Abbott's warmongering ways show he's just another pollie willing to advance his own interests on the backs of the fallen

It's almost obscene the way Opposition Leader Tony Abbott seeks every thoughtless opportunity to get his phizog on the screen or his name in print.

Nicely timed in the lead-up to Anzac Day, Phony Tony had this to say to a Lowy Institute audience:
"It's no secret that the Americans would like additional Australian forces in Afghanistan and have refrained from making a formal request only because they have been told that it would be unwelcome. The Government should explain why it's apparently right that NATO countries should commit more troops but not Australia. Putting more troops at risk is not a decision that any Australian government should lightly make but the near certainty of higher casualties has to be weighed against the consequences of failing to shoulder extra responsibilities and the ramifications of any collective loss of nerve by Western powers. How fair is it to leave Australia's security so much in the hands of other countries' soldiers or to expect America and Britain to do nearly all the free world's heavy lifting? If satisfied that the role made strategic sense and was compatible with our other military commitments, a Coalition government would be prepared to consider doing more.
Should it be made, a commitment to do more in Afghanistan would be one sign that Australia is entirely serious about its overseas responsibilities. It would build on the reputation Australia established during the Howard years as a power that well and truly "punched to its weight". "

Yeah, not content with his War on Wimmin, Dole Bludgers and Boat People, Tony lusts to spill some more real blood if he gets into The Lodge and like most pollies the blood he wants to let will not be his own.
Not content that 90,000 international defence personnel from 46 countries are currently deployed in Afghanistan, this poor excuse for a pollie even slips in a suss question about why NATO's supposedly bearing the burden of increased troop commitment in Afghanistan.
NATO of course is quite clear as to why it's in Afghanistan. It took command of the very un-UN International Security Assistance Force in 2003 after the Coalition of the Willing had finished with its invasion of that country and its member countries were expected to increase troop numbers on the ground in order to impose political and social order.
The same day that Abbott posted his p#ss horn speech on the Liberal Party website, the NATO foreign ministers were announcing their intention to hand back more power to the Afghan Government and its own military.

Oh and by the way, cobber. Australia has been punching above its weight in war and peace keeping missions and doing a great deal of heavy lifting ever since we first sent military contingents overseas to assist Britain and her allies.
Just go ask those marching in remembrance today.

Iraq Inquiry damned in twenty sentences

AA Gill at The Times Online captures that moment when the British Iraq Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot dropped its pants and flashed its flaws:

"Lord, I thought, he's finally gone and done it. He's left parochial politics and gone into intergalactic diplomacy and had a severe facelift. The skin was drawn tight, the mouth tugged into a morticised grin. It wasn't a good look.

Fear is nature's cosmetic surgeon. It had grabbed Tony Blair by the back of the neck, pulled and twisted.......

We were looking at a man who was looking at what he thought might just be his own personal Nuremberg trial.

Then Sir Roderic Lyne, one of the interrogating panel, stumbled into his warm-up question. Couched in the avuncular curlicues of academic politeness and mumbled deference, he propped himself up on the pillows of sub-clauses and caveats and something astonishing happened.

Across the table, like a CGI trick, a coup de théâtre: Blair's old face reappeared, emerging relaxed and confident, the eyebrows arched. It was the familiar mug the protesters outside in the rain were wearing as masks. The angst let go. Ladies and gentleman, fear has left the building.

He knew this wasn't going to be a war crimes tribunal: this wasn't even truth and reconciliation. This was the wine committee of his club, the senior common room of a honeycoloured college. He was on top of this. He was all over this......

The hours slid by and Blair grew more confident, flicking the pages of his notes, uncannily finding the date, the mot-juste he needed. The questions became woollier and thinner. Blair allowed himself the occasional smirk of disdain as he did keepy-uppies with the simpler lobs."

But who will arrest John Howard?

On 25 January 2010 Monbiot.com announced a new website called Arrest Blair: for crimes against peace.

The new site is dedicated to the concept that Blair must face justice for his part in the Coalition of the Willing's unlawful invasion of Iraq:

This site offers a reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, for crimes against peace. Anyone attempting an arrest which meets the rules laid down here will be entitled to one quarter of the money collected at the time of his or her application.
Money donated to this site will be used for no other purpose than to pay bounties for attempts to arrest Tony Blair. All administration and other costs, apart from any charges added to your donations by Paypal, will be paid by the site's founder.
The intention is to encourage repeated attempts to arrest the former prime minister.

