Iraq: At Least 32 Killed, 124 Wounded in Baghdad Bombings

Scores of people have been slain in six car bombings across Baghdad this morning. The most serious explosion was near a market in Sadr City, killing at least 10 and wounding 60 people. A blast in central Baghdad next to a group of labourers queuing for work killed six and wounded 16. A market in Husseiniya in the north of the city was hit, four were killed in Doura, and an Interior Ministry official escaped injury when his convoy was targeted.

US Army Intelligence: We're Losing In Afghanistan (and Al Qa'eda is Not Reason Number One)

Amidst all the flurry of Presidential announcements and Congressional hearings on Pakistan-Afghanistan, this is the most important document to sneak onto the Internet this week.

Wikileaks has posted a report of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, circulated on 1 March 2009. TRADOC is based in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where General David Petraeus developed his counter-insurgency approach before returning to Iraq in 2007 and then becoming head of US Central Command.

The document is burdened by acronyms, not to mention confusion over the numerous insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but a careful reader can pick out the high (or low) points:

"Permanent Taliban presence [heavy Taliban/insurgent activity now amounts to 72% of the total landmass", as of November 2008. The figure in 2007 was 54%.
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/04/04/afghanistan-leaks-and-lies/
"4 main highways into Kabul compromised by Taliban; Taliban infiltrate Kabul at will."

"IEDs [improvised explosive devices attacks rose late summer 2008 and continued to rise in 2009....Winter violence are at highest levels since 2001 invasion."

The number of US troops Killed in Action rose 50 percent in 2008.

All of this is depressing but unsurprising. Even more revealing are some other numbers and statements that will not be mentioned by any Obama Administration official:

Number of Al Qa'eda in Pakistan-Afghanistan: 2,000. On its own, that figure is frustrating --- how many members does it take to constitute a "global terrorist organisation" --- but it takes on some significance when compared to Taliban in Afghanistan (30,000), the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan led by Baitullah Mehsud (15,000); the [Jalaluddin] "Haqqani Network" (unknown, "numbers are included in Taliban of Pakistan‟s total strength"); and "Warlord Militias" (tens of thousands).

The most significant role of Al Qa'eda, according to the document, is to provide "funding, foreign fighters and other assistance" to an "enemy [which] is primarily Pashtun in nature and Sunni Muslim (Wahhabi and Deobandi)". However, the insurgency is also funded by drug economy and Gulf Arab money.

"This enemy is trained and assisted by ISID or ISID affiliated elements". The acronym hides the impact of the statement: "ISID" is Pakistan's intelligence services, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

Syd Walker blogs that the report is "more like a teenage scrapbook than an official ‘Intelligence’ document....It might work as a motivational Powerpoint Presentation for rookies." He's got a point, given the analysts' attempt to get over complexity with an "Insurgent Syndicate" linking, rather than differentiating, between Al Qa'eda and local movements (not to mention inaccurate conflations of those local movements, such as the asserted alliance between the "Haqqani Network" and Baitullah Mehsud).

Still, the devil of significance is in the detail lurking in the pages. And it's that detail, beyond the spectral 2000 Al Qa'eda, that show the shallowness of an Obama rhetoric of "an al Qaeda network that killed thousands on American soil" and is "still plotting today".

The American People Speak: Bomb North Korea

Rasmussen announces "two thumbs up" for a military smack of North Korea after its (unsuccessful) test of a missile and satellite:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. voters nationwide favor a military response to eliminate North Korea’s missile launching capability. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 15% of voters oppose a military response while 28% are not sure.

Further stoking thoughts of a return to the Cold War fallout shelters, Rasmussen adds: "Currently, 39% are Very Concerned about a possible nuclear attack from North Korea."

Obama 'Bowing Down' to Saudi King? But Conservapedia Fails To Deliver.

