exist.) At least intelligent people like the Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington understand that (emphasis mine):

Canadian soldiers attached to the Afghan National Army (ANA) [have] "discovered" a huge Soviet ammunition dump a few kilometres from Camp Julien with the potential of obliterating the camp, as well as most of Kabul.

That may sound like hyperbole, but I was with the Canadians who discovered the cache — soldiers … who are training and working with the ANA …

In the dusty foothills, 10 minutes drive from Camp Julien (population 2,000), 82 buried bunkers, each 20-metres long, housed thousands of Soviet FROG missiles (one step down from Scud missiles), and every variety of rocket and mortar shells.

Some of the FROG missiles were still in their original cases. Some heaped in the open. Some stacked to the roof in the unlocked, open bunkers. Much of the ordnance had warheads removed to collect the explosive for homemade bombs — or for blasting at a nearby quarry.

"Unbelievable!" was Maj. Brian Hynes' reaction when he saw them. "We (troops of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)) have been here some two years, and no one knew this was at our back door. Unbelievable."

Major Hynes, step back into your ranks and keep quiet! You are out of order! The weaponry was not discovered within a couple of weeks of the victory over the Taliban, so they do not exist and they never have existed! It's that simple.

But wait! There's more…

In truth, the Soviet bunkers were well-known in an area supposedly under control of the Afghan Militia Force (AMF) — not to be confused with the ANA. The AMF is paid by various warlords and so their loyalty is to them.

"These bunkers have been known for two years but no one bothered to check them," said Maj. Hynes.

"To me, that's incompetence."

"To me it's criminal," said Sgt. Power, who works with the major in training the ANA.

I've never seen anything like it. The feeling is that AMF soldiers were selling access to the dump or permitting friends to enter it.

Littered with burned out Soviet military vehicles, the whole area is a junk pile strewn with every sort of live ammunition, fuses, unexploded shells, rockets, etc., all supposedly under the authority of Belgian troops (at the moment), who ignored it.

In the midst of examining the bunkers and taking photos, a Swedish UN guy, a French major and a German colonel arrived to make a fuss and order the Canadians to leave. The French major insisted his government had a deal with the Afghan government for the area, and ISAF had no business being there.

This cut little ice with Maj. Hynes … The French major was clearly bluffing, hadn't checked the bunkers and got a classic Canadian roasting from Maj. Hynes — who was supported by a German general who was also appalled at the laxity.

"Now we've stirred up the hornet's nest," grinned Maj. Hynes. "Good. Now we may get some action."

"I feel foolish that for eight days we've been watching our front, when at our back all this was going on and nobody cared," said Sgt. [Mike] Mazerolle [who made the discovery].

(Thanks to Gregory Schreiber, eh?)

“We went it alone – and there was progress”

Even to Europeans, going into conflict without “Europe” is like going fishing without an accordion. Thank goodness for the boots on the ground for flipping off Brussels, because in their deeds, they want the mission in Afghanistan to fail:

The European Union’s high-profile police mission in Afghanistan is ineffective and suffers from top-down management from Brussels, where those without any knowledge of local conditions limit local officers in carrying out their jobs, according to the former head of Eupol in Kabul.

Yes, THOSE “internationalist”, lesson-giving sophisticates.

As an example of the difficulties, Vittrup says that NATO and the Afghan government wanted the EU to start training and setting up a 5-6,000 officer Afghan CID department. The EU waited so long to handle the issue, that Vittrup decided it was better to seek forgiveness after the fact, than to wait for the go-ahead.

And they imply that they’re some sort of divine example, a inspiring light in the world.

Discontent with Eupol in Afghanistan is one of the reasons that NATO is expected to set up its own civilian task force at the NATO summit in Portugal next week. Cooperation with the EU just doesn’t work.

Note to EULEX

This from the EU Observer gets one thinking:

With just a month to go until Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, a poll has shown that 46 percent support a yes vote, down eight points since May.