The U.K. Brown Government is at the moment in the middle of its Iraq Inquiry.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared before the inquiry on 29 January (his video evidence here) and although any reference to his now infamous and classified July 2002 private letter to then U.S. President George W. Bush (sent after their earlier April private meeting) could not be explored, the 23 July 2002 Downing Street Memo is on the public record.

In Australia we apparently think it is acceptable that the man who played a similar role in dragging this nation into a breach of international law - former prime minister John Winston Howard - is allowed to enjoy retirement without one serious question being asked of him.
Why is that so?

Times Online publication of the Downing Street Memo, May 2005 (red emphasis is mine):

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

• The Iraq Inquiry: So what did the then Australian PM John Howard know and when did he know it?

The truth revealed? Uncorrected transcript of former British Pm Tony Blair's evidence to the Iraq Inquiry

Evidence taken on 29 January 2010 by the U.K. Iraq Inquiry was a rather pointless exercise at times - for the most part questions carefully walked around a former leader rather than confronting issues head-on.

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair was allowed to interrupt committee members and drag out his political soap-box at length almost unchallenged.

However, what clearly comes through is the fact that Blair:
(i) was probably heavily influenced on a personal level by George W. Bush;
(ii) was determined on regime change in Iraq;
(iii) held a desire for change which was never predicated on Iraq as a hive of international terrorism;
(iv) was aware U.N. sanctions had effectively 'contained' Saddam; and
(v) presented a supposedly intelligence-driven policy position to the British people in which any identified breaches of U.N. sanctions or allegations of weapons of mass destruction were only the smoke screen behind which the Coalition of the Willing had agreed to advance their invasion agenda.

Full uncorrected 249-page transcript here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 January 2010, British press shocked at Blair's no regrets on Saddam

The Iraq Inquiry: so what did the then Australian PM John Howard know and when did he know it?

The Brown Labor Government has convened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the unlawful invasion of Iraq by Britain (as part the Coalition of the Willing) and lack of evidence supporting the reasons given for going to war.

This coalition included Australia, but thus far former Prime Minister John Howard and his Cabinet are escaping scrutiny at home, with the exception of an October 2003 censure motion passed by the Senate.

Perhaps the Chicot-led inquiry (which is still conducting public hearings through 2010) will give some indication as to Howard's role in staging the invasion, given he was so publicly proud of this role and his association with then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush on 28 March 2003:

Prime Minister John Howard held a lengthy discussion late last night with United States President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the war in Iraq.

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski also joined in the four-way, 20-minute conference call, a spokeswoman for Mr Howard said.

Mr Bush and Mr Blair, both at Mr Bush's Camp David, said they were pleased with the progress of the conflict and thanked Australia for its contribution.

The four leaders also spoke of the need for post-war reconstruction in Iraq and the role of the United Nations in the rebuilding.

"They had a brief discussion about how the military campaign is going," the PM's spokeswoman said.

"Mr Bush and Mr Blair expressed great satisfaction with the progress being made.

"They expressed thanks and admiration for Australia's contribution."

Howard of course picked up the ball and enthusiastically ran with it without too much urging as he had earlier told the National Press Club on 13 March 2003:

I did speak to him [President GW Bush] yesterday. He didn't ask me to lobby anyone, but if you want to know, I have already spoken to a number of countries and I hope to speak to others. I had a conversation with President Musharraf of Pakistan last week. I'm pleased to say that part of the conversation was an indulgence by both of us in our common love of a particular sport. And I spoke two nights ago to President Fox of Mexico, and I hope to speak to one or two other leaders over the course of the next day or so. But I have not been asked to lobby by President Bush. I have not been asked to lobby by Tony Blair. There are somethings that I can usefully do, and I'm doing them, but we haven't been sent a list of countries to lobby. It doesn't work that way, whatever may be the view.......
In the end, all of these things involve questions of judgement. We're not talking about proving to the, beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Darlinghurst, if you'll excuse my Sydney origins, I mean if you wait for that kind of proof, you know, it's virtually Pearl Harbour. You've got to make judgements, and judgements are made and I have given you the judgement of the [inaudible] and I've given you our judgement. I mean, people are saying well, you know, where is the further proof? I mean, what I am saying is you have Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's terrible track record, refusing to disarm, the world in effect buckles at the knees and doesn't disarm Iraq....
Iraq is demonstrably, to use my language, a rogue state. If we don't make sure that Iraq is disarmed, that of itself will encourage other rogue states to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction....