Latest Post: Video Alert - Obama Does Not Bow to Saudi King

Related Post: Obama Bows Down to Saudi King! The Controversy Continues

During Thursday’s meeting of the most developed economies in London, President Obama bowed before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. While some, on blogs and radio discussions, were making fun of the President by suggesting that he was about to clean the floor, others added that it was unacceptable for Americans who are proud of their revolutionary past to see their President bowing down in front of a dictator.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOIK07xGiQ[/youtube]

Might President Obama have kissed King Abdullah’s hands? Why not? The only visual source, unfortunately, does not give a clear point of view. However, one thing we do know is that a younger Muslim always shows utmost respect to an older Muslim in public and is expected to kiss the latter’s hands. Hmm, we should think more about it…

And now, it is time for Conservapedia to take some action. As we have been keeping a curious eye on Conservapedia it was, to be honest with you, upsetting not to see this included as additional ‘proof’ of Obama’s ‘Muslim’ faith! Now, they have a new point to argue for…

LATEST UPDATE: Obama Bows Down to Saudi King! The Controversy Continues:

Ali did get the Internet, or at least the right-thinking portion of it, moving.

His challenge, “It is time for Conservapedia to take some action,” has been met. Our favourite on-line encyclopedia has updated its entry for Barack Hussein Obama, “Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official.”

Scowcroft In Turkey: Did Someone Talk About 'Hate'?

Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush and the former Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush, gave an interview to the Aksam newspaper as the Chairman of the American Turkish Council in Turkey last week. This interview is important because General Scowcroft's confessions are shocking!

He stated that the PJAK, the Iranian wing of the PKK operating against Iranian armed forces, was supported and encouraged by the Bush Administration. The 84-year-old former adviser added that the US administration did not want to go after PKK forces during the Iraq War as the Northern part was more quiet than the Southern fronts where they were waging a war; whereas the situation changed with the Obama Administration.

Here is the full transcript of the related part of the interview conducted by the Turkish journalist Nagehan Alci:

N. A. – It is alleged that a winding-up decision will be taken for PKK in a Kurdish General Gathering in Erbil in April. Do you think that it is possible?

B. S. – I hope that it is. For me, the optimum situation is ceasefire. At the end of the day, at least, the Kurdish Provisional Government will be persuaded; an agreement will be signed; and border passings will be prevented. There are many ways to end this situation but the most important one is to put an end to the terrifying situation taking source from PKK now.

N. A. – Do you mean that PKK's ceasefire decision is in favour of the US?

B. S. – Yes, absolutely it is.

N. A. – Why? What changed?

B. S. – PKK and its PJAK branch were also operating against Iran. That is why we were giving support to and encouraging them. However, the situation has changed. We do not want to give harm to the people we want to get on well with. We want Iran beside us.

N. A. – Do you mean that there is no need to support PKK?

B. S. – Yes, there is a new approach towards Iran in our agenda. We were fighting on the Southern fronts during the Iraq war. The Kurdish region was relatively more quiet to the rest fronts. We did not want to waste our power by going after PKK. Indeed, it was not possible as well.

N. A. – What does this 'new approach towards Iran' include?

B. S. – We want to tell them that 'You are a big state in the region. You have many problems, with security being in the first place. We should talk on these through dialogue.' We have operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want to solve the problems in the region so that everyone can feel safe.

So, it has been proven once more that the hawkish policies of the Bush Era were based on irrational, naïve and superficial evaluations and strategies. Using PKK which had already been designated a 'terrorist' organization by the United States of America against a country which has been accused of escalating the tensions through financing the terrorist groups against the US forces and innocent people of Iraq is far from the claim of pursuing a general 'democratization' plan based on the values of the Enlightenment: freedom, rationality and reason. This is not just a crime against the people of Iran and Iraq, but also against the American people who have been worrying over their children's future.

Another part of the story is apparent from the rest of his inconsistent statements. When his opinion is asked about Turkey's mediation efforts, General Scowcroft states: “Turkey's efforts are very meaningful and significant for us. The US does not know the region and its dynamics. This geography is Turkey's backyard. You have a history in the Middle East. We take heed of this.” If the US has no knowledge and experience in this region and pays attention to this, why did the Bush Administration ignore the wails coming from all around Turkey in the face of the increasing tensions between the Turkish armed forces and the terrorists/separatists and did not work with its ally in the region? If the main goal had been to democraticize and keep the region safe, then the Bush Administration would not have strengthened and encouraged an armed faction against two powerful states in the region.

I think these confessions are sufficient to give an answer to the basic discourse continuously pumped by the official institutions: “Why do they hate us?” Thank you General for your confessions... And thank you for being miles away from the decision-making process.