"But we won, in the end, right?"

"I mean, we ended the Muslim civil war, we brought peace and democracy to Iraq and all those other places, and we saved the world from Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban. So we won... right?"

Errr... actually, NO! Ever since WWII, and particularly since the fall of the Twin Towers, the Paranoid States of America has considered itself the World's Policeman, on a mission to spread freedom, democracy, and the American way of life (ugghhh, brrrrr) throughout the rest of the world, whether ROTW wants it or not.

After 9/11, the words "al-Qaeda" became shorthand for Islamic terrorism anywhere in the world. The cry "Allahu akbar!" was  heard in London, Paris, Berlin [That's enough world cities. Ed.] and is still our best guess any time there's a suicide bombing or mass shooting or terror attack anywhere in the Middle East or the Western world.

With the US of A as the unwitting midwife, Al-Qaeda begat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The Muslim civil war in Iraq begat the same in Syria. The American-led (but really America-only) missions in Iraq and Afghanistan ended in ignominious retreat. 

Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghadafi were deposed and killed, but today the countries they ruled remain no-go zones for Westerners, as does the entire Muddled East from the Mediterranean all the way to Pakistan. (The possible exception is Israel, although it has its own wars with Palestinians and Hezbollah to worry about.) 

Instead of bringing the Islamic republics, sheikdoms, etc into the New World Order, American intervention (read: meddling) has turned the region into one huge shithole, stuck in the mentality of the Middle Ages and intent on bring the ROTW down to its level. I call our mission a failure, utter and complete.

Further reading: And Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East, by Richard Engel, Chief Foreign Correspondent, NBC News. Simon & Schuster, 2016. Clear and concise, not overly biased, easy reading.

Footnote: Regular readings should know that Walt fully supports Ukraine and Ukrainians in their reistance to the illegal Russian invasion and occupation of their land. Слава Україні! Героям слава! 

I believe we should give the Ukrainians as much humanitarian and military assistance as we can, short of putting US or NATO boots on the ground. Why stop at that? Precisely because of the mess America has made of every foreign intervention since (and including) Korea. That kind of "help" is the last thing Ukraine needs!

VIDEO: Tucker Carlson: Is it "treasonous" to not want to go to war?

So far this week, we've been looking at the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine through the lens of the Message of Fatima -- the request of God through the Blesssed Virgin Mary that Russia be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart, by which means the annihilation of nations (not just Ukraine) will be averted and a period of peace given to us.

We therefore hope and pray (a novena starts today!) that Pope Francis will perform the Act of Consescration, in union with all the bishops, in the manner that Our Lady requested. But the news that Francis will at last attempt the Consecration has been largely ignored by the lamestream media, not to mention politicians like Crazy Joe Biden, Crazy Nancy Pelosi and Blackie McBlackface, Prime Minister of Canuckistan. 

Like the majority of Americans and Canadians, these liberals who call themselves "Catholics" while advocating for abortion "rights" and other evils, either know nothing about Fatima or do not believe in the Fatima Message. 

So today let's look at the invasion of Ukraine from a purely secular point of view. Let's hear the arguments of people like Tucker Carlson, that starting a potentially nuclear World War III over the status of Ukraine would be foolish in the extreme, and a dissservice not just to the Ukrainian people but to all the nations of the West.

In his latest talk from the Remnant Underground, Michael Matt wondered aloud how much longer Fox News will be able to keep Tucker Carlson on the air, given that he (Carlson) refuses to jump on the let's-nuke-the-Russkis war wagon. 

Mr Carlson is being pilloried by such warhawks as Lindsey Graham and the inevitable Mitt Romney for daring to suggest that the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is totally black-and-white -- Ukraine good, Russia bad -- so if Putin wants war, let's have at it.

They call Mr Carlson, and others like Michael Matt and Dr Ron Paul, unpatriotic, even "treasonous", for urging the powers that be to take a step back and consider whether it's really a smart move to involve the USA (and the lesser NATO countries) in another pointless and unwinnable war. Listen carefully to Mr Carlson's comments, posted on March 14th, in which he gives his take on Ukrainian President Zelenskiy's latest suggestion for finding a way out.

 

Further reading: "Is Tulsi Gabbard a traitor?", by Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, 15/3/22. 

Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Michael Matt are not traitors or "Russian assets" as the harpies of The View would have it. Neither is Dr Ron Paul, who wrote in "It All Comes Back to NATO", (1/3/22) "When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense."

Dr Paul goes on to say that NATO should be disbanded because it's no longer necessary or relevant to the geopolitics of the 2020s. Russia's invasion of Ukraine proves him right. To go to war for Ukraine's right to join a military alliance which (as President Trump pointed out) is dysfunctional and irrelevant  is just plain wrong. President Zelenskiy's suggestion that his country could perhaps remain neutral is not crazy at all.

More further reading: "The Press Has Lied To Drag The United States Into War Before. Don’t Think They Won’t Again" by Elle Reynolds, The Federalist, 17/3/22.

The writer recycles the story about William Randolph Hearst. In 1897, months before the Maine exploded in Havana harbour, the newspaper tycoon had commissioned reporter Frederic Remington to go to Cuba, where Cuban revolutionaries were skirmishing with their Spanish colonizers. When Remington sent Hearst a wire to explain he was leaving Cuba because there was no war to cover, Hearst reportedly replied, "You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war!"

Russia invades Ukraine: What the USA is doing

Ed. here. The following is taken from "Joe Biden Vows to Defend NATO with 'Full Force of American Power' After Emboldened Vladimir Putin Attacks Ukraine", Breitbart News, 24/2/22. 

Biden said the United States would join a NATO summit on Friday to signal solidarity and strengthen the alliance in the face of Putin’s aggression. “The good news is NATO is more united and more determined than ever,” Biden said, vowing to meet the Article 5 commitments to defend NATO territory. 

He described NATO as “the greatest military alliance in the history of the world.” The president said he would send more troops to Europe and deploy them to NATO’s eastern countries such as Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania but repeated that he did not want American troops going to war in Russia with Ukraine. “Our forces are not and will not be engaged in a conflict with Russia in Ukraine,” Biden said. 