Published by the Irish Times, the TNS mrbi poll shows a rise of one point in those saying they plan to vote No to 29 percent with the Don't Knows registering at 25 percent, up seven points in comparison to a pre-summer survey.

The newspaper notes that most of the people who have left the Yes side have entered the Don't Know category rather than crossed to the No camp.

The drop in support for the treaty is reminiscent of the trend in the weeks ahead of the first referendum which resulted in a No in June last year. It is set to spur the government to place more focus on a strong and coherent campaign.

We in the west are always beavering about helping developing countries create and enhance their own democratic aims, free and fair elections. How about pulling a switcheroo and calling in a group of Afghan election consultants to "advise and monitor" the Irish? The Afghans seem to have the process down pat:

Official results in Afghanistan’s presidential election that were to have been issued today are likely to be delayed for weeks by investigations of voting fraud, Afghan officials and independent election monitors say.

While the Independent Election Commission said last month it would announce preliminary results from the Aug. 20 poll today, the earliest possible date for that now will be Sept. 7, said spokeswoman Marzia Siddiqi today.

A separate, U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission will need at least two weeks, and perhaps longer, to process more than 2,600 reports of fraud, its chairman told reporters in Kabul yesterday.

The Afghans offer guaranteed results.

What Are the Bergdahls Proud of? That Their Son Is Wiser, More Talented, and More Tolerant Than the Average American (Soldier)

Is it uncouth or beyond the pale to do a little analysis of the statements by Bowe Bergdahl's parents on CNN?

I'm proud of you 

says Robert Bergdahl from Boise, Idaho, via TV to his son (02:25).  The man, who looks like (is it uncouth to note this as well?) a 1970s Marxist, goes on to say a few words in a foreign tongue (an Afghan language?) and to enumerate the army sergeant's alleged international credentials, as well as his multi-culti talents — traits that show Bowe's superiority to the average American.

And to the average American soldier.

I'm so proud of your character, I'm so proud of your patience, and your perseverance. I'm so proud of your cultural abilities to adapt, your language skills, your desire and your action to serve this country in a very difficult, long war. 

But in all this, what is Bob Bergdahl most proud of? More internationalism and more multi-culti stuff:

But most of all, I'm proud [breaking down] of how much you wanted to help the afghan people and what you were willing to do to go to that length…

Update: Did Bob Bergdahl delete a tweet?

Update 2 — from the comments section, Radegunda explains that  

Pa Bergdahl said some very significant words in Arabic: the "Bismallah" refrain from the Koran, which in this context sounds like a greeting or expression of solidarity from one Muslim to another. They both appear to identify with the Taliban side in the global jihad.

Indeed. And so it would seem that Bob's beard is less 1970s Marxist than Islamist… Plus what does this do to the leftists' insistence that rumors about Obama's Islamism deserve nothing but ridicule?

Washington's Afghan Strategy Frustrates the Europeans

Good job, Apologizer-in-Chief! On repairing relations with Europe and on getting everybody on board towards a common future. A recent headline in Le Monde (two weeks prior to BHO's decision on adding troops to Afghanistan) shows the long path we have come since the days of Bush: La stratégie afghane de Washington déconcerte les Européens. (Still, notice how France's newspaper of reference manages to avoid saying: Obama's Afghan Strategy Frustrates the Europeans, whereas it would probably have used "Bush" in the headline during the previous administration…)

Instapundit has more on the overseas reviews for Obama’s foreign policy…

Latest Scandal of International Proportions: In Afghanistan, Europeans Are Faced with an "Americanized" War

As Barack Obama "the Afghan" promises to open up discussions with Iran and as Barack Obama "the Afghan" presents his Afghanistan strategy (to which Le Monde's readers present their usual pacifist wisdom™), Europeans who were earlier whining that Washington was asking for too many of their troops are now whining that they will have too few troops in an "Americanized" war…

Free-riding Freddy

As did the Irish commander of the Darfur and Chad expedition did, British defense secretary John Hutton points out that Europe’s money isn’t where its’ mouth is in Afghanistan.

