Canadawide

Since Bush took office, the Vancouver Sun has regularly trotted out editorials decrying Canadian Anti-Americanism. Of particular concern of these Bush apologists has been Carryon Parrish ‘bastards” comment and Françoise Ducros’s “moron” comment. To my knowledge, no Sun columnist has ever taken credit for one of these childish pieces and with good reason; they have their reputations to consider. Instead, the Sun has farmed out the task to various Vancouver writers and in other cases has simply not attributed the articles to anyone. The latest gem appeared this past Wednesday (October 27th). Entitled “Too many Canadians love to Hate Americans”, the piece was written by Marilyn Baker.

The following pretty much says it all: “The careless, inflammatory rhetoric from our leaders and opinion makers resonates with other simplistic fanatics – the ones who chant “Death to America” and follow up those words with box cutters.” During a previous war it was said with reason that loose lips sank ships, but snide remarks about the Bush administration strengthens Al Qaeda’s resolve? What sort of Northern McCarthyism is this?

One of the many failings of Baker’s piece is that she fails to place Canada’s declining opinion of the US into any sort of context. Indeed, she never mentions what other countries think of Bush and company; even though, outside of the US, Bush is one of the least liked US Presidents in history and in every other Western country people favor Kerry to Bush by wide margin and several current heads of state have road Anti-Bush sentiment to power, most notably President South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun in 2002 and German’s Schroeder that the same year.
It is not just populations of many of the world’s countries that disapprove of Bush; it is also their governments. When John Kerry claimed that he had the backing of several European heads of state, even those on the right recognized (e.g., American Specter) that the right question to ask was not who is on this list but who, if anyone, is not. US journalist Fareed Zakaria, who is hardly a leftist, put the matter succinctly. Bush’s policies have “alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it.”

Among the ranks of those who were dressed down by Bush officials you can include Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell and former mayor Philip Owen. In a private meeting with then mayor Philip Owen and future mayor Larry Campbell, Walters had threatened action if Vancouver went ahead with a plan for safe injection sites. Namely, Canadians could face major border slow downs. Owen described the meeting thus: “It was the most unsatisfactory meeting of my life.” “The pressure was intense. John Walters had about 30 officers with him, special agents. At the door there was a guy with the bulge of a gun under his clothes.”

Shortly after Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell was given an unprecedented mandate to set up safe injection sites, US drug Czar, John Walters, took the matter public and told a board of trade audience, in what amounted to a thinly disguised threat not to take things too far, that we were only making matters worse.

During that same visit Walters repeated the US completely ridiculous mantra that marijuana is somehow in the same league as cocaine and heroin. In other words, in one foul swoop, Walters had tired to undermine the mandate given Mayor Campbell, challenge the findings of Canadian Senate report, without any argument, declaring marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol and to derail a plan by Parliament to decriminalize marijuana. Walters’s sermon from the mount was particularly galling given that he admits that skepticism of such a mantra throughout American society is so pervasive that unless until attitudes change attempts to crack down on marijuana use are doomed to failure. Larry Campbell quipped afterwards that the notion that safe injection sites would make things worse not better was akin to saying “flies cause garbage”.

Paul Cellucci, another of Bush’s henchmen, was equally disrespectful of Canadian democracy. Despite the fact that it was becoming obvious that it would be politically impossible for the government to back the US adventure in Iraq without a UN mandate, Paul Cellucci continued to brow beat the Liberals into becoming one of the coalition of the willing. Indeed, Cellucci went so far as to politically damage the government by pointing out that Canada was aiding US efforts on the sly in Iraq and the help they we were giving was in many respects greater than what many in the collation of the willing were providing. “The Canadian naval vessels will provide more support to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our effort there.” Now, that is gratitude.

Of course the Canadians, Europeans, and South Americans etc. are not alone in feeling ill treated. Many Democrats have a visceral dislike of the Bush administration and their feelings are reflected in American population as a whole. Literally millions upon millions upon millions of Americans simply loath the man; one result of this is that Bush bashing is a billion dollar industry in the States. Another result of this is that while Bush bashing is international in scope it has distinctly American face to it. Michael Moore is arguably its most recognizable figure and a good number of critiques have a Chomskyian like flavor to them. Of course, South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun and German’s Schroeder are not the only politicians to capitalize on the phenomena either. Howard Dean was the first American politician to capitalize on it and his doing so set the tone for the Democratic primaries.

In the closing months of the campaign the eventual winner of those primaries, John Kerry, has been able to bring another critique to the fore, which has long be present in academic circles, and that appeals to much wider audience, viz., that the President handling of the war in Iraq has been grossly incompetent and that the president is divorced from reality. (In the 2000 campaign Bush received more money from university professors than did Al Gore. This trend as sharply reversed itself. The lion share of money donated is going to Kerry, 2 and half times as much. What has changed is not Bush’s base support. Bush has actually received more money this time around. The only way to describe it is to say the Academy has mobilized against Bush. So much so in fact, Howard Dean received more money than Bush. The trend is particularly pronounced at the Ivy League schools. 95% of the monies given to either candidate at Harvard, Yale went to Kerry and Princeton Bush received $250 and Kerry $40, 950. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/13/news/10683.shtml) Such a critique has found favor with a good number of disgruntled conservatives, many of them bloggers (e.g., Andrew Sullivan), and with many media outlets. Once more, people are not mincing the words. The following from the Economist is typical: “It was a difficult call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to deserve re-election."