The president said he was already taking steps to ready additional forces to Europe if necessary. When asked if he believed Putin was prepared to use nuclear weapons, Biden replied, “I have no idea what he’s threatening.”

Walt sez: Told ya so! Actually I'm not sure President Brandon realizes the Ukraine is not part of NATO. As I said in my last post, even Crazy Joe isn't crazy enough to sent American troops into battle during an election year. I think he'd rather not know about the invasion at all.

Photo scraped from "Joe Biden under attack over handling of Russia in lead up to Ukraine invasion", subheaded "Republicans said the US could be 'held hostage' by Vladimir Putin over energy", by Nick Allen, The Telegraph, 24/2/22.

Must Ukraine stand alone?

Speaking of emperor wannabes [Walt is referring to Trudeau II, Emperor of Canada. Ed.], it seems Vlad "The Impaler" Putin has his heart set on revivying the old Russian Empire, or at least the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The invasion that many Western pundits said would never happen started at 0500 local time on Wednesday. 

In the largest attack seen in Europe since World War II, Russia invaded Ukraine from three directions, advancing toward the capital city of Kyiv. Kyiv's main Boryspil International Airport was hit in Wednesday night’s first wave of attacks. By this evening, Russian paratroopers appeared to have taken control of the city's Hostomel cargo airport after a battle that involved a squadron of Russian attack helicopters. Control of Hostomel allow Russia to fly more troops to the edge of Kyiv, Mr Putin's main target. 

After encountering fierce resistance from Ukrainian forces in the Chernihiv region north of Kyiv, Russian troops massed across the border with Belarus opened a separate line of attack through the exclusion zone created by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Why they would want to go anywhere near the radioactive waste storage facility there is a mystery, but they seem to have it under control.

Russian troops also pushed into Ukraine from the east – in the direction of Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv – and from the south, pushing towards the city of Kherson from the Crimea, which Russia seized and illegally annexed from Ukraine in 2014. 

Amphibious commandos were also reported to have landed near the Black Sea port of Odessa. Explosions, possibly caused by missile strikes, have been recorded in numerous other urban areas, including Ivano-Frankivsk oblast, which is home to the families of two of Walt's agents. Our thoughts and prayers are with them!

Russia's dictator has attempted to justify the invaion by claiming that Kyiv's longstanding request to join NATO poses a threat to his country’s security. Therefore, he told the controlled media, Ukraine must be "demilitarized". He went on to warn outside countries not to intervene, saying any interference with his plans would "lead to consequences you have never seen in history."

So far, there have been no meaeningful consequences. The response of NATO and all the liberal democracies has been a lot of fine words, and the imposition by some of sanctions which (we are assured) will hit Vlad the Impaler where it hurts, in the pocketbook. 

Germany has frozen the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project, but since the pipeline, finished in September, has yet to be commissioned, that means little, except to German consumers who are already paying record prices for energy.

Military intervention, it seems, is out of the question. Although some NATO countries have sent a few hundred more troops to eastern Europe, they have not been positioned in Ukraine itself, but in neighbouring Poland, Romania and the Baltic republics which look to be next in Mr Putin's gunsights.

Canada, in fact, actually withdrew the couple of hundred troops it had in Ukraine on a training mission. They are now safe in Poland, along with Canuckistan's embassy staff, who had moved first from Kyïv to Lviv, then decamped the country entirely. Chyristia Freeland, Canada's Diplomat of the Year 2018 is half Ukrainian, but doesn't let her ethnicity get in the way of liberal politics. [??? Ed.]

Speaking of liberal politics, the world awaits with bated breath for President Brandon to push the button to protect his family's extensive interests in Ukraine. Mr Ten Percent and his feckless son Hunter have had a good thing going there for years, and you'd think he'd want to spring to the aid of his benefactors. So far, except for talk of "increased sanctions", he's doing nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Sleepy Joe's reluctance or inability to do anything meaningful is probably what Vlad was counting on when he launched this attack now. With less than nine months until the mid-terms, Mr Brandon would be crazy to send American boys and girls [etc. Ed.] into another disastrous overseas adventure. Right?Yes, he'd have to be crazy! Oh... wait...

Late Wednesday night, President Trump was interviewed by Laura Ingraham on Fox News. She asked him if he thought there's "a lot of weakness in the United States", which would explain President Brandon's hesitation to take stronger action. Mr Trump said, "I think you're exactly right. I think that's what happened. [Putin] was going to be satisfied with a peace, and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence and the stupidity of this administration, and, as an American, I'm angry about it, and I'm saddened by it. And it all happened because of a rigged election. This would have never happened."

For the moment, then, it appears Ukraine stands alone. The leaders of the Western democracies are going to do little more than hold the Ukrainians' coats! So, dear readers, it's up to us to do what we can. 

How you can help

First, pray for the Ukraine. Walt recommends invoking the help of St Michael the Archangel, St Josaphat, and maybe St Vladimir, although he is patron of both the Ukraine and Russia.

Then pray some more.

After that, consider making a donation to support the work of any legitimate organization working to keep Ukraine free. If you see a crowd-funding appeal, check it out thoroughly before donating. Here are some that we know are worthy of your contribution.

Médecins sans frontières (Doctors Without Borders): a humanitarian group that’s been supporting Ukraine’s COVID-19 response 

Come Back Alive Foundation: a Ukrainian NGO (aka Save Life in Ukraine) that supports veterans and co-organizes the Invictus Games in Ukraine

Canada-Ukraine Foundation: A Toronto-based group that co-ordinates Canadian charitable aid to Ukraine.

Phoenix Wings: a charitable foundation that supplies the Ukrainian army with medical treatment and defensive equipment such as vests and helmets

Revived Soldiers Ukraine: a nonprofit that funds medical rehabilitation for Ukrainian soldiers 

Razom for Ukraine: a pro-democracy group that’s fundraising for medical supplies in Ukraine

Kyiv Independent: a Ukraine-based, English-language independent news media outlet. Walt is following the news from this trusted source.