"There should be no-one in NATO who believes that all that is needed is a bit of soft power, a bit of nice warm words for the Afghan government. That is not going to beat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban," Hutton said in a press conference in London ahead of a keynote speech later.

"We need a full complement of effective forces and we don't have those in theatre at the moment."

Without naming specific countries who he wanted to do more, Hutton added that it was not fair to expect the Americans to do all the "heavy lifting."

"We are going to have to do more, all of us in ISAF need to understand that, if we want this mission to be successful," Hutton said.

The point has been made often enough before by authorities in European NATO member states. There too, virtually nothing became of the complaints. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, someone who actually gets the problem, could only commit another 600 troops and get away with it politically, while the US has scheduled a surge of 30,000 troops to oppose what is expected to be a post-winter assault by the Taliban and al Queda to take large parts of territory out of the hands of the Afghan government. Those 600 French troops, as professional as they are, still represent a relative commitment by population of 1/10th of the force the United States is.

The problem is quite simply that the public in European societies aren’t ever convinced that there is much of anything worth defending, correcting, or fighting for. It’s why so many are willing to resort to calling for any other instrument (talks, dropping aid in the zone, placation of one form or another) because at the moment the question comes up, it doesn’t sound openly like the language of evasion.

It doesn’t ever seem to be a matter of dealing with an issue like supporting Afghanistan’s nascent pluralism, but of dealing with what someone is asking of them.

In his speech Hutton was set to accuse other European countries of "freeloading" on the back of US and British military commitments in Afghanistan, according to the Daily Telegraph and Financial Times.

Speaking to reporters, Hutton added: "We've got to step up to the plate, everyone in NATO's got to do that and the point of my remarks later on today will be to say it is not honest, credible or I think sustainable for us constantly to say, 'well the Americans can do it all.'

"That isn't an alliance, that's one-way traffic. That's not good enough."

And if a statement like that, like so many we’ve heard before, moves the issue an inch in one direction or another, it would be a miracle. Just when it is that the European public at large is moved to act on any of their famous empathy for those suffering and for the concept of defending the freedoms and human rights remains to be seen.

Surely they already get the fact that for America, unilateralism is still the only option, but other than the likes of John Hutton, the issue is one of managing the “social awkwardness” of continuing to milk America’s capacity to commit.

For the Europeans though, that complex is actually a lot closer to home. In their back yard, in fact:

That NATO cannot work effectively with the European Union - particularly in Kosovo and Afghanistan - is incomprehensible to me. I do not disregard national concerns about the lack of formal agreements for contact between EU and NATO missions. But I do not accept that our armed forces should suffer the consequences. Nor that we should be hampered in addressing shared security concerns.

To contextualize just how close something has to be to barely matter to them, Kosovo directly abuts the border of an EU member state, Pristina is 243 km from Thessaloniki, and yet not only was an American intervention required, 10% of the personnel there are American. The EU’s outward disposition and structure, as well as that of any bilateral effort by more than one EU member state at present is such that it can literally do nothing relevant for itself by itself.

The public seems unconcerned.

BREAKING: Massive Attack on NATO's Kabul HQ By Waves of Taliban Suicide Bombers

According to Danish news reports (the secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is Danish), including Berlingske Tidende, NATO's headquarters in Kabul are under a major attack, with the Taliban issuing a statement that suicide bombers are involved in a "mass suicide action."

NATO headquarters in Kabul is under attack, and there is strong shooting at a central square in the city.

"ISAF headquarters is currently under attack," says a military source.

But a spokesman for ISAF would not confirm that information. The International Security Assistance Force is the NATO-led force in Afghanistan.

Previously, the Afghan capital was rocked by at least six powerful explosions, and a Taliban spokesman stated that its rebels are engaged in a "massive suicide attack", which targets government offices as well as the Afghan and foreign intelligence services.