Of course the British inquiry may never reveal any information on the part Howard played, as it is well within the realms of possibility that as soon as this inquiry was mooted the Australian Government made representations to the effect that all mention of our involvement should be kept to a minimum during proceedings. The Rudd Government would not enjoy talk of war criminals and national culpability in an election year, given its current tacit support of the War on Terror.

From The Iraq Inquiry website:

The Prime Minister announced on 15 June 2009 that an Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict. The Iraq Inquiry was officially launched on 30 July 2009. At the launch the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, set out the Inquiry's Terms of Reference:
"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."
The Inquiry committee members are Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.
The Inquiry will take evidence over a number of months, with as many hearings as possible held in public. Hearings will begin in the autumn and continue into the New Year. A report of the Inquiry's findings will be published at the end of this process, but as the Inquiry has such a complex task ahead of it the report is unlikely to be ready for publication before summer 2010. The Inquiry committee intends to include in the report all but the most sensitive information essential to our national security. The report will then be debated in Parliament.

So far over sixty witnesses have been heard in sitting days spread over seven weeks. Evidence presented so far is posted on the website as transcript or video.

• John Howard and George Bush 2002
• John Howard and Tony Blair 2006

Classic Bob Ellis musing about the so-called War on Terror

Bob Ellis starting the year well over at ABC The Drum:

We bomb Afghanistan so well-educated Nigerians don't blow up aeroplanes over Chicago. Or that's the theory, it seems.

We bomb Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan so well-educated American-born Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers in Fort Bragg. We bomb Iraq, and Gaza, and Afghanistan and Pakistan so well-educated British Muslims don't blow up Glasgow airport.

We have no alternative to this, it seems, in this necessary war, this just war on terror. This is why we're in Afghanistan, and why we have to be there for five or 15 more years, to stop well-educated people with exploding powder in their underpants from getting on planes in Oslo, or Paris, or Shannon, or Kingston, or Honolulu, or Cairns.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. They clearly go to Afghanistan to learn how to put exploding powder in their underpants, and unless we bomb them there, they'll come over here, they'll get on a plane in Oslo...and they'll... Well, they'll...So we have to bomb them in...We have to bomb them in...Let me read that again.

Why are we in Afghanistan?

The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month - Lest We Forget

In remembrance of the many who fell and all who suffered during war

Poster from Zazzle

Will someone shove a cake of Sunlight down the throat of John bluddy Winston bluddy Howard.....

For a man who stated that he was going to refrain from political commentary after he retired was tossed from office, former Aussie prime miniature JW Howard is forever popping up in the media with yet another observation on world affairs or national politics.
This time he combines both (along with some gratuitous brown-nosing) by calling for an increase in troop numbers in Afghanistan.
Yer, right.
Let's send more young men into a region where no invading First World power has 'won' a war in living memory.
Where temporary victory is inevitably followed by successful insurgency, until the 'foreigners' finally take their military bat and ball and go home. Just ask Russia.
And where Australia is supposedly fighting for democracy by supporting a corrupt Afghan government which only holds power because it could rig a national election on a grand scale right under the West's nose.
So will someone do the world a favour and stuff that arrogant little man's gob with Sunlight soap or lock him away in a backroom at Wollstonecraft where his stupidity will only be heard by four beige walls.

Of course if it comes to L'l Johnnie's own hip pocket nerve, he is not as quick to front the microphone.
The media attention was suddenly unwelcome when asked if he is to have a well-paid role in a restructured NRL.
Last Wednesday ABC News Radio reported that he would not comment because he was travelling.
Tha's right! The same 'travelling' he was doing when he opened his mouth about Afghanistan.

Image of the wee richardhead from Pop Culture Caricatures and Cartoons

Will someone buy that senator a ticket - pleeeze!

I couldn't believe my ears. Reading between the lines it looks like Steve Fielding wants to go Afghanistan - just think of the headlines he could generate and the multiple spellings he could try out for the name of the country and monikers of leading war lords.
"The chamber would not know this, but I have been speaking to Minister Faulkner and the previous minister for defence about some sort of delegation going to Afghanistan. I am deadset serious about this because this is a good opportunity." is the exact quote according to Hansard on 7/8/09.
Can someone buy this unrepresentative, attention seeking, political simpleton a one-way ticket before the next election?
Maybe we can get his citizenship revoked while he's gone.

Upriver Bill
Northern Rivers

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segme allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents.
Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

A new version of events.....