NATO troops start pulling out of Iraq; Americans just "moving"

There are further developments in the drama of Western meddling in the Middle East. As reported here, the Iraqi parliament voted on Sunday to oust US forces from their shithole country. The resolution said "all foreign forces", which means they would like NATO forces to follow the Americans towards the "EXIT" sign, and not slam the door on the way out. Yesterday they were signs that a number of America's "allies" [Fair weather friends? Ed.] may actually be ahead of the US military in getting out of Dodge.

Canada's chief of the defence staff, Gen. Jonathan Vance, announced that Canuckistan's military is temporarily "relocating" some soldiers from Iraq to Kuwait. The move, posted to Twitter this morning, follows the lead of Germany and several other allies. Western troops in Iraq have been on high alert since the weekend killing, by an American drone, of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the mastermind behind Islamic terrorist activities in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the rest of the sandpit.

Following Gen. Vance's announcement, Harjit Singh Sajjan, Canada's defence minister and self-proclaimed hero of Aghanistan, insisted that the "relocation" of Canuck forces was just a minor matter, and that the NATO military mission in the Middle East would stay the course. Any confusion about this, he said, was triggered by a leaked letter which suggested Washington was prepared to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Media reports about the letter from a senior USMC brigadier general said the pullout would happen over the next few days "in deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq", in response to the resolution of the Iraqi parliament mentioned above

But, according to Reuters, US Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later told a group of reporters that the letter was only a draft, meant only to inform the Iraqi government of "increased US troop movement". Nothing more. No withdrawal is being planned. Said the general, "Poorly worded, implies withdrawal. That's not what's happening." Yeah. Right.

The leaked letter said the repositioning was taking place "to prepare for onward movement" but did not specify where that movement might take place, whether west toward the "EXIT" door {read: Kuwait, where the USA has been furiously enlarging its bases) or eastward, towards, errr, Afghanistan, or northward, towards... wait for it... Iran.

American Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also insisted the US has no plans to pull out of Iraq. "There's been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq," Mr Esper told Pentagon reporters on Monday, adding there also have been no plans issued to prepare to leave. Stay tuned.

Further reading: "Matt Gaetz: Trump Doctrine 'Best' When U.S. Strikes Terrorists, Bring Troops Home", Breitbart News, 7/1/20. Lede: "Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Breitbart News in an exclusive comment Tuesday that the Donald Trump foreign policy doctrine works best when 'we strike the terrorists' and then 'bring the troops home.'" Sounds like Mr Gaetz has been reading WWW.

The Aghanistan war: It was all for nothing

When I began this blog in July of 2009 [! How time flies when you're having fun! Ed.], the two countries closest to my heart (and other organs), the US of A and Canada, were heavily involved and invested in the Afghanistan "mission".

It looked like a war to me, but politicians of both blue and red stripes, on both sides of the World's Longest Undefended Border (TM), kept assuring us that it was a peacekeeping mission. Or maybe a peace-making mission. Or how about "nation-building"? I called BULLSHIT on that from Day One of WWW, as did many skeptics including Dr Ron Paul.

No-one paid attention. Many demonized Dr Paul and other anti-war thinkers and writers as "unpatriotic". The pro-war types told us that this was, after all, part of the war against terrorism. (Back then, some even dared to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism".) "If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them there!" "Nation-building is the best way to defeat the Taliban!" More bullshit, piled higher and deeper.

Those who opposed the war argued that the Taliban weren't out to get us, so much as to get us out of their country. It was a Muslim civil war, we said, in which we had no business meddling... no dog in that fight. Let them duke it out.

This week, the Washington Post is serializing "At War With the Truth: a secret history of the Afghanistan war", a massive report, based on hitherto secret military documents, proving that... wait for it... the whole Afghan war was a blunder from the getgo -- a colossal waste of money and lives. Putting it another way, we who opposed the war were right, after all. Lifetime pct .979.

MSN carries Monday's part of the WaPo report under the headline "Wasteful spending and half-baked ideas: U.S. officials reveal how massive rebuilding projects in Afghanistan backfired". The newly revealed government documents raise profound questions about the execution and results of the war in Afghanistan and the massive nation-building effort that surrounded it. No wonder, then, that the American government tried to shield the identities of the vast majority of those interviewed for the project and conceal nearly all of their remarks. The Post won release of the documents -- 2000 pages of interview records -- under the Freedom of Information Act after a three-year legal battle.

In the interviews, more than 400 insiders offered unrestrained criticism of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired in nearly two decades of warfare. With a bluntness rarely expressed in public, the interviews lay bare pent-up complaints, frustrations and confessions, along with second-guessing and backbiting.

Through the interviews we hear the voice of Gen. Lute and scores of others who detail the core failings of the war that persist to this day. They underscore how three presidents -- George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump -- and their military commanders have been unable to deliver on their promises to prevail in Afghanistan. Here's a sample.

In 2015, US Army Gen. Douglas Lute, who served as the White House's Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers, "We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan -- we didn't know what we were doing. What are we trying to do here? We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.... If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction...." He blamed the deaths of 2400 American military personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department.

Since 2001, more than 775,000 US troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Besides the 2300 (that's the Dept of Defense number) who died in that shithole, 20,589 were wounded in action.

The number of Canadians who went to Afghanistan and didn't return was much smaller -- 158 soldiers and seven civilians died -- but proportionately greater than US casualties. 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces served in Afghanistan. 158 soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Walt ran a body count, in those first years of WWW, each time asking the question "Why did they die?"

Another 2000 Canucks were wounded in a "peace-keeping/nation-building mission" (read" war) which began under a Liberal government and was then enthusiastically embraced by a Conservative government. In 2006 and 2008, Conservative and Liberal Members of Parliament voted together to extend the "mission", at a projected cost of as much as C$18 billion. The Canadians finally realized the war was unwinnable, and bailed out (of military involvement, at least) in 2014. The Americans are still there.

