White House Circulates Unflattering Bio of Berlusconi

When you run a disgraceful operation such as the current White House--one built by ideologues on lies, smearing people, and ruining anyone who is critical of what they do--you'll get things like this.

An embarrassed White House apologized on Tuesday for an "unfortunate mistake" -- the distribution of less-than-flattering biography of Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi at the Group of Eight summit. Still, the gaffe led to headlines in Italy.

The summary of Berlusconi was buried in a nearly inch-thick tome of background that the White House distributed at the summit of major economic powers. The press kit was handed out to the White House traveling press corps.

The biography described Berlusconi as one of the "most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice."

It was just last month that Berlusconi welcomed Bush to Rome, calling him "a personal friend of mine and also a great friend of Italy." And Bush responded then: "You're right. We're good friends."

The biography, written by Encyclopedia of World Biography, said Berlusconi burst onto the political scene with no experience and used his "vast network of media holdings" to finance his campaign on a promise to "purge the notoriously lackadaisical Italian government of corruption."

The biography went on to say that Berlusconi was appointed to the prime minister's office in 1994, "however, he and his fellow Forza Italia Party leaders soon found themselves accused of the very corruption he had vowed to eradicate."

How did this happen? Well, if you believe it happened by accident, fine. But if you believe it was done out of malice, or a half-assed form of unintended malice in that someone had the bio and unwittingly tipped their hand by accidentally releasing something they agreed with, you're on solid ground when it comes to this White House.

The adults are not in charge. They run everything based on smearing, slamming or denigrating their opponents. A basic biography of Silvio Berlusconi issued by the White House should be simple enough to produce. If your modus operandi is to keep the nasty, partisan material OUT of your day to day operation, then something like this should have stood out and revealed itself for what it was--something that could embarrass an ally.

But if your modus operandi is to deal in sleaze and bullshit, then what's the difference between slamming Berlusconi--whose country pulled out of Iraq and whose judiciary is pursuing a legal case against some CIA operatives--and smearing him with the material that got swept into a package which should have been thoroughly vetted to avoid insulting a G-8 ally?

After seven and a half years, the White House should be a tight ship when it comes to preparing material for foreign travel. These are the final overseas trips--where is the . These mistakes happen in the fledgling days of an unsteady team. This was not a mistake--this was someone deciding on payback, Fox News style, and they might as well admit it.

Mission NOT Accomplished

Remember how we left Afghanistan on the back burner to go after Iraq? Well, it looks like someone is either trying to kill this story by leaking it or float it as a trial balloon...

Pentagon officials are quietly considering a significant change in the war command in Afghanistan to extend U.S. control of forces into the country's volatile south.

Such a move, partly linked to an expectation of a fresh infusion of U.S. troops in the south next year, would in effect mark a partial "re-Americanization" of the combat mission in Afghanistan.

Taliban resistance has stiffened in the south since NATO took command there in mid-2006, and some in the Bush administration believe the fight against the Taliban could be strengthened if the U.S., whose span of control is now limited to eastern Afghanistan, were also in charge in part or all of the south.

Blaming our NATO allies for the resurgence of the Taliban isn't going to fully satisfy people who have been paying attention. Frankly, there is huge disagreement between NATO and the US over the use of airstrikes. The people who know Counterinsurgency within NATO understand that killing dozens of civilians with a JDAM makes their work harder, not easier. This rift has been around for a while, going back to this Reuters article from January, 2008:

Behind stepped-up commitments from the United States and Britain, stark differences are emerging between the two biggest powers operating in Afghanistan about how best to tackle the Taliban and al-Qaeda threat.

On the face of it, there's joint action: the United States is sending 3,200 more troops [the Marines who just arrived] and a British politician is to be named as the new, high-profile envoy to Afghanistan.

But analysts say the squabble is symptomatic of uncertainty over how to deal with Afghanistan, which is emerging as a more complex and nuanced battleground than Iraq, and a desire to show who is in the lead under the NATO umbrella.

The dispute has focused on Britain's proposal to use untrained neighbourhood defence teams -- known as 'arbakai' -- to help improve security in the volatile south were it operates.

In unusually frank and public criticism, U.S. officials and military commanders have said the idea will not work, could fuel fighting and that Britain doesn't understand counter-insurgency.

The dispute began after Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a speech to parliament last month saying he wanted to see a shift in strategy towards "hard-headed realism" that worked "with the grain of Afghan tradition".

"One way forward is to increase our support for community defence initiatives, where local volunteers are recruited to defend homes and families modelled on traditional Afghan arbakai," he said.

Immediately afterwards, Washington began speaking against the plan, even though similar tactics have been employed by U.S. forces to quell the Sunni-led insurgency in western Iraq.

General Dan McNeill, the commander of NATO's International Security and Assistance Force, told the Financial Times flatly that the idea would not work and could fuel insurgency.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the criticism a step further on Wednesday, telling the Los Angeles Times that Britain and other forces operating in southern Afghanistan didn't seem to know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency.

"Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counter-insurgency," Gates said.

What the hell is the difference between the "neighborhood defense teams" and "the Sunni Awakening councils?" It seems to me that we're being a little disingenuous--the British are simply using a very basic approach of getting the local population invested in their own security and defense, one that we've used in Iraq. And it takes a lot of balls to suggest that the British, who make up a large chunk of the NATO force in Afghanistan, don't know COIN. They're joined by elite troops from other European powers who have probably had as much, if not more training and instruction in these areas. This goes back to sneering at the Canadians--big mistake. They have a smaller but professionalized military that emphasizes competence and skill over 19th century drill tactics and overwhelming firepower.

The resurgence of the Taliban owes itself to the safe haven provided by Pakistan. Without that safe haven, it is highly unlikely that the Taliban could have come back so strong.

Change in the command structure in Afghanistan is being driven by political realities and won't happen soon:

The defense officials doubted a decision would be made before fall and possibly not until a new administration takes office in 2009. Two officials said there appears to be no high-level advocate for making such a change in the near term, although there is growing concern that while higher U.S. troop levels in Iraq have helped reduce violence there, the trends in Afghanistan are less positive.

There are now about 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan — the most at any time during the war, which began in October 2001. They include 3,400 Marines who arrived this month as reinforcements for combat missions in the south and to help train Afghan security forces. Those Marines are scheduled to leave in October, but if replacements are not offered by NATO allies soon the Pentagon likely will either extend the Marines' deployment or tap another unit to fill the void.

With who? Who do they think they're going to send? We're down to a few National Guard brigades that are stressed as it is.

Hey Chickenhawks

Somewhere, there's a soldier from another country making a sacrifice to keep America safe. The next time you see a chickenhawk, kick him in his tailfeathers and ask him when he plans to enlist and go fight in the war on terror.

The new Dutch Minister of Defense just lost his son in Afghanistan:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The son of the new Dutch defense chief was killed Friday by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, and the Taliban claimed they deliberately made him a high-profile victim of their deadly insurgency.

Lt. Dennis van Uhm, 23, was one of two Dutch soldiers killed in the explosion 7 miles (12 kilometers) northwest of Camp Holland, the Dutch military base in restive Uruzgan province, spokesman Lt. Gen. Freek Meulman said. Two more soldiers were injured, one critically.

Meulman was standing in for Gen. Peter van Uhm, who was installed as defense chief only on Thursday and would likely have delivered the news had his son not been among the victims.

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi claimed that the militants knew in advance about Van Uhm's movements.

"When he came out the Taliban planted a mine, which killed him," Ahmadi said in a phone call from an undisclosed location.

The Dutch government, however, rejected the claim.

"Our information is that there is no indication of any link between this cowardly deed and the fact that it was the son of the defense chief," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende told reporters in The Hague.

Did Drudge have anything to do with this? Probably not--it was Prince Harry he was trying to get killed. Yet another brave young person from one of our NATO allies falls in battle, and not one chickenhawk has the decency to stop advocating for war and sign up to go fight. Do they even notice how ridiculous they look these days? Sitting on their fat little asses while others do the job they tell us HAS to be done but by anyone BUT them?

No mercy for the fucking chickenhawks, ever.

Violence in Afghanistan--the UN Weighs In

Photo: Panjshir, Afghanistan


No matter how hard they want us to stop paying attention to the failure of this administration to finish the job it started in Afghanistan, we're still going to keep a watchful eye on what's going on. When you outsource your responsibilities to NATO and the United Nations and hope a few thousand British, French and German troops can make up for all of those brigades that are tied down in Iraq, you're just asking for more scrutiny:

(AP) Insurgent and terrorist violence in Afghanistan increased sharply in 2007, with over 8,000 conflict-related deaths and an average of 566 incidents per month, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday.

In a report to the U.N. Security Council, Ban said the number of violent incidents rose from an average of 425 per month in 2006. The number of suicide attacks jumped to 160 attacks in 2007 from 123 in 2006 — with 68 attempts thwarted in 2007 compared with 17 in 2006, he said.

While the insurgency draws strength from some Afghans, the secretary-general said, "the support of foreign-based networks in providing leadership, planning, training, funding and equipment clearly remains crucial to its viability."

Insurgent violence in Afghanistan is at its highest level since U.S. forces invaded the country in 2001 to oust the hard-line Islamic Taliban rulers, who harbored al Qaeda leaders blamed for planning the attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

The focus of the violence has been in Afghanistan's southern and eastern provinces, but the insurgents are increasingly using Iraq-style tactics, such as roadside bombs, suicide attacks and kidnappings to hit foreign and Afghan targets around the country.

"Afghanistan remains roughly divided between the generally more stable west and north, where security problems are linked to factionalism and criminality, and the south and east characterized by an increasingly coordinated insurgency," the secretary-general said.