From ImageShack

Obama and Korea: is Kim winning the latest battle of wills?

PBS Online news in-depth cover Tracking Nuclear Proliferation 27th May 2009

According to an opinion piece in the U.K. Telegraph last Friday President Obama is losing the PR battle on this one:

"Kim Jong-il, the charismatic and popular (if you are a Pyongyang resident and covet a life expectancy of more than 24 hours) Dear Leader of North Korea, is on his sixth or seventh missile this week. See the pretty vapour trails streak across Asian skies, in an impressive firework display to celebrate the arrival of President Pantywaist in the Oval Office.
School's out! Suddenly it is playtime for all the naughtier elements in the more "reclusive" parts of the world who enjoy kicking Uncle Sam's butt but didn't much relish tangling with Dick Cheney and (what was that other guy's name?). This time Comrade Kim is really throwing his toys out of the playpen. He has even unilaterally revoked the 1953 armistice between the Korean War belligerents, which means, in case anybody is interested, that North and South Korea are once more at war.
So, what is the response of the Messiah in the Oval Office? Really severe rhetoric, is the answer. The soundbite manufacturers have been burning the midnight oil and the auto-cue is going into meltdown. So is the confidence of Asian leaders. The word is out: the most powerful nation on earth has got itself a pussycat for a president and all the bad guys are queuing up to give him the finger."

A jaw-dropping quote of the week

"Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow's conventional wisdom."

{Ralph Peters in The Journal of International Security Affairs on 25th May 2009}

And they say that comparisons with Viet Nam are false......

Afghanistan this week.

BBC NEWS - "The US defence secretary has asked the country's commander in Afghanistan to step down, saying the battle against the Taleban needs "new thinking".
Robert Gates confirmed Gen David McKiernan would effectively be sacked less than a year after taking command.
He will be replaced by Gen Stanley McChrystal, who is seen as having a better understanding of the conflict.
The change comes as the US boosts troops numbers in Afghanistan and prepares for a change in strategy.
Gen McKiernan's time as US commander in Afghanistan has coincided with a surge in violence.
His successor currently serves as the director of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was previously a director of special operations forces."

TELEGRAPH UK - "They do come in and out of Afghanistan," Gen Petraeus told CNN. "But al Qaeda – precise al Qaeda, if you will – is not based per se in Afghanistan. Although its elements and certainly its affiliates... certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of Eastern Afghanistan."

CHINA VIEW - "The joint Afghan and U.S. team who are investigating civilian causalities in eastern Afghan province of Farah, would also look into the using of chemical weapons, a spokesperson of United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said Monday.
"On the specific issue of chemical weapons, we are aware of that reports and certainly it would be something that referring to. Joint investigation team will look into the possible report taking place in the province," Haleem Siddique told a questioner in a weekly press briefing.
Siddique noted that the safety and welfare of Afghan civilians must come first during the planning and implementation of any military operation.
According to Afghan officials, over 147 civilians have been killed in an airstrike by international troops in eastern Farah province of Afghanistan while U.S. military said that the number is exaggerated."

THE AGE - "IF THE war in Afghanistan is to be won, the battle for Afghan hearts and minds must first be won. The surest way to lose that battle is to discount the lives of Afghan civilians killed in military operations against the Taliban, whose alliance with al-Qaeda provoked the invasion that ended their rule. Indeed, in Iraq, insurgents' disregard for civilian lives backfired as local forces that had been opposed to foreign troops turned against al-Qaeda and its allies. In Afghanistan, however, the US and its allies are losing support because of the civilian toll they have caused.
Civilian deaths are highly damaging in themselves, but when foreign forces fail to apologise properly and provide redress, the backlash is potentially disastrous. That is why a cover-up of the findings of an Australian military investigation into the killing and maiming of Afghan civilians in Oruzgan province in July 2006 is of immense concern.
On the whole, Australian forces appear to have acknowledged such deaths with full apologies and compensation. By contrast, the US military has at times seemed downright careless about the civilian toll in air strikes. Human Rights Watch estimated last year that air strikes had killed at least 1633 civilians from 2006 to 2007, and allied forces had killed another 828 civilians by the end of last year."

THE CANADIAN PRESS - The first contingents of an additional 21,000 U.S. combat troops and trainers have begun to hit the ground in Afghanistan in a surge expected to continue throughout the summer.
The overwhelming combat might of the U.S. is reshaping the way NATO conducts the bitter counter-insurgency war. Analysts and some opposition politicians have expressed fears that American military policies and doctrines, such as the use of air strikes, will be forced on allies.