The conclusions of the Post's report -- that the war lacked clear direction and purpose, that the American government misled the public about the war's progress, that the effort to establish a new government in Afghanistan was misguided and quickly corrupted, that billions of dollars in aid and development money were mishandled -- should trouble not just Americans, but citizens and taxpayers of every country meddling in the Muslim civil war. Can our politicians please just cut the BS, bring the trooops and "foreign aid" personnel home, and leave the Islamists to make of their countries what they will. Please!!!

UPDATED: Who's responsible for latest Afghanistan massacre?

Which group of Islamic terrorists is responsible for yesterday's massive suicide car bombing in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan? The body count so far is 90 dead, at least 400 wounded. That's more than four times the number of casualties in last week's ISIS-related Manchester massacre, but you won't be seeing much handwringing and crocodile tears from Western politicians or in the lamestream media, because hey, these are just towel-headed Muslims. Who cares? And that answers the question in today's headline.

It's worth noting, though, that this was one of the worst attacks Kabul had seen since the Prez (Obama -- how quickly we forget) declared victory in Afghanistan and started the drawdown of foreign forces from the country at the end of 2014. The bombing, which took place in what was supposed to be Kabul's safest neighbourhood, raises serious questions about the Afghan government's ability to secure the war-battered nation.

If the Afghans' democratically elected government (LOL) can't control their own country, must we go back in to pacify the Taliban and/or ISIS for them? There was talk of "re-engaging" even before yesterday's blast. Indeed, more than 8000 of US troops and "advisors" are still there, along with personnel from other NATO countries -- excluding Canada, of course -- but they are steadily losing ground. In fact, the Kabul government's writ runs only to the perimeter of the city, if that.

Last month, the Afghan Taliban announced the beginning of their spring offensive, promising to build their political base in the country while focusing military assaults on the international coalition and Afghan security forces. American and Afghan forces have been battling the Taliban insurgency for more than 15 years... and counting. If anyone has a persuasive argument as to why we should continue, please write it on the back of a postage stamp and send it to Walt at the usual address.

FURTHER READING, added 1/6/17: Don Murray, a formerly a CBC reporter and now a freelancer, thinks WE are responsible for the latest Taliban (or ISIS) attacks in Afghanistan, in the sense that, if "we" weren't there, the fanatical Islamists wouldn't be blowing things up. Read "Afghan civilians bear brunt of US-led war". The secondary title is "Few American, NATO troops now die in the conflict but their presence ensures ever more Afghans will get killed". Hmm. Could be.

UPDATED: Here's what Trump said that voters will remember

The following is taken, without edit or comment, from "Trump lost the debate by every normal standard. But these aren't normal times" by Michael den Tandt -- no Trumpie he -- in Canada's Postmedia papers.

Here’s a bet: In a week, most of Twitter will have forgotten the details of Trump’s numerous falsehoods Monday, because he’ll have uttered new ones, perhaps more outrageous.

But viewers will remember he said this: On trade, bring back our jobs and stop the dastardly foreigners from stealing them away. On gun violence, crime and race, impose law and order in the inner city. On national security, smash ISIL and force the feckless Europeans (and Canadians, surely) in NATO to do some of the work, for once in their worthless lives.

Further reading, added 28/9/16: "Why Hillary won the first round on points, why it probably won't do her any good, and why she can be sure Trump will come out swinging harder next time", by Piers Morgan in the Daily Mail (UK), 27/9/16.

Ron Paul on Afghanistan: "failed policy, purposeless war"

Looks like the Prez isn't going to end the American invasion in Afghanistan before he leaves office after all. Another promise broken. But hey, that was then, this is now. Who could have guessed that if the US military left the armpit of the world, the Taliban would come out from behind the rocks to fill the void? Who could have guessed that the Afghan National Army would be a fighting force in theory only? Who could have guessed that a new Afghan government would be just as feckless and corrupt as the old government of Mohammed Krazai?

Apparently Barack Hussein Obama never guessed those things. Neither did the Secretary of State who now aspire to fill the void left by President 0's departure from the Oval Office. The whole Afghanistan adventure didn't turn out well, did it. But rather than admit defeat, the Prez has decided to ramp up the war again. He announced last week that the US will keep 3000 more troops than planned over there in the sandpit. And the USA (and its NATO camp followers) will also continue funding the ineffectual Afghan security forces until 2020.

Why, I hear you ask, are we pouring more blood and treasure down the rathole of a chunk of barrenness that's hardly worth fighting for? According to Mr Obama, "It is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we"ve invested over the years, that we give our partners in Afghanistan the best chance to succeed."

He's kidding, right? But it's not funny. In "Fool’s Errand: NATO Pledges Four More Years of War in Afghanistan", Ron Paul says the real reason for wading back into the morass "is obvious: the mission has failed and Washington cannot bear to admit it." Mr Paul continues:

This is how irrational Washington’s logic is. Where else but in government would you see it argued that you cannot stop spending on a project because you have already spent so much to no avail? In the real world, people who invest their own hard-earned money in a failed scheme do something called "cut your losses". Government never does that. Isn't 15 years of US "blood and treasure" enough of a "best chance" to succeed?...

When I suggested in a recent interview that the only sensible US policy in Afghanistan would be to bring all the troops home, the host asked whether I was worried the Taliban would rush in to fill the vacuum. That’s what has already happened, I said. The Taliban are stronger than ever in Afghanistan. They control more territory than at any time since the original US invasion in 2001. Despite 15 years of US interventionism, nearly 2,500 dead US soldiers, and well over a trillion dollars, Afghanistan is no closer to being a model democracy than it was before 9/11. It’s a failed policy. It’s a purposeless war. It is a failed program.

The neocons argue that Iraq, Libya, and other US interventions fell apart because the US did not stay long enough. As usual they are wrong. They failed and they will continue to fail because they cannot succeed. You cannot invade a country, overthrow its government, and build a new country from the ground up. It is a fool’s errand and Washington has turned most Americans into fools. It’s time to end this game and get back to the wise foreign policy of the founders: non-intervention in the affairs of others.

VIDEO: Russian jet fighter pilot makes his Sukhoi-30 dance!