An eyewitness told Reuters that the attackers have penetrated a tall building under construction and that shots are being fired against soldiers who are returning the fire.

The fighting is taking place next to a barracks and the Marriott hotel.

The first explosion was heard in the embassy area and the roads there were closed shortly after.

Soon thereafter followed more explosions.

"There are a number of fighters by Abdul Haq Square," the head of Kabul's criminal police, Mohammad Zahir, told Reuters.

Several Taliban insurgents have taken up positions with rocket launchers, AK-47-rifles, and bulletproof vests near the embassy district, said a spokesman for the Islamic insurgency movement.

Maybe the explosion was not that big.

This could indicate that the explosion was not as great as first reported. Indeed, the Danish Refugee Council's representative in Kabul, Stefano Cordella, reported that neither felt nor heard the explosion.

"Our office is located two kilometers from the embassy area, but we didn't hear the explosion. Right now we are following the developments on television."

/ritzau/AFP

BBC “Reports” News

Monitor here for possible BBC stealth edits.



Shouldn’t that at least say US Afghan raid kills 35 suspected Taleban?

US-led forces in Afghanistan say they have killed about 35 militants in a raid on a "known Taleban compound" in the south of the country.

Buses carrying Afghan army officers and government workers were the target.
The Taleban claimed responsibility for both Tuesday and Wednesday's attacks.

So are they the Taleban or the “Taleban”? Based on the leader can we not assume that the Taliban even exist? Or are they tring to tell us that it's all in our heads?

Outsourcing Multilateralism as a virtue crime

VDH opines on the irony of the current cycle of leftist demands:

«Then the senator argued that bin Laden lives “because Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon didn't use American troops to do the job and instead outsourced the job of killing the world's #1 terrorist to Afghan warlords, this cold blooded killer got away.”

About the same time, Senator Clinton intoned of Iran, “I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines.”
[. . .]
First, if the United States did seek to engage mostly indigenous Afghan troops or Pakistani soldiers, or if we did allow Britain, France, and Germany to run negotiations with Iran, then such “outsourcing” might be better described as “multilateralism.”

Such joint efforts are precisely what Democrat stalwarts like Kerry and Clinton prefer to the old “going it alone,” “unilateralism,” and “alienating our allies,” when the United States largely handles problems itself. I have no doubt that daily missile-firing Predator sorties across Pakistan, or American planes over Iranian nuclear sites, would be met by howls from Europeans, Middle Easterners, and, at the opportune crest of popular indignation, Kerry and Clinton themselves.»

The political success of the likes of Rodham-Clinton and Kerry in pandering to their penthouse constituents seems to involve throwing them the sort of red meat that requires a highly damaged short-term memory. Though it CAN succeed, would they really want to win the White House that way and then have to dance with the one who brung ‘em?

The same BBC that reported that Al-Qaida did not exist	La même BBC qui prétend qu'Al-Qaida n'existe pas
After a 'journalist' at the Guardian is outted for belonging to a radical Muslim outfit, someone at the BBC is caught sending death threats to an Afghan blogger. Can you say 5th column?	Un 'journaliste' chez Al-Guardian est exposé comme appartenant à une officine radicale islamiste. Ensuite, quelqu'un à la BBC se fait attraper en train d'envoyer des menaces de mort à un blogger afghan. 5ème colonne, cela vous dit quelque chose?

Afghan Warrior

Afghanistan has its first blogger, Afghan Warrior. Check out Waheed's website (turban tip to Avary).

Muffled Voices (2): "Many Afghans Must Recall the Soviet Occupation with Deep Nostalgia"

If a letter to the editor in the International Herald Tribune states that "many Afghans must recall [the Soviet occupation] with deep nostalgia", where is it likely that the writer is writing from? It may be that several answers are possible, but one possible answer is France. I.e., one of those places where reporters, pundits, intellectuals, and politicians are regularly analysing everybody and everything, except… for the people most directly concerned.

