Latest World Update

[tw]

Warning - this is one of those very 'too long' posts - maybe 170 lines.

Let's review what has been going on throughout the world. Some of this will reference background of previous posts. For example, "In the Navy, you can spend a pretty dime..." (which I cannot locate on the system) was also a discussion of a Navy for the first time cooperating with other services in Hati. Aircraft carriers were instead turned into floating special forces and Airborne army platforms - something absolutely taboo in a Navy that worships aircraft carriers even when same were useless in Desert Storm. USS Kitty Hawk has just left Japan missing most of her planes. The transist time for this carrier and how she is equipped is ... well you can do the numbers. BTW, much of that "In the Navy..." post is applicable to current US military positions, possible tactics, and serious political problems once you appreciate carrier aircraft operational ranges. The carriers are mostly for show. They are too far away to be effective against Afghanistan. While your press concentrated on the obvious, well have you really heard what the SAS is doing?

British SAS operate in 4 man teams. One team is reported to have been under attack outside Kabul. British relations with Tajikstan, especially, are important now.

The CBS Middle East adviser to Rather said it best. "China has no dog in this fight." True even though China has a border with Afghanistan, China holds part of Kashmir, and China is keenly interested in oil mostly found in those four or five Central Asian former Soviet republics AND China worried about fundamentalism in its largest province Xinjiang.

Taliban, which is a variation of the Arabic word 'student', is a creation of Pakistan. To understand the Taliban creation, one must first understand the Pakistan / Indian conflict. Pakistan needed a friendly western border. Creating Muslim extremists and training them in Afghaistan (instead of at home) only played well in Pakistan's world position and its conflict with India. Kashmir terrorism is easily made to look local when terrorists come from Afghanistan into Indian Kashmir. (Kashmir is north of Dehli). Pakistan also wants to be the entry port for oil shipments from those Central Asia Republics since most other paths pass through civil wars. To do so, Pakistan needed influence in Afghanistan.

But Pakistan may have created a Frankenstein. Pakistan to the south supports the Taliban whereas Iran, west of Pakistan, supports the Northern Alliance in eastern Afghanistan. Tajkistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan (east to west on Afghanistan's northern border) don't like any of this. Who is fully involved in that region? Chevron among others because we want our SUVs and three car garages.

The US wants Pakistan's cooperation but does fear destablization of Pakistan. Finally Bush and Co have understood the dangers they had created with so much militant talk (see my first paragraph of my original post in "Perspective without Pictures" where this is only one of maybe 25 different concepts all being address by that one paragraph). Having toned down the rhetoric (probably because Colin Powell logic finally got through to Bush and Rumsfeld) (Powell had to do the exact same thing during the China spy plane incident), an amazing coalition now included Russia. Why? Russian permission was required for US operations from those above three central Asia republics. Operations required from there so as to not create instability in Pakistan.

So what was required to get Russia on board. The story begins in Georgia (the former Soviet Republic - not Atlanta). Back in 1995, an assassin, allegedly an ex-KGB Igor Giorgadze, almost killed the legendary Edward Shevardnadze. Shevardnadze is part of a long line of famous Soviet leaders from Georgia. Georgia being the USSR's equivalent of California politically and environmentally. Georgia is important as one possible pipeline, through stable countries for Chevron, et al. Russia has never been happy with Georgia's independent attitude and supports a civil war that occupies most of western Georgia. As a result, Chechen rebells can use Georgia's NE borders as staging areas against the Russian Army. So when Giorgadze was smuggled back to Moscow on a Russian military plane, the Russians said they could not find Igor. But western reporters did so and interviewed him. All this is old news that you already know - if you have responsbile news sources.

So what brought Russia onboard? The US is cutting off some support to Georgia, and is demanding that all Chechen rebels be turned over in 72 hours - all part of Bush's war on terrorism.

Then there are the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuanian, and Estonia who were begging for entrance to Nato. Maybe now they will have second thought considering that Nato means tying oneself to an extended America. Russia may also have a say (which they did not before) now that Russia has signed on to this new coalition - with expected compensation in exchange. Russia's position in this coalition may also strengthen their newly modified relations with the Central Asian Republics.