For months now, stories have been floating around the Internet and other meeja that Russian President Vladimir Putin is building up his country's armed forces in preparation for... hmmm... for what? That's the big question.

Having seen a little demonstration in Syria of what the Russian air force is capable of, NATO's defence preparedness "experts" tell us that we're falling behind in the arms race and had better start increasing our "assets" in Europe. I tend to take dire warnings of this kind cum grano salis, but must agree that it would be foolish to underestimate the capabilities and expertise of the Russkis.

What made me think of this was a one-minute video, just received from Agent 6 (to whom be many thanks) showing a Russian pilot putting his Sukhoi-30 jet fighter through some intricate solo dance steps... at ground level! If you think this is all done some kind of computer graphics trick, done with a model aircraft, suspend your disbelief until the last six seconds when you'll see the plane straighten out and fly right... and fast too!

What a plane, eh! And what a pilot! A couple of years ago the USAF went toe-to-toe with the Russians during war games in India. The US F15s had a tough time defeating the SU30s, although the F22s seemed to fare better. Let's hope our guys and our planes are never put to the test in real life.

Refugees spreading ISIS like a cancer, sez NATO commander

Gen. Philip Breedlove, USAF, presently the top commander of NATO, told the US Congress on Tuesday that refugees from the Middle East and north Africa are masking the movement of terrorists and criminals. That's exactly what Walt and numerous other bloggers, commentators and pundits have been saying for months upon months. But the bleeding hearts making a nice buck from the human rights industry protest that refugees overwhelmingly have no ulterior motive but escape. Who ya gonna believe?

Further reading: "NATO commander: The Islamic State is 'spreading like cancer' among Muslim migrants to Europe", on JihadWatch today.

Why sticking our noses in the affairs of the Third World is a bad idea

Since it's Sunday morning [early too! Ed.] I'll start with a text. This is from the chapter entitled "Recovery", in Butterfly Mind, by Patrick Brown (Anansi 2008). (More about the author and the book later.)

Intervention almost never works out as predicted, and it is almost never executed with sufficient thoroughness and commitment. The decision to intervene, either for humanitarian reasons or because a regime has become intolerable, are often made haphazardly, and the results almost always are disappointing. Those decision deserve care and attention proportional the blood and treasure lost when bad decisions are made.

I have been in Afghanistan many times since the Taliban left. I have watched a growing number of foreign nation-builders and peacekeepers lose their lives in the dusty hills of a country that once again produces 90 percent of the world's heroin.

NATO countries that are still willing to provide troops insist on à la carte deployment, picking and choosing where their forces are deployed and what they do. Countries that have put their troops in harm's way, like Canada and Britain, are naively stirring up a hornet's nest. Pacifying Afghanistan and improving its living standards rapidly would have taken much larger numbers of well-equipped troops, and an intensive and expensive development effort.

Those words were written in 2008, before the US-led "intervention" in Afghanistan had officially failed, yet the author refers to it (in the last quoted sentence) in the conditional past -- "would have taken". The conditions for success were never met, perhaps never could have been met. Six years after Patrick Brown wrote those words, even the greatest apologists for Obama's war have no choice but to describe it as a failure.

Thus endeth the lesson... Sad to say, the lesson has still not been learned by the Prez and other Leaders of the Free World (TM). If it were otherwise, why would be, at this very moment, making the same mistakes in Iraq and "the Levant"?

The failure of Western intervention in Afghanistan was hardly unique. During the 1980s, Patrick Brown was a foreign correspondent, reporting on the collapse of Communism, revolutions, wars and humanitarian disasters in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lebanon, East Timor, Burma, Cambodia and Korea. Western meddling, he observes, never solved the problems it set out to. Too frequently, our intervention only made things worse. As an interviewee told him, "WE have to solve our problems by ourselves."

There is more to Butterfly Mind than a potted history of Western failures in the third world. Patrick Brown is a recovering alcoholic. He speculates on the link between alcoholism and journalism. Perhaps journalism drives one to drink. Or perhaps alcoholics become journalists because it's a natural métier for garrulous drunks.

With professional help, Mr. Brown won -- or is winning -- his battle with the bottle. The beginning of his recovery coincided with his move in 1989, to China, where he now makes his home. In Butterfly Mind, he skillfully interweaves his personal story with his observations of Western engagement (to use the latest buzzword) with the Third World, and draws comparisons and parallels with the policies and politics of Communist China.

He writes of the efforts of several Chinese "freedom fighters", including several of those profiled in Out of Mao's Shadow, reviewed here a month ago. He concludes that if change -- regime change and/or social change -- is to come to China, the Chinese will have to bring about that change by themselves, without "help" from the West.

Patrick Brown wishes the Chinese good luck. Walt agrees and extends the same wish to the writer himself. And Walt recommends Butterfly Mind -- good reading as we approach the Chinese New Year.

Once more into Afghanistan

Walt learned this weekend that volleyball is immensely popular in Afghanistan, so much so that people actually go in large numbers to watch a match. Islamic extremists, however, regard the sport as sinful. Those who participate, or even spectate, deserve to die!

And so it came to pass, yesterday, that a suicide bomber rode a motorcycle into the middle of a stadium while a match was in progress, and sent himself to paradise (where 72 virgins were waiting) along with at least 50 others who weren't so keen to go. Amongst the others were 17 children. At least 60 people were wounded.

Just this morning, a soldier -- nationality so far undisclosed -- died in an attack on a NATO convoy in Kabul. The attacks appear to signal a resumption of hostilities after the Afghan parliament approved security deals allowing NATO and US soldiers to remain after the withdrawal of most foreign troops scheduled for next month.

Readers with longish memories will recall that when he was campaigning for the presidensity in 2008, Barack Hussein Obama promised a war-weary nation that he would end the war in Afghanistan and bring the American boys [and girls. Ed.] home. He made the same promise in 2012.