Notice that the reader from Echenevex (she seems to be married to an Anglo-Saxon) does not actually quote any Afghans (men or women), she just states that "many Afghans must recall" the Soviet occupation "with deep nostalgia" — which, if you think about it, is entirely logical, based upon the double standard reporting one reads, hears, and sees in the French media day after day, year in and year out.

Nicholas Kristof (Afghan women still in thrall, Views, Oct. 7) draws a depressing picture of life for Afghan women today, two years after George W. Bush announced that they were "at last free." What a contrast to their situation from 1978 to 1990 under the "evil" rule of the nominally Marxist People's Democratic Party, which the United States and Britain with their Saudi ally did so much to destroy while helping to create the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the bargain.

On several visits as a Moscow-based correspondent during the Soviet occupation, a period many Afghans must recall with deep nostalgia, my husband did not need official "minders" to point out the young women without headscarves, let alone burkas, pouring into Kabul and Kandahar universities every morning, the young girls skipping to school with their brothers, the female doctors running hospitals and holding high posts in ministries.

And regarding the Kremlin, I recall reading that Russia's czarina also said that life could only be good in Russia's villages, following the visit into the countryside a certain Potemkin (no minder, he, either) had taken her on.

Meanwhile, the "freedom fighting" mujahedeen whom the West was arming were destroying schools and clinics wherever they could in their own zealous war against such abominations as coeducation and medical treatment for women.

I thought the only mujahedeen destroying schools and clinics were the Taliban (opposed by many of the other factions), and that education and medical treatment under the latter's government — as well as under the communist government — was much of a sham, but then again, who am I to put the word of a one-party government's public relations policy (whether Islamist, communist, secular, or other) into question, much less be so uncouth as to call it "evil"?

Not too different from what we are seeing in Iraq today since the destruction of Saddam's secular, if brutal, regime by the ideologues in power in Washington and London.

"If brutal": oh, well, if Saddam's régime was just a teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy, brutal (but just a tad, you understand), at least Iraq was secular, Dieu merci, and women had rights! And, yes, Eugénie, many Iraqis must recall Saddam's secular régime with deep nostalgia as well!

French Court Gives Jihadists Foot-soldiers their own “Cultural Exception”

John Rosenthal reports:

Last Tuesday, a Parisian appeals court overturned the convictions of five former Guantanamo inmates who had been found guilty on terrorist conspiracy charges in 2007. The development should give pause to wonder not only about the wisdom of plans to transfer Guantanamo inmates to European countries, but more fundamentally about the very idea of treating the “disposition” of Guantanamo inmates as an issue for civilian courts, whether in the US or abroad. The five French Gitmo detainees were repatriated to France in 2004 and 2005. They were tried and convicted on charges of belonging to a “criminal association formed for the purpose of undertaking a terrorist act.” The definition of this crime in French law is exceptionally broad. Not only does it permit what are, in effect, preventive detentions, but a suspect may be convicted by virtue of merely having had “regular contact” [relations habituelles] with one or more other persons who form part of such a terrorist enterprise.

And apparently that’s the favor they say they’re going to do for America, after telling us that they’ve councilled us on the wrongness of defending ourselves. They find a court that will release terrorists into the population, and we’re considered unwise and more dangerous.

The five former Gitmo detainees, however, did not merely have casual contact with members of a terror group. All five have admitted to receiving military training in Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. They were taken prisoner in the Afghan-Pakistani border region in late 2001, while fleeing the Battle of Tora-Bora

But somehow in the diseased minds of “the peace camp”, this doesn’t make them prisoners of war.



Leftist protesting nonsensically for the western liberal world to disarm itself outside a military equipment trade fair on 11-Sept-2001, while the attacks were taking place.

If terrorism were caused by an unwillingness to accept refugees, where are all the Christian terrorists?

What do the pope and President Obama have in common?

asks Benny Huang.

They both agree that the key to fighting Islamic terrorism is to import the maximum number of Muslim refugees as fast as possible. Yes, that’s really their solution.