Although, the Kerry campaign has made similar charges against Bush’s handling of the economy, such charges have not been as well received and such discussions remain confined to the Democratic margins and to academia. The American public does not have and indeed the Western public at large does not have good grasp of economic principles and soothsayers, corporate propagandists and pseudo intellectuals at various right wing think tanks (e.g., The Fraser institute and the Heritage foundation) and various newspaper editorial boards (e.g., Wall street Journal, National Post) have managed to convince them that Bush’s tax cut “voodoo economics” is actually sound economic policy. Princeton’s Paul Krugman and 2001 Nobel Price winner for Economics George Akerlof, who said of Bush’s economic policy that is the worst in the nation’s history and that it amounts to a form “looting”, have only dented such beliefs.
What underpins the charges of incompetence is Bush himself. The Bush’s malapropisms are legendary as are his stunning displays of ignorance. Being impossible to cover up, the Republicans have used these gaffes to help shape is image as a man of the people. As a result, comments by Republicans, such as the following by Richard Pearle, are not hard to come across. “The first time I met Bush 43, I knew he was different. …. One, he didn’t know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he did not know very much.” (Every time I think of Bush and his man of the people image, I can not help but think of the Simpsons where Homer and Barney are selected by NASA to increase America’s waning interest in space exploration. This is unfair I know. Bush is not slow witted. He is, however, ignorant, intellectually lazy uncurious and maddeningly proud of it.)

Now, you would think listening Baker and others of her ilk that the fact that a Chrétien aid carelessly called Bush “moron” in the company someone who pledges allegiance to the US flag each morning and recites the Bush oath to boot, i.e., a National Post reporter, that Bush has never been accused of being divorced from reality by leftists, such as the Washington Post’s George Will, and that he never asked the President of Brazil if Brazil had “black people too”. (The Bush pledge: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States.") However, as noted above, you would be wrong. You would also think that Carryon Parrish is destined to become the next Liberal leader and that although, Bush never thought it important to learn PM “Poutine’s” name in the lead up to the 2000 election, that he cares, or even knows about the remarks about some insignificant back bencher. However, again, you would be wrong. Finally, reading Baker’s piece and many other pieces that appear in the Vancouver Sun -- who could forget that front page editorial? -- you would think that Canadian Anti-Americanism is so bad and so irrational it is akin to anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany. (Baker, in one of the most tactless comparisons ever to appear in the Vancouver Sun, came right out and made such a comparison.) However, once again you would be horribly wrong.

Capitalism is not an ideology; it is economic system. As for Marxism, it is a critique of capitalism and its central tenants were first laid out by Marx some 150 years. These include, but are, by no means, limited to the following theses, declining rate of profit, the immiserization thesis, thesis, the labour theory of value, class consciousness, and proletariatization.

Now, contrary to popular belief, Marx did not leave a blue print as what principles a communist society should be built around and as a result it is fruitless to argue that what happened in the Soviet Union was perversion of Marx’s vision. Marx simply had no vision. The closest Marx every came to doing so was in the Communist Manifesto. There he listed 10 things that, as rule of thumb, would need to be done in order to help ease the transformation of the most advanced capitalist economies of the time. However, after the failure of the 1848 revolutions, the “mature” “scientific” Marx abandoned all such talk, saying he had little idea what the “cook shops” of the future would look like.

Another popular misconception popular among uneducated right wing buffoons is that Western Marxists where somehow beholden to the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is that the term “New Left” dates back to the Soviet Union’s occupation of Hungary in 1956 and signifies the break Western Marxists made with the Soviet Union shortly thereafter.

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was mushrooming interest Marxism throughout the Western world and this was reflected in the huge increase in the number of Marxist journals. In addition, among students there was an interest in Third Worldism and its various Marxist, particularly Maoist, manifestations.

However, at the same time as Marx’s popularity was on the raise, intellectual traditions especially those tied the emergence of the new social movements (e.g., French post structuralism) and America’s involvement in Vietnam (e.g., Chomskyian anarchism), began to supplant Marxism as the preferred form of leftist critique. By the time the Berlin wall fell, Marxism was on its last legs and among a great number of academics was no longer considered a “live” option. This trend continues unabated.

Marx’s death has spelt the end to the notion that there is a “live” alternative to capitalism. As Stephen Harper puts it, “Socialism as a true economic program and motivating faith is dead."