You want those SUVs and glass ceilings in the KoP mall? This is what the US must do to have those things. Welcome to many other another messy civil wars - not forgetting that Bush has also drawn us into the Kashmir situation - in part because he had little understanding that first week when he spoke so militantly of a coalition against terrorism. India is said to be even more cooperative with the US than Pakistan. Yes, there will be tit-for-tat there too. Did I mention Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers? So far India has not demanded our interference there.

About the only area conflict we are not being drawn into is the Armenia Azerbaijan affair - which sits blocking pipelines from Central Asia oil.

Then there is Turkey - the eastern battlemount of Nato, one of the US's strongest allies in Nato, Isreal's only regional ally, a secular government that recently is so unpopular that they would not win an election against a religious Muslim party. Walk lightly through this region - especially since our current president probably knows only as much as you about all this.

As for Iran, apparantly US aircraft have been flying in Iranian airspace. Iran has been forgiving of pilot error, but as of late has become tired of so much airspace violation. Who is doing all that flying? At any rate, Iran told the world that it will start tightening up is border airspaces - IOW politely saying to the US that the US has been taking a few too many liberties.

Clinton was a master of the politics in this region. He was loved by the leaderships in most of these countries. Also General Tommy Franks of Central Command (Swartzkopf's old position) is about to test the many good relationships he had built with so many of the region's military leaders. Appreciate that our Generals do have a sense of history - something that even many of my friends did not when I told them that Iraq was going to invade Kuwait. Look at what we are getting into and ask yourself how much of this you had known.

Where is Japan? Some have wanted to test Japan's new laws about deploying troops when Japanese security was at stake. Some older politicians with sympathies to this new law said Afghanistan was just a wee bit too far for a first test. Germany also wants to send troops. But the Green party, a member of the Chancellors coalition, feels the US wants to do the military part alone - and has balked. Italy is raring to sign on, but then do we really want other military units knowing our secrets? With all this talk of coalition, most of it is really just talk limited only to exchange of information.

In the post "Who is on the "Enemies List" defined where a major front in the war on terrorism should be fought. You hear claims of victories. But those claims are as hollow as the American victory in the Ira Drang valley. No, older Congressman are still resistant to closing banking loopholes for money laundering - as Sen Phil Gramm of TX is directly quoted to have bragged about. The modern terrorist most needs a good banker than a supporting country. I read no examples of attempts - successful or not - to really address this international banking problem. I only read bragging without any substance behind the claims.

As I reported earlier (and openly disputed here by some), George Jr said, "The United States has no more important relationship in the world than our relationship with Mexico". Reread that exact quote. Why not just slap the British and Canandians right in the face. Then WTC happened. Where is all that Mexican support? The Economist says it best:
""But for all this talk, many Americans living in Mexico wonder aloud why the country has held no official memorial ceremony of mass vigils, as Canada and some European countries have (see Undertoad's many pictures in 'Image of the Day' entitled "World Reaction Part ..."). Mexicans - notably well-educated, well-off ones - answer that question bluntly. "it isn't our fight," "They had it coming for all the things they've done to the rest of the world," and "Now they know what a real disaster feels like," are commonly expressed sentiments.""

In a previous post, I strong and correctly critized George Jr for his wrong headed Mexican comments. Furthermore, those who disputed this should start asking themselves if they really know what is going on beyond US borders. Some actively disputed my original post of George Jr's wrongheaded comments. They were that damning. Fortunately US relations with Britian and Canada were strong enough to withstand such lack of intelligence.

Britian (especially the legendary SAS) are fully behind America. Tony Blair, in the best traditions of the legendary Margaret Thatcher, has been unflinching in this anti-terrorism campaign. That coalition we talk about is probably not George Jr's as much as it is Tony Blair's. Canada has also been quite supportive - another slap at those who disputed my original post on Mexico. But one must remember that Canadian arm forces are almost exhausted since Canada may be the most extensive contributor to international world peace keeping operations. My tribute to one of many English speaking countries that goes beyond the call to duty.