Though estimates vary widely as to the exact proportion of terror-prone individuals among the refugees, nearly everyone acknowledges that there are at least some scattered throughout. Any rational person would see that this whole thing is analogous to Russian roulette—the more refugees the West brings in, the more likely we are to fall prey to terror attacks like the St. Cloud mall stabbing (perpetrated by a Somali Muslim refugee) or the New York/New Jersey bombings (perpetrated by an Afghan Muslim refugee) [not to mention the attacks in European cities such as Paris, Nice, and the Brussels airport].

Just don’t tell that to Pope Francis. At a conference on refugees, the pontiff spoke of hospitality as “our greatest security against hateful acts of terrorism.” Oh, I get it—if we’re not nice to them they’ll kill us. Somehow I’m reminded of the drone C3PO and his immortal words [to R2D2] when facing a brute who wished to dismember him: “Let the Wookie win.” That’s not Christian charity; it’s just plain old, garden variety cowardice.

The pope went further: “I encourage you to welcome refugees into your homes and communities, so that their first experience of Europe is not the traumatic experience of sleeping cold on the streets, but one of warm welcome.” Who exactly is sleeping on the streets? Many refugees in Europe are staying in luxury hotels. In Sweden they’ve even been given their own cruise ship. Others are sleeping in the apartments of citizens who were evicted to make room for refugees.
 
But seriously, do people turn to terrorism because they are “sleeping cold on the streets?” Hardly. This is just the pope’s defense mechanism. In order to avoid talking about Islamic jihad he tries to change the subject to homelessness and in the process excuses mayhem and violence. To hear him tell it, you’d think the refugees only kill their hosts because the hosts haven’t done enough to ease their transition. Disgusting.

The irony of the pope’s comments is that one of his own priests was attacked by a refugee whom he naively welcomed into his home. In August, Father Jos Vanderlee allowed an asylum seeker access to the rectory at his church in Belgium after the poor chap knocked on the door and asked to use the shower. The refugee then demanded money and lunged at the priest with a knife, who suffered injuries but survived. It was the European refugee crisis in microcosm—first the young Muslim refugee asked the aging European to have pity on him, then the refugee mugged and assaulted the bleeding heart who was foolish enough to let him in. Maybe it was the priest’s fault for not letting the refugee in faster, for not handing over his money, for not shining the refugee’s shoes, or for not fluffing the refugee’s pillow. Whatever you do, don’t blame the refugee and for heaven’s sake don’t blame Islam!

President Obama struck a similar chord in March of this year after ISIS terrorists killed 32 people in Brussels. In his weekly address, the stuffed shirt president blamed a “distorted view of Islam” for the attack and regurgitated bromides about staying true to “our values.” It was more of the same song and dance our leaders always go through whenever some guy shouting “Allahu Akbar” goes on a killing spree. They think they sound inspiring but really they just sound like jackasses. Obama even tossed in a warm fuzzy about America’s respect for “religious freedom” which undoubtedly came as a huge surprise to the Little Sisters of the Poor.

But it was President Obama’s solution to the problem that ought to make stomachs turn. His proposed response to the Brussels attacks was—you guessed it!—to double down on immigration from the Muslim world. “As we move forward in this fight, we have to wield another weapon alongside our airstrikes, our military, our counterterrorism work, and our diplomacy,” the president said. “And that’s the power of our example. Our openness to refugees fleeing ISIL’s violence.” No matter what the problem is, Obama’s solution is always to bring in more third world savages. Anything less would be letting the terrorists win—and we wouldn’t want that, would we?

The Left’s self-serving policy prescription to the refugee crisis is arrived at by reasoning backwards from their conclusion. It makes sense to them to repopulate the West with people who will become wards of the state, hate their adopted countries, and reject Judeo-Christian values if only because they and their descendants will overwhelm and transform the population already living there. Honestly, it’s not a bad strategy. Here in America, for example, Barack Obama is building a power base for his party that will stand firmly for many generations to come. Our country will be poorer, less free and more dangerous because of his policies, but at least his party will rule without challenge. Pope Francis’s motive is less clear, as the Islamization of Europe (and beyond) does not bode well for the Catholic Church. He must like being the media’s favorite pope more than having a flourishing flock.