"In fact, even within the south, conflict has been concentrated in a fairly small area: 70 percent of security incidents occurred in 10 percent (40) of Afghanistan's districts, home to 6 percent of the country's population," Ban said.

That's what is so heartbreaking about Afghanistan--forty or fifty thousand US troops could make a significant difference there. In turn, perhaps other nations would up the ante. Securing and clearing areas might work better in Afghanistan than it does in Iraq--we'll never know.

What we do know is this--the margin by which Afghanistan is slipping away from us gets thinner by the day, and we don't have the troops to make a difference.

Putin Rattles the Saber

As the world financial system goes into freefall, the Russians rattle the saber. As Blue Girl posted earlier, the Russians have a message for Europe: they are still relevant, and they still have a military that can project power into Europe's backyard:

Russia has sent two long-range bombers to the Bay of Biscay, off the French and Spanish Atlantic coasts, to test-fire missiles in what Moscow billed as its biggest naval exercise in the area since the Soviet era.

Firing missiles off the coastline of two NATO members is the latest in a series of Kremlin moves flexing Moscow’s military muscle on the world stage.

Russian bombers joined aircraft carriers, battleships and submarine hunters from the Northern and Black Sea fleets for the Atlantic exercises, which come as the country enters an election campaign to choose a successor to President Putin.

“The air force is taking a very active part in the exercises of the navy’s strike force in the Atlantic,” the Russian air force said in a statement reported by Reuters. “Today, two strategic Tu-160 bombers departed for exercises in the Bay of Biscay, which ... will carry out a number of missions and will conduct tactical missile launches."

It sure would be nice to have a State Department right now, wouldn't it? I mean, diplomacy wouldn't necessarily stop this kind of thing, but it would go a long ways towards forcing their next moves to be a little less belligerent, perhaps.

Russia last month said it would begin major navy sorties into the Mediterranean, with 11 ships backed up by 47 aircraft, that would then travel to the Atlantic for exercises.

The navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the Soviet-made Admiral Kuznetsov, was leading the fleet in the Atlantic where Nato were trying to keep a close eye on Russian movements, Russian media reported.



“This is the biggest exercise of its kind in the area since Soviet times,” a spokesman for Russia’s navy said, adding that more details would be released later. There was no further information about where in the Bay of Biscay, which lies off the west coast of France and the northern coast of Spain, the missile tests were due to take place.

Russia’s air force said turbo-prop Tupolev Tu-95 strategic bombers, codenamed “Bear” by Nato, would join ATO, would join the exercise on Wednesday “From January 23, the aviation component in the zone where the exercises are going on will be widened and the following planes will take part: Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 M3, Il-78, A-50,”, the air force said.

Do you think the fact that our forces are tied up in the Persian Gulf has any relevance here?

Alienating our Allies

It isn't like we have a whole lot of them left, so Bob Gates slur against our NATO allies in Afghanistan is not only troubling, it is, frankly, stupid. Which also troubles me - Gates is not a stupid fellow. I have never been a fan, but at least I grudgingly respected his competence and talent - but then he said this:

“I’m worried we’re deploying [military advisers] that are not properly trained, and I’m worried we have some military forces that don’t know how to do counter-insurgency operations.”

Now I can make with the scorn and ridicule without a second thought.

In case you missed it, Gates blasted the Brits and other NATO member states fighting in Afghanistan by saying in an interview that the allies lack of experience in counter-insurgency warfare was contributing to the escalating violence and instability in the south of that beleaguered nation, and contributing to the rise of the Taliban. (Perhaps he has forgotten that the Brits are the only country to actually win a counterinsurgency? Malaysia in the 50's, anyone?)

His remarks drew sharp criticism and instant reactions from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, the three countries that have born the brunt in the south. The Dutch were particularly incensed.

The Dutch were so angry at what appeared to be direct criticism that they summoned the US Ambassador in The Hague to explain Mr Gates’s comments. British and Dutch officials refused to believe that the criticism was directed at them, but Eric Adelman, the US Assistant Secretary of Defence, nonetheless had to ring around Nato capitals to give reassurance that Mr Gates was not attacking any individual member.

[snip]

As officials tried to smooth over the apparent rift, his comments drew a fierce response. Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP and a former British Army officer, said they were “bloody outrageous”. He said: “I would beg the Americans to understand that we are their closest allies, and our men are bleeding and dying in large numbers.”

Britain has 7,800 troops in southern Afghanistan, where 81 have been killed. The Dutch and the Canadians have also lost a substantial number of soldiers in counter-insurgency operations against the Taleban.

So what's the deal here? Remember that Gates, at his very core, is an ideologue. Is he making such unhinged and offensive comments now because he knows that a year from now there will be a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both houses? Is he undermining relations now in advance of that eventuality because he wants to make it as difficult as it can possibly be for the next president?

Petulant fuck.