Americans may now be forgiven for poring over old campaign photos to see if the Nobel Peace Prize laureate had his fingers crossed behind his back. He never meant, he said later, to bring home all the US military personnel. In order to preserve the peace, order and democracy which America had succeeded in establishing there, it would be necessary for a few Americans to remain in Armpitistan. "A few", as in, errr, 9000 or so.

Of course they would only stay on with the consent of the Afghan government. When President Karzai expressed his opposition to the continuing occupation of his country, he was replaced -- after not one but two "free and democratic" elections -- by a more pliant leader. A new bilateral security agreement (BSA) with the USA and status of forces agreement (SOFA) with NATO were duly approved by 152 votes to 5.

The total number of soldiers in the new "peacekeeping" force will be about 12,000. Roughly three-quarters of them will be American. When the just-approved deal was cooked up, we were told that their mission would be training, advising and assisting the Afghan National Army and police.

Now we learn that there will actually be a bit more to it than the Prez was letting on. This week, while almost everyone was distracted by his plan to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the USA, Mr. Obarmy quietly authorized US commanders in Afghanistan to carry out combat operations and provide air cover for Afghan troops.

An administration official told CNN, "The new authorization...enables the deployment of US jets, bombers and drones." And "To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to al-Qaeda, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe.

"The United States may provide combat enabler support to the [Afghan National Security Forces] in limited circumstances to prevent detrimental strategic effects to these Afghan security forces."

Walt will decode the military-speak for you. He meant that Americans and Afghans are going to continue standing shoulder to shoulder in fighting the Islamic extremists, just as they've been doing since, errr, 2001.

Shoulder to shoulder, eh... In this picture, it looks more like a couple of guys leading and a couple of guys following. Which are more likely to be killed -- the leaders or the followers? And which are the Afghans and which are the Americans? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please, to the usual address.

Footnote (and tombstone): Since its start in 2001, the Afghan war has claimed the lives of more than 3400 US and coalition soldiers.

Update and WOW! No sooner had I posted this than Chuck Hegel resigned from his position as US Secretary of Defense. Wouldn't you like to know why? The Prez didn't give any reason. Could it be that Mr. Hegel doesn't want to have his name associated with yet another American campaign that was lost before it started? 

Waiting for the balloon(s) to go up

This just in...

"President Barack Obama has approved targeted air strikes in Iraq, near the site where some 40,000 religious minorities are trapped on a mountaintop after fleeing from Islamic State militants who have threatened to kill them.

"Obama said the Iraqi government asked for U.S. help in fighting Islamic State militants, who have surged across northern Iraq in the country's Kurdish region, forcing tens of thousands of Christians and Yazidis — a Kurdish ethno-religious community — to leave their homes or risk death."

Meanwhile, to the northwest, Russian troops are massing along the border with Ukraine. NATO has called on Russia to "step back", otherwise they will, errr, well... that's kind of unclear. If (God forbid) NATO wants to call in an airstrike on the Russkis, who're they gonna call? The USAF will, it seems, be occupied elsewhere.

And... yes, there's more... there seem to be two chances of a permanent cease-fire in Gaza, the two chances being slim and none.

What next? To be clear, Walt is glad the USA is coming to the defence of the Christians (etc) in Iraq. Better late than never. And Walt would support the use of lethal force to keep the Russians from gobbling up any more of Ukraine. The fear, of course, is that the Islamic militants and/or Russians might stand and fight. So what should we do? Walt's answer: Go big or go home! But...

Memo to Ed.: Remember that bomb shelter we built out in the back 40? Do you remember where I put the key?

Afghans mourn departure of Canadian soldiers

158 lives, $1.5 billion and 12 years after joining the American invasion of Afghanistan, the last of Canada’s military personnel -- recently disguised as "trainers" -- hauled down the flag in Kabul this morning. This afternoon they hauled ass out of the sandpit.

One of the reasons advanced by the government of "Call me Steve" Harper for Canada's involvement in a hopeless conflict was the protection and enhancement of the rights of Afghan women. An Afghan woman -- we presume* -- is seen here bidding farewell to the departing Canadian troops.

"Hey Joe," she says, "You want buy fancy underwear take home to girlfriend? Buy 3 pairs I throw in my daughter!" [Translation has not been checked for accuracy. Ed.]

The Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan told the departing troops, "Your strength has protected the weak; your bravery has brought hope to hopeless; and the helping hand you have extended to the Afghan people has given them faith that a better future is within their grasp." Canuck soldiers stifled snickers, for they (and everyone at home except Don Cherry) know the truth of the matter.

Heavy combat, roadside bombings and other incidents took the lives of 158 Canadian soldiers, one diplomat, one journalist and two civilian contractors. Many soldiers who returned home injured or profoundly changed by the experience are now struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, inadequate mental health care services, unemployment and other issues.

A number have committed suicide in recent months, including one whose grieving mother just received a cheque for one (1) cent -- 0.9 cents in real money -- severance pay from a grateful nation.

Security is deteriorating in many parts of the country, raising serious questions about Afghanistan’s future. Just this week, a European journalist was shot, execution-style, not far from the Canadian embassy. A Taliban group claimed responsibility for the killing. A spokesthingy said, "We didn't know he was a Swede. All these infidels look the same."

NATO combat forces -- chiefly American -- still in Afghanistan are scheduled to leave at the end of the year. However, member nations have promised $4.1 billion a year in funding for the country’s alleged security forces. The money will be spent on upgrading their uniforms, for instance by lining the pockets of their officers.

The departing Canadian commander was unable to turn out the lights, since the bulbs and copper wiring had been stolen.

* Hard to tell when someone's wearing a burqa! This just in... In "How the West made a hash of the Afghan war", CBCNews has a picture of this same woman (???) who is identified as a beggar. The article is worth reading!

Foreigners warned to leave Crimea before the shooting starts

At the risk of sounding alarmist -- something Walt usually leaves to preachers of doom (Hello Father!) -- it would appear that there's a very real risk of a shooting war in the Crimean "autonomous republic" of the Ukraine. The big question is who the parties will be. Will the conflict pit Ukrainians against Russians? Or will NATO forces come in on the side of the Ukrainians?

