A New ‘Great Game’ In Afghanistan?
A New ‘Great Game’ In Afghanistan?
The head of the British Army has made clear Britain’s quasi-imperial ambitions in Central Asia. The British Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt says that Britain is, “On the edge of a new and deadly Great Game in Afghanistan.” The “Great Game” was a term coined by a British Intelligence Officer, Lt. Arthur Connoly of the 6th Bengal Light Cavalry in 1834, to describe the rivalry between the British Empire and Russia in Central Asia. Dannatt envisions a state of permanent war. He asks, “how do we prepare ourselves for potentially a generation of conflict?”
Dannatt’s speech is here: CGS speaks on “Tomorrow’s Army, Today’s Challenges”
Mentioned in The Guardian: Miliband leaves way open for Iraq troops reduction
Dannatt has attracted considerable controversy regarding public comments which have been seen as suggesting that Britain should withdraw from Iraq: General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal
So Dannatt’s comments about Afghanistan are perhaps more a warning than an endorsement of Her Majesty’s Government’s position.
See also, What if Bush has a strategy working as intended in Iraq and Afghanistan? What could it be?
New Great Game (wikipedia)
Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy
The Surge is Working?
The Surge is Working?
The Opinionator by Tobin Harshaw on the New York Times has a peculiar article suggesting that US Democrats are under attack due to the supposed success of “the surge”. The piece leads with a quote attributed to Karen Tumlty, which says, in part, “It’s the Democrats who are being put on the defensive over the war.”
The column goes on to quote a number of selected statements from obscure “moderates” closing with: “Where the strategy was first to argue that the military surge would not work, the Democrats seem to be ready to acknowledge — behind closed doors that is — that they were wrong,” from Michael van der Galien. If you have access to Times Select, you can read this compendium of preposterousness at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/spinning-the-surge/
There are a number of logical refutations submitted to the column. One, by ‘Rosemary Molloy’, reads,
Gee, all this “republicans did this,” “democrats said that” is confusing. Guess the only thing I quite understand is that we’re killing people. We. Are. Killing. People. These aren’t wild dogs we’re talking about–they’re PEOPLE! And we’re killing them.
My response follows:
The surge is working? The evidence would seem to suggest to the contrary. Consider the top headlines which come up upon searching, newest first, on the Times website on ‘Iraq’ today: ‘Times Topics: Iraq‘, ‘Black Hawk Fails and Crashes, Killing 14 U.S. Soldiers‘, ‘Cue the Film Awards Season and Strike a Somber Note‘, ‘Armored Trucks’ Delivery Delayed‘, ‘Army Officer, Others Indicted on Bribery‘, ‘25 Killed in Clash Northeast of Baghdad, Iraqi Police Say‘. You reported today that the capital, Baghdad, is receiving 2-6 hours of electricity per day as opposed to 24 hours per day before the war. The ‘surge’ is not sustainable; if this is success, what will the inevitable failure look like?
See: Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains
Militias Seizing Control of Iraqi Electricity Grid
Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy
Human Rights Watch: Ghost Prisoner: Two Years in Secret CIA Detention
Human Rights Watch has compiled a comprehensive report about the case of one of the “disappeared”, Marwan Jabour. Most of the docile and pathetic British and US press have ‘reported’ on this publication without managing to link to it or even so much as mention the name of the report!
Here’s a bit from the Summary:
When Marwan Jabour opened his eyes, after a blindfold, a mask, and other coverings were taken off him, he saw soldiers and, on the wall behind them, framed photographs of King Hussein and King Abdullah of Jordan. He was tired and disoriented from his four-hour plane flight and subsequent car trip, but when a guard confirmed that he was being held in Jordan, he felt indescribable relief. In his more than two years of secret detention, nearly all of it in US custody, this was the first time that someone had told him where he was. The date was July 31, 2006.
A few weeks later, in another first, the Jordanians allowed several of Jabour’s family members to visit him. “My father cried the whole time,” Jabour later remembered.
Marwan Jabour was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Lahore, Pakistan, on May 9, 2004. He was detained there briefly, then moved to the capital, Islamabad, where he was held for more than a month in a secret detention facility operated by both Pakistanis and Americans, and finally flown to a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prison in what he believes was Afghanistan. During his ordeal, he later told Human Rights Watch, he was tortured, beaten, forced to stay awake for days, and kept naked and chained to a wall for more than a month. Like an unknown number of Arab men arrested in Pakistan since 2001, he was “disappeared” into US custody: held in unacknowledged detention outside of the protection of the law, without court supervision, and without any contact with his family, legal counsel, or the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The secret prison program under which Jabour was held was established in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when US President George W. Bush signed a classified directive authorizing the CIA to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists. Because the entire program was run outside of US territory, it required the support and assistance of other governments, both in handing over detainees and in allowing the prisons to operate.
–from the Summary of Ghost Prisoner: Two Years in Secret CIA Detention
See also: BBC Report: ‘Sleaze alleged in CIA’
European Union: Report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners
Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy
The Guardian: US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse
An interesting article in the Guardian says that General Petraeus and his staff have concluded that the US faces a collapse of political and public support for the war in Iraq within the next six months. In addition, due to low morale, poor readiness and the high morale and level of experience of the resistance groups, the US faces a military collapse similar to the French collapse in Viet Nam in March-May 1954 or the collapse of US forces in Korea in October-December 1950.
US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse
Elite officers in Iraq fear low morale, lack of troops and loss of political will
Simon Tisdall
Thursday March 1, 2007
The GuardianAn elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq – or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.The officers – combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency – are charged with implementing the “new way forward” strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial “surge” of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.
But the team, known as the “Baghdad brains trust” and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations…
US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse The Guardian
Battle of Chosin Reservoir (wikipedia)
Battle of Dien Bien Phu (wikipedia)
Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy
Snips of Ike: Eugene Jarecki’s Why We Fight
Snips of Ike:
Why We Fight
by Henry Edward Hardy
Eugene Jarecki’s Why We Fight takes as its framework snippets from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s famous televised farewell to the nation in 1961, often called the “military-industrial complex” speech. Jarecki is best known for The Trials of Henry Kissinger.
One may or may not be sympathetic to the premise of the film, that the United States has become an American Empire, and as such, is behaving badly in the world. Why We Fight makes clever use of icons of the Republican Party such as John McCain and Eisenhower and neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Richard Pearle to make its points.
Why We Fight is also the title of a series of films made for the U.S. government by Frank Capra during World War II. They were commissioned in response to the Nazi use of mass media in films like Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. Since then the title has been (mis-)appropriated a number of times, such as the book by former “Drug Czar” William J. Bennett subtitled “Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism”, and the name of a popular Danish rock band.
Jarecki’s Why We Fight has not been widely seen in the U.S. It was shown on the BBC in March 2005 and won the American Documentary Grand Prize at Sundance in 2005. The film would be stronger if it were better-organized and had a less transparent point to make. For those unfamiliar with some of Eisenhower’s later and more progressive thinking, this film is an interesting introduction.
A version of this article appeared previously in Current Magazine and on Electric Current
Copyright © 2006-2007 Henry Edward Hardy