Once the preferred conclusion has been determined, it’s easy to rationalize a path to get there. The Left constructs an argument that Muslims are only attacking us because they want to be part of our great nation—which no liberal really believes is great—but we spurn them. Ergo, the proper way to defeat Muslim terrorists is to allow more Muslims into our country, some percentage of whom will inevitably become terrorists themselves.

This theory simply does not stack up against the facts. If the antidote to Islamic terrorism is mass immigration from the Muslim world, why then is a once safe and orderly country like Germany becoming a terrorist focal point? In the past year they have admitted an astonishing 1.8 million refugees, mostly from Muslim countries. Their efforts have been Herculean, even if they have been in the service of a very misguided goal. Surely the plotting schemers at ISIS stand in awe of Germany’s tolerance and openness and will soon capitulate. There’s no sense in trying to goad those Germans into defending themselves, they just won’t do it! But alas, Germany’s strategy of plowing ahead with a dumb idea hasn’t given the terrorists a change of heart.

 … If terrorism were caused by an unwillingness to accept refugees, where are all the Christian terrorists? The Syrian Civil War has impacted Christians more than any other and yet they have faced discrimination when attempting to flee to other countries, including our own. An argument could be made that Christians should be given preference over Muslims because Christians are wearing targets on their backs in ISIS-held territory but as a matter of fact they aren’t even afforded equal treatment. According to an article in Christianity Today, the United States resettled 2,093 Muslims and 53 Christians displaced by the Syrian Civil War by November 2015. That means that Christians represented 2.5% of the refugees taken in by the US, though they represent roughly 5% of the Syrian population as a whole and 18% of all refugees trying to escape Syria. If we’re slamming the door in anyone’s faces, it’s Christians—and yet they don’t respond by killing us.

The real reason President Obama lectured us on being more open to Muslim immigration after the Brussels attack is because he had already made up his mind to go pedal to the metal with mass migration from the Middle East. Nothing was going to change his mind on that issue, not even a little blood in the streets. So he decided to reverse cause and effect, as leftist often do, claiming that Muslims only attack people when they feel rejected. The opposite is true—people reject Muslims because of their violence.

The West has done everything that its finger-wagging, multiculturalist elites have prescribed, and yet the killing continues. …

The Soviets' Unbelievable Cruelty Towards Civilians in the Afghan War

It may only be a token article for Le Monde, but still, it's nice to see the claims of Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, punctured by Natalie Nougayrède:

[Au représentant de la Russie auprès de l'OTAN, Dmitri Rogozine,] de se lancer dans une formidable réécriture de l'Histoire : "Nous étions les premiers à défendre la civilisation occidentale contre les attaques des musulmans fanatiques. Personne ne nous a remerciés." Surtout pas les civils afghans ! Un million d'entre eux ont péri de 1979 à 1989, sur une population d'environ 20 millions d'habitants.

L'URSS a envahi unilatéralement l'Afghanistan et l'a dévasté. C'était un acte d'agression pure, pour étendre la sphère d'influence de Moscou. La guerre soviétique, par sa cruauté inouïe contre les civils, a poussé 5 millions d'Afghans à fuir vers l'étranger. Loin de le combattre, elle a nourri l'islamisme radical, semant les germes de nouvelles violences. L'URSS, selon nos auteurs, aurait évité d'employer la force aérienne contre des civils. Quel beau mensonge ! En réalité, c'étaient des tapis incessants de bombes sur les villages, à l'aveuglette.

MM. Rogozine et Gromov nous font une annonce tonitruante : "en cas de fiasco de l'OTAN", la Russie "et ses alliés en Asie centrale" seraient prêts à déployer en Afghanistan une "force de réaction rapide". On reste songeur.