One can get from France into the US without a passport. A major refugee camp sits right outside the Chunnel. It is unknown if any refugee has successfully gotten from France to Britian. Hundreds have been caught trying. From there, no passport is required to Canada. From Canada, we all know how pourous the US border is. Canada suddenly and sharply tightened up border weaknesses even though none of the 11 Sept terrorist came from or used Canada in their operations. US Canandian relations are a benchmark for cooperative friendship.

Then we have a man whose entire success in life has been to create instability and massacres, and to have profited from them. Ariel Sharon expected to do it again. This man is so untrustworthy that some suggest that if Isreal knew of a WTC plot, then Sharon would have instructed silence. That is his history. He openly tried to profit from the WTC destruction by demanding the US help stop Palestinian terrorism. That is exactly what he first demanded in that first week. But shock upon shock. A strong number of Americans now agree with bin Laden on one point. The Isrealis are massacring Palestinians with US government's tacit approval. No mystery here. The Norwegian foreign minister has been yelling that for some time now.

Look at what was demonstrated. Enough Americans knew the news as to take away from the dichead Sharon another attempt to profit from instability. It is why Americans knowning current events is so important. By understanding why Sharon is a dichead, the American public may have helped restore - just a little - the peace process.

Sharon is no dummy. Just before 11 Sept, in a live Nightline interview, Osshoui (I cannot spell the name of this lady PLO professor, now spokesperson for Palestine) and with Barak - Barak was ordered to not even acknowledge the existence of the Palestinian lady (she is quite popular among world leaders). She immediately demonstrated the Sharon verbal blockade by opening with tributes to what she called an honest man - Barak. He could not even say thank you - because of the dichead Sharon. As it noted earlier, it is the only time I use such language that most be reserved only for the worlds worst. Sharon and bin Laden are cut from the same cloth.

When Sharon discovered the world really cites him as one of the reasons for the WTC destruction (and the world is correct), then he did a turn about and let the moderate Israeli, Peres, meet with Arafat in Gaza. Sharon could not profit from instability. Too bad.

IOW enough of us now understand what a scumbag Sharon is. He failed to profit again from instability. Thank you Americans who have finally started listening to the news.

One thing true in the first week of the WTC. The world was, in part and accurately, blaming the extremist Sharon for encouraging terrorism. Of course the world is correct. Every personal success for Sharon has been due to terrorist like activity that he personally helped create - including taking the US / USSR to the brink of nuclear war, the massacre of Egyptian war prisoners, the massacre of 5,000 Palestinian women and children in a refugee camp, etc.

What did the Arab world mostly say about 11 Sept. First they were shocked and saddened at the event. But American government tacit support for an extremist right wing, Isreali government only encourage more such acts when America all but encourages the enslavement and destruction of a moderate people by right wing, religous extremist Isrealis.

The world did not change this month any more than it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait. What did happen is that America must now reasssess its foreign policies. We are abandoning some to cozy up to others. We are slowly being entangled in the mess called Central Asia. Indeed, the most powerful command in the Pentagon is now Central Command - once so backwater that it was headquartered in Panama.

And so we again ask this question - how much of the above did you really know about? Did you even know of Masond and the Northern Alliance before it was posted here in "Who is on the "Enemies List"" on 17 Sept? Welcome to the new world order, that has been in existance for about 11 years now.

Are we at war? If so 1) bin Laden and associates cannot be taken to the US for trial. It now becomes the jusidiction of a world tribunal and the world does not endorse the death penalty.
2) All those who lost in the Pentagon and WTC - they now have no insurance compensations. That is correct. In acts of war, the victims no longer are covered by insurance. Number 2 is what the President should have known when he called these actions acts of war. Remember what I warned in paragraph 1 of "Perspective without Pictures". A moderate Sen Warner R-VA was warning his peers the same thing back then in the first weeks.

[Undertoad]

<i>Taliban, which is a variation of the Arabic word 'student',</i>

I think "talib" is the name for students in the hard-line Islamic schools. I know "taliban" is the plural of "talib".

<i> You want those SUVs and glass ceilings in the KoP mall? This is what the US must do to have those things.</i>

I don't buy that any longer. The rest of the world benefits from cheap energy too; they then tax the crap out of it, preventing economic growth. The US's freedom is the root of its economic status. If there were NO overseas oil, the price of gas would double - at which point the alternative fuels become attractive, BTW - after which the rules change. A decade under the new rules and there would be new evidence of wealth to turn one's nose up at.