Rudd is Obama's bitch

If I held any remnant hope that a change in government meant Australia's foreign policy was no longer dictated by Washington, that fell away yesterday when Kevin Rudd announced that he would be sending more Aussie soldiers to the US & NATO alliance war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
When Rudd fronted the cameras to tell us he was sending more troops into harm's way he mentioned the US President by name at least 5 times.
And don't think it wasn't noticed that this announcement was timed to take advantage of whatever nationalistic sentiments were still in the air after ANZAC Day.

Why war is hell

Paul Mitchell bravely lifts the curtain on a timely reminder of why war is really hell for everyone.

Drinking to their deaths on Anzac Day

Crikey reader Paul Mitchell writes:

World War II veteran Keith sits on the beach in the TV ad and reflects on the death of his mate Jack. I think of my late grandfather, but Keith's stubby and the empty chair beside him don't remind me of Bill's war deeds.

I'm proud of Bill, who fought in the Middle East and Crete. He arrived back in Australia with a wounded knee and arm, but played and umpired 500 games of football. He should never have been at war -- he signed up at 16 -- but he's one of the many we remember every Anzac Day...........

As well as physical wounds, my grandfather received deep psychological damage. Post-traumatic stress disorder was unknown in the '40s, and there were no counselling services. So he did what many of his mates did: numbed the pain with grog.

Bill drank solidly for 52 years and his liver, kidneys and spleen were shot when he died. But the alcohol didn't just affect his body: he was a violent alcoholic who created a warzone. He physically and psychologically abused his wife and kids, and the effects continue: his four children have had psychological problems; two of his sons have been alcoholics (with four marriages between them) and one of their daughters suicided.......

Keith's trembling voice as he talks about his mate reminds me of my grandfather's on the rare occasions he allowed the terrified boy inside himself to remember the war. I want to raise a glass to Keith, Bill and all the men and women like them. But respect for those who have lived through domestic warzones means I won't.

It's almost mid-2009 and they're still fighting in.............

It's almost mid-2009 and they're still fighting in.............

Iraq - the War on Terror still leaving a bloody fallout Bomb near Iraq Shi'ite shrine kills 7

Afghanistan - despite the propaganda NATO-led occupation forces are losing hearts and minds Obama seeks extra funds for wars

Sri Lanka - Tamil Tigers versus Sri Lankan Government forces 'Civilians die' in Sri Lanka zone

Democratic Republic of Congo - civil war still unresolved DR Congo army fights off rebel attack in east

Pakistan - Protestors versus police Two Killed in Protests in Pakistan`s Baluchistan

India - KCP rebels killed in exchange of gunfire with police 3 rebels killed in Manipur

Somalia - civil war leads to lawlessness Aid Workers Quit Somalia

Ethiopia - rebel group still active Ogaden Rebels Counter 'Crisis' Claims by Ethiopia

Sudan - Israel versus whoever they please Report: Naval commando forces involved in Sudan strike

Columbia - FARC rebels take on Columbian Army Colombian Army and FARC Rebels Battle Near Venezuelan Border

England - British establishment against one lone man Policeman suspended over G20 protest death Video of police assault

......and various other places around the globe.

Afghan Metrics: how's the war going then?

Afghanistan October 2001 from Google Images

Found in Wikileaks:

This important, high-level document, from 14 Jan 2009, presents 12 slides of graphs, maps, statistics and text about the war in Afghanistan. It was prepared by the Pentagon (CENTCOM), under the imprimatur of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan and written at the For Official Use Only level. The document is formally titled "Metrics Brief, 2007-2008".

The documents reveals, among other matters, that the yearly civilian death toll increased during 2008 by 40% to 46%, the number of attacks on the "Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" (GIRoA), increased by 116%, surface to Air Fire by 67%, and that Improvised Explosive Device (IED) device casualties increased by 29%.

Download PDF here

Last week in the media:

KABUL (AFP) — US President Barack Obama has accepted Kabul's request to be part of a major review of US strategy in the "war on terror" in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai and a US envoy said Sunday.

KABUL, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Afghanistan condemned on Friday the killing of civilians in a raid by Australian soldiers in the south of the country which it says was not coordinated with Afghan forces. The Australian Defence Force said five children had been killed in a shootout between Taliban insurgents and Australian Special Forces in southern Uruzgan province on Thursday, where they were "clearing" a number of compounds. The Afghan Defence Ministry said one woman and two children were killed and eight other people wounded in the attack.