We've seen this movie before! We've just passed the 160th anniversary of "Crimea I", in which Russia was defeated by an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire -- famous for its production of footstools -- and Sardinia [No more puns, please. Ed.] Although neutral, Austria also played a role in stopping the Russians.

The Crimean War... Think "Charge of the Light Brigade", Florence Nightingale, and Napoleon III. More colourful uniforms than we're going to see this time. More horses. Same sets and scenery though. And some of the same causes.

The proximate cause was the rights of Christians in the Holy Land, which was part of the Ottoman Empire which extended eastward along the shores of the Black Sea and included much of the Balkans as well. The French championed the rights of Catholics, while Russia promoted those of the Orthodox. Today, the western part of the Ukraine is predominantly Byzantine Catholic, while the east is Orthodox.

Behind the religious and ethnic conflict was the unwillingness of Britain and France to allow Russia to gain territory and power as the Ottoman Empire fell apart. Russia destroyed the Ottoman fleet at the Black Sea port of Sinope. To stop Russia's advance, France and Britain entered the war in March 1854.

Most of the fighting took place for control of the Black Sea, with land battles on the Crimean peninsula, which was then part of Russia. The Russians held their great fortress at Sevastopol for over a year. After it fell, peace was arranged at Paris in March 1856. The main results were that the Black Sea was neutralized, with Russia agreeing not to station any warships there.

After the Russian revolution of 1917 and the prolonged civil war which followed, the Ukraine was forcibly annexed to "Mother Russia" as part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In 1954, the Communists transferred the Crimean Oblast was transferred from the Russian republic to the Ukrainian SSR. It thrived as a prime tourist destination; its infrastructure and manufacturing were also developed, particularly around its capital of Simferopol and the seaports at Kerch and...wait for it...Sevastopol.

When the Ukraine became independent following the break-up of the USSR, the Crimean Oblast was upgraded to that of an "Autonomous Republic". Russia received long-term leases of military bases in and around Sevastopol, which today is home to large units of Russia's army and air force, and...its also large Black Sea fleet -- as in "warships".

So here we are in 2014, "back to the future" -- 1856 to be exact. The eastern part of the Ukraine is oriented to Russia. The majority of Crimeans are ethnically and linguistically Russian. They are being offered Russian passports to prove their identity should Russia feel it necessary to "help" them against the "neo-Nazi thugs" who have "staged a coup" against Ukrainian president Yanukovich. That's what happened in Georgia in 2008.

Sure enough, BBC News reports this morning that the unofficial pro-Moscow leader of the "autonomous Crimea region" has asked Russian President Vladimir Putin for "help to ensure peace". A Kremlin source said it would "not leave unnoticed" the request from Sergiy Aksyonov.

Western leaders are not leaving the situation unnoticed either. They are responding with the usual torrent of stern warnings and drawings of red lines. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said he is shocked, SHOCKED by reports of the "violation of Ukraine's sovereignty". President Hussein O'Bama warned Moscow against any military intervention.

Even as he spoke, unidentified soldiers, thought to be Russian, fanned out in the south of the peninsula, surrounding airports and communications centres. According to Mr Aksyonov, soldiers from Russia's Black Sea Fleet are merely standing on guard at strategic buildings. Against whom, he did not say.

The Ukraine's interim Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, accused Russia of seeking to provoke an escalation. "The presence of Russian soldiers is a provocation and we demand that Russian soldiers return to their permanent bases," he said. Will they do so? Will the Obama send in US troops if they don't? Will the sun rise in the west? Stay tuned!

UPDATE: Russian president Vlad "the Impaler" Putin has received permission from the upper house of that country's parliament to use military force in Crimea. Foreigners are being advised by their governments to get out while the getting out is good!

Book review: How Canada made things worse in Afghanistan

Walt would prefer to write his own reviews, but, unlike journalists and critics in the lamestream media, he doesn't get review copies in advance of publication. When I'm able, I'll certainly read [and possibly purchase? Ed.] The Dogs Are Eating Them Now, by Graeme Smith, formerly a reporter for the Globe and Mail, now a member of the International Crisis Group, still hanging his hat -- or perhaps it's a helmet -- in Kabul.

I have made a decision to read The Dogs Are Eating Them Now ASAP, based on the review by Mr. Smith's one-time colleague, Jeffrey Simpson, in today's G&M. He calls the book "a wise, enthralling, detailed, realistic account of [Smith's] time in Afghanistan." Here are a couple of excerpts.

"Many are the lessons from Mr. Smith’s book, but one emerges above all: that the presence of foreigners did not necessarily turn the tide against the Taliban. Indeed, the foreigners’ military forays and strange (to the Pashtuns) ways may even have allowed the Taliban to survive and, ultimately, to grow....

"His is a picture of Kandahar and its surroundings, where the Pashtun code of tribal identity and revenge has for centuries proved difficult for foreigners to understand. In southern Afghanistan, at any rate, 'we are leaving behind an ongoing war; at worst, it’s a looming disaster,' Mr. Smith says.

"How the West, including Canadians, unintentionally made things worse is a textbook case of cross-cultural misunderstanding and hubris. The West will tell itself heroic stories, then forget about Afghanistan."

Did you notice "the West, including Canadians"? Although Canada punched above its weight in Afghanistan, at large cost for a small country, it was and still is the USA that took the lead, both in invading that wretched country and in fighting on although the "war on terror" was lost (for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph) years ago.

I would think The Dogs Are Eating Them Now should be required reading for American (as well as Canadian, British, etc etc) politicians and policy-makers, in order that we avoid a future fiasco -- in Syria, for instance. But I wouldn't bet on it.

"We came, we conquered, we failed"

Len apologizes for the sporadic nature of posts on WWW this month. Walt and I aim for a post a day, and generally we make it or come close, but right now Len is preoccupied with business matters -- we don't make a living from blogging, you know!! -- and Walt is off communing with nature somewhere.

All the same, we do try to keep up with news and views as expressed in the meedja. Surfing the net today, I came across a trenchant opinion piece by Grant LaFleche, writing in the Saint Catharines Standard, one of the QMI papers.