Even the most important raw material cannot hold back the most potent energy known: human activity. Maximize that activity with freedom and you get wealth. The SUV is just the current visible form of the wealth.

<i>George Jr said, "The United States has no more important relationship in the world than our relationship with Mexico". Reread that exact quote. Why not just slap the British and Canandians right in the face.</i>

Did you watch the Bush speech of a week ago? Tony Blair in attendance, Bush said the EXACT SAME THING except substituting Britain for Mexico. I should think everyone involved understands that these are mostly-empty political statements, important only in context.

<i>bin Laden and associates cannot be taken to the US for trial. It now becomes the jusidiction of a world tribunal and the world does not endorse the death penalty.</i>

It doesn't matter. He's not going to go willingly and the Taliban won't give him up even via force. And I think the world will see this one differently, after watching Blair's comments to his party today. bin Laden is no Ira Einhorn, for crying out loud!

<i>All those who lost in the Pentagon and WTC - they now have no insurance compensations. That is correct. In acts of war, the victims no longer are covered by insurance. Number 2 is what the President should have known when he called these actions acts of war.</i>

That is a bizarre charge to say the least. I doubt even the top lawyer for the insurance companies would have the presence of mind to check his language in such a situation. And the importance of stating the matter accurately was about 100 times more important anyway.

But again, it won't matter. The insurance companies may argue that the government should be the one to pay for rebuilding the infrastructure. In either case, the economy will absorb the loss, because the economy is much, much larger. And the people and families will be taken care of. I think there is upwards of $800,000,000 collected for them by all the charitable efforts already, and they are continuing.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
Are we at war? If so 1) bin Laden and associates cannot be taken to the US for trial.

If he were caught at this point, he could still be sent here...war has not been declared by Congress. Given the US response to Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, I suspect that war will not be declared in the end. But it's still early.

Realistically though, he would probably have to go before the Hague. The man would never get a fair trial here.

All those who lost in the Pentagon and WTC - they now have no insurance compensations. That is correct. In acts of war, the victims no longer are covered by insurance.

Depends on the insurance company. I would assume that most policies have the "act of war" clause. For most of my company's policies with cell phone providers, they will not cover incidents that are caused due to "an act of war or hostile action." The airlines have a similar disclaimer in refunds for tickets. Ironically, one of my first thoughts after what happened was, "We won't be able to cover any customers who lost phones in the attacks." We really only work with one cell phone provider in the Northeast, and that company agreed to cover any claims involved in what happened at the WTC or Pentagon. I took a few of those calls. But granted, we only handle cell phones...I'm sure companies that handle life insurance, property insurance, etc. will not be so kind.

[Nothing But Net]

Too long...

Did you used to work for the New York Times? :p

[jaguar]

THe Hague? The US aren't too keen on the Hague, like anyhting limiting that has to apply to them too. They couldn't jsut lynch him at the Hague

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
If he were caught at this point, he could still be sent here...war has not been declared by Congress. Given the US response to Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, I suspect that war will not be declared in the end. But it's still early.

So are we or are we not at war? Nato affirmed Article 5 - an attack on one is an attack on all. If we were attacked, then are we not at war? Interesting question since we are not in a peace keeping operation under the mandate of the UN - Korea and Persian Gulf. Although Johnson claimed we were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, we did not hold Nato to Article 5. At what point are we at war?

BTW, still looking for a copy of Tony Blair's speech. From the little I saw, it was stunning! Talk about leadership taking responsiblity. I was ready to go vote for him right then and there - until logic prevailed and I realized I can't.

Is the UK now at war? From Blair's speech, I certainly would have thought so.

[tw]

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
Did you used to work for the New York Times?

No, the NY Times works for me... or us.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
At what point are we at war?

When Congress declares war against an enemy state, which has not occurred in over 50 years. Granted though, we've been in several warlike situations since...

BTW, still looking for a copy of Tony Blair's speech.

Here you go.

Truth be told, the speech sounds similar to something we might have heard from Dr. King. It's very passionate, sweeping, and idealistic. I was particularly impressed with his comments regarding Africa.