__________________________

While the dead in Iraq continue to mount:

Iraq Body Count (civilian deaths)

Faces of the Fallen (US defence forces)

11th annual Clarence Valley cane toad round-up begins 22 February 2009

The annual Clarence Valley cane toad round-up is on again this week.

So put on some sturdy shoes and long pants, grab your gloves and torch and turn up:

Picture: Tweed Daily News

WHERE: Yamba Golf and Country Club, River Street, Yamba
WHEN: Sunday, 22 February 2009
RAIN: Call NPWS on 0427 484 336 or 0428 965 525
Free BBQ on the night
All welcome Children must be accompanied by an adult

Jeff Thomas, from the Department of Environment and Climate Change, will present a toad seminar, to explain where the pest is in the region and what is being done to get rid of the toads.
The talk will be held on Level 3, 49 Victoria Street, Grafton from noon to 1pm on Wednesday 18 February.

Report a NSW North Coast cane toad sighting and general toad information at Clarence Valley Conservation in Action

Australian political and religious leaders response to Gaza 2009

Political cartoon from Your Democracy

Australia recognises Israel's right to self-defence

Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, Leader of the Federal Labor Party, 5 January 2009

HAMAS must accept Israel's right to exist within secure borders

Malcolm Turnbull, Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and Leader of the Federal Opposition, 5 January 2009

The Australian government must end its acquiescence to Israel's military operations in Gaza

Bob Brown, Leader of The Greens, 9 January 2009

Dead silence so far from Warren Truss, Leader of the National Party of Australia

No word from Cardinal George Pell, Head of the Catholic Church in Australia

No current statement from Phillip Aspinall, Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia.

However he did sign the HEADS OF CHURCHES STATEMENT ON PALESTINE AND ISRAEL in July 2008. Along with these other national heads of churches:
Rev Dr Ross Clifford, President, Baptist Union of Australia
Lyndsay Farrall, Presiding Clerk, Australia Yearly Meeting, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
Rev Alan Filipaina, Moderator, Congregational Federation of Australia and New Zealand
Rev Gregor Henderson, President of the Uniting Church in Australia
Richard Menteith AM, National President of Churches of Christ in Australia
Archbishop Mor Malatius Malki Malki, Syrian Orthodox Church of Australia and New Zealand
Archbishop Paul Saliba, Antiochian Orthodox Church, Australia and New Zealand
Rev Dr Michael P Semmler, President, Lutheran Church of Australia
Pastor Chester Stanley, National President, Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia
Archbishop Stylianos, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of Australia

No comment found from Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence, Senior Rabbi of the Great Synagogue, Sydney

Israel is committing an act of terrorism. It's the duty of all the free people in the world to stand against it and stop this evil.

Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, Islamic scholar from Sydney, 2 January 2009

Gaza '09: Reports from Israeli human rights groups

B'Tselem (Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in Occupied Territories) has this link to a blog reporting human rights violations in the Gaza Strip.

B'Tselem also documents the appalling mortality statistics between 29.9.2000-30.11.2008 which show 2,994 Palestinians (including 634 minors) in the Gaza Strip were killed by Israeli security forces/civilians compared with 136 Israeli dead (including 4 minors) in the same territory killed by Palestinians.

With totals across Gaza, West Bank and Israel for the same period showing 4,897 Palestinian dead (including 955 minors) and 1,062 Israeli dead (including 123 minors).

The current bombing and incursion into the Gaza Strip will of course swell these figures markedly in relation to the number of Palestinians killed or wounded.

When will enough be enough?

Philip Slater over at The Huffington Post expresses what must be a common sentiment:

I can understand that after centuries of persecution it's satisfying for a Jewish state to be the aggressor for a change, but there's a codicil that goes with that role. You don't get to act like a victim any more. "Poor little Israel" just sounds silly when you're the dominant power in the Middle East. When you've invaded several of your neighbors, bombed and defeated them in combat, occupied their land, and taken their homes away from them, it's time to stop acting oppressed. Yes, Arab states deny your right to exist, threaten to drive you into the sea, and all the rest of their futile, helpless rhetoric. The fact is, you have the upper hand and they don't. You have sophisticated arms and they don't. You have nuclear weapons and they don't. So stop pretending to be pathetic. It doesn't play well in Peoria.

B'Tselem 2009 testimony page.