In M Lafleche's opinion, "The NATO's project in Afghanistan has failed. It's been 12 years since the Taliban was deposed and everything the mission was supposed to achieve is on the verge of collapse."

He does not argue (as perhaps he should) that "intervention" in Afghanistan ["invasion", surely. Ed.] was unnecessary. He says it was the right thing to do, but that we -- the USA and its NATO allies -- blew it.

"The post 9-11 strategy was to and crush the Taliban, and then turn over control and security to the new Afghani government as quickly as possible," says M LaFleche.

"It was ridiculously short sighted and naive. Afghanistan is not a literate nation with a democratic tradition or history of a free market. To transform into a self-reliant democracy and economy was not a project of a few years but of several decades. It would mean building an entirely new political economy and discarding centuries of tradition that was, literally, stuck in the middle ages. It would mean a plan more than ambitious than the rebuilding post war Germany or Japan. It meant nation-building from scratch."

But no nation has been built. The "democratically-elected" Mohamed Karzai pretends to be in power, but his writ does not run much farther than a mile or so from the perimeter of Kabul...if that far. When the USA withdraws its troops next year (with the remaining "others" hitching a ride on the last chopper out), the Krazai government will collapse, the Taliban will rush to fill the power vacuum, and Afghanistan will revert to what it has always been -- a barbaric, savage and ungovernable collection of warring tribes.

What happens then? We'll let M LaFleche have the last word. "We will likely again debate the merits of sending our troops to war while we ask ourselves what went wrong the first time around."

"Green on blue" killings force NATO to bail on joint ops with Afghans

So far this year, more than 50 members of the NATO forces in Afghanistan have been killed in insider attacks -- the so-called "green on blue" killings. Some say the perps are Taliban disguised as Afghan troops and police. Others say the snipers and suicide bombers really are Afghans, pissed off at being dissed (and occasionally killed, by accident of course) by Americans and other infidels.

Whatever the motive, and whoever's doing it, this business of Afghan police or soldiers turning their weapons on their Western "mentors" has just naturally got to stop! But how? Maybe refusing to go out on missions with them would be a smart move. That, at least, is the theory behind today's order indefinitely suspending most "mentoring operations".

Effective immediately, all front-line missions involving units smaller than an 800-strong battalion will stay behind the barbed wire, leaving the Afghans to go out and shoot each other without the benefit of Western advice. However, a senior NATO spokesman, US Colonel Tom Collins [Seriously? That's his name? Ed.] said the order was only a "temporary and prudent response" to the current situation. Apparently things are worse than usual, what with angry demonstrations in the Stans and across the Muslim world over "that film".

Reuters quote an anonymous ISAF official as saying "This is not a happy day for the coalition." Walt doesn't understand. Shouldn't they be happy not to have to go out and get blown to bits in a pointless exercise in pretending to be the world's police force?

Why do Afghans keep killing Westerners? They hate us!

Readers who have been following WWW since Day One know that Walt has stopped noting the deaths of Canadian military personnel in Afghanistan. That's because Canada gave up on supporting the US-led occupation, withdrawing all but 1000 or so "trainers" who are now safely (?) inside the wire in Kabul.

Most of the French left last year, and other NATO forces are packing their duffel bags even as we speak, leaving the Americans to turn off the lights, which they plan to do by the end of 2014, leaving the so-called Afghan National Army and police responsible for their so-called country's so-called security.

But the withdrawal ["retreat" or "headlong flight", surely! Ed.] isn't happening quickly enough to suit the Afghans. They showed their impatience to be rid of the occupying infidels several times in August, killing numerous western troops and more numerous Afghans in suicide bombings and other attacks in various parts of the sandpit.

At dawn today, two suicide attackers, one driving a fuel tanker, blew themselves up near a US base in eastern Afghanistan, killing at least 12 people. No American or coalition soldiers were killed, although an undisclosed number were wounded.

A Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attack, which he said was targeting the US base. In a separate incident, two US soldiers were killed in eastern Ghazni province. That's the first two for September. 53 foreign troops were killed in Afghanistan in August.

A disturbing number of the attacks on Western troops are what are now being called "green-on-blue killings" -- attacks by Afghan soldiers or police, or at least by terrorists dressed in those uniforms. According to a recent column by Gwynne Dyer, fully one-quarter of the Westerners killed in August were murdered by Afghan government soldiers or police.

Why are the "students" rising up against their "teachers"? It's not because they are all terrorists. According to a 2011 Pentagon analysis reported by Bloomberg, only 11% of the killings are the result of Taliban infiltration. The more common cause is beefs about and against their western "teachers" and "helpers". The Afghans don't want their country occupied by infidel foreigners. Period.

Quoting now from Gwynne Dyer's column:

Last year a team of US Army psychologists investigated the nature of these grudges and quarrels, conducting interviews with dozens of American and Afghan focus groups. Their report, "A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility," concluded that the Afghan troops see the American soldiers as "a bunch of violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane infidel bullies hiding behind high technology."

The U.S. troops, in return, generally view their Afghan allies as "a bunch of cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous and murderous radicals."

Dyer says this does not constitute the foundation for a successful collaboration. Indeed. But it gets worse.

The view of the Afghan soldiers is more positive, despite all that, than the civilian population's attitude towards the foreign forces. A poll conducted in late 2010 by the Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic Research reported that nearly 60 percent of civilians wanted all the foreign soldiers gone within a year. Forty percent would still want the foreigners out, even if their departure meant that the violence got worse.

The question becomes, then, why are we still there? The Afghans hate us even more than we hate them. Western blood and Western treasure are being poured into the desert sands every day. Yet America still plans to leave tens of thousands of its military personnel in Afghanistan after 2014 -- on their own, mind you -- to "help" those who cannot and will not be helped.

Why?! If you're an American, you need to think about that before you vote in November. If you're a citizen of Australia, Britain, Canada or a western European country, let your government know that you oppose following the USA into any other Middle Eastern quagmires. Like Syria or Iran. We can't afford to do this again!