I would like to make two clarifications about the last post. First, Multiculturalism helped speed up the process of cultural change and make the transition less painless. It was not the driving force behind cultural change; increased immigration was. Another important factor that helped birth the new Canada was that social mobility for new Canadians has been, relatively speaking, pretty good. Too be sure, there are areas of Vancouver, say, were virtually all school children are members of minority groups. However, all regions of Vancouver have a large ethnic mix. This is in marked contrast to areas of many ethnically diverse cities in the UK and the US, where white enclaves still exist. (Speaking of ethnically homogenous, you could literally have counted the number of people of colour at the Yankees and Red Sox games playoff games.)

Yes, multiculturalism sometimes encourages people to fail to take ownership of their membership within Canadian society, but outside of Canada’s native communities (a separate issue really) I do not see this as a big problem. More and more Canadians describe themselves as Canadian and this is particularly true of young Canadians. More than anything else, the risk is that multiculturalism could provide fertile ground (e.g., by making various cultural institutions (e.g. Sharia law) more available) for this trend reversing itself. Since 911 and start of the War on Terror, some members of well integrated and prosperous groupings in the States (e.g. in LA’s Iranian community) have started to turn their back on American society and have sought to crave a more “authentic” identities for themselves. (The New Yorker had a profile of two Americans of Iranian decent who had sought to create such an identity. It made for strange reading. The teenage son of long time US citizens was using the very writings of the same Mullahs his parents left Iran to escape to create for himself a new identity. Also strange was how much to his consternation and surprise the Iranian traditions and language he picked up in LA alienated him from his Iranian cousins. The idiom and slang he used was 25 years out of date and made him sound not like his peers put like their parents.)

Official multiculturalism has been a success, but not in ways usually appreciated. Official multiculturalism proved to be the death nail Anglo Canadian identity based on god, king and country. As it stood Anglo Canadian values were not woven together by prominent national myths as in the United States and without official state sanction such an identity simply dissolved as Canada opened its borders to more and immigrants. Only trace elements remain.

The policy was not nearly so successful when it came to Quebec. Quebec nationalists have for decades used to state institutions to sew together a new secular identity out the historical threads of an older catholic Quebec that modernity had unraveled. Thankfully, the emergence of a large “ethnic” community has made Quebec nationalist identity based on blood and shared historical grievances into an anachronism. Perhaps with help of Harper, the sovereigntists dream may very well be realized, but it will not be the Quebec Lévesque wanted.

Official multiculturalism has done something else. It has severed as an anticoagulant, preventing a crust from forming on top of the Canadian melting pot. Canadian identity is, as it should be, a work in progress. There is no Canadian dream as there is an American dream. We are not limited that way. We do not believe in passing down a script of what it means to be Canadian down from one generation to the next. We leave it up to each generation to decide who they are through existential engagement. The process only allows a generation to do decide who they were by retrospectively looking back; for Canadians as for Hegel, the Owl of Minerva only flies at night. For those who are still the sunshine of their lives, they simply say want they know they are not, viz., Americans.

If there is a downside of official multiculturalism it is this: it has helped encouraged certain forms of ethnic essentialism. Cultural traditions are not something that can be boxed away and put in a museum. Cultural traditions are by products of a great interplay of forces (political, social, and economic) and it is these forces that give the traditions their meaning. Take the Hindu prohibition against killing cattle. Taken alone the prohibition seems strange. However, the important role the cow has played, and indeed in some parts of India continues to play in the lives of peasants, such a prohibition becomes intelligible. (Cow dung was important source of fuel and building material. Cattle were used to plow fields and of course cows are source of milk.) Removed from social-economic body, these traditions harden and eventually die.
That said, not everyone recognizes this, including it seems the government of Canada, and here in lays the rub. Things can go badly in one of two ways. Parents may force these traditions that once where alive for them onto their children for whom they never where, or children can adopt these dead traditions as means of creating an identity for themselves (e.g., the large number of North African youth in France turning to Fundamentalist Islam). The former creates generational divisions and is natural enough. The later is far more serious. I think it is safe to say that it heightens ethnic tensions, but it does something else as well. As these cultural traditions are not given any meaning by the larger societal forces, they only come to have meaning by virtue of them being practiced exclusively by a particular group and more often than not by all supposedly self conscious group members. The many people who stray from identity supposedly prescribed to them by such things as skin colour are not looked upon kindly by “self conscious” members of the same group and a whole host of names have evolved to describe them. Apple for example is used to describe a native Canadian who is red on the outside but is white on the inside. Banana is used to describe someone of Chinese origin who is yellow on the outside but white in the inside. Oreo is used to describe Black person who is black on the outside, but white in the inside. On the flip side of things, people who are supposedly not free to develop such practices are guilty of cultural appropriation.

http://slate.com/id/2108429/ "Kerry's health-care speech Monday in Tampa was a classic of the form. The written text contained a little more than 2,500 words. By the time he was finished, Kerry had spoken nearly 5,300 words—not including his introductory remarks and thank-yous to local politicians—more than doubling the verbiage. Pity his speechwriters when you read the highlights below. It's not their fault.

Kerry's Script: Most of all, I will always level with the American people.

Actual Kerry: Most of all, my fellow Americans, I pledge to you that I will always level with the American people, because it's only by leveling and telling the truth that you build the legitimacy and gain the consent of the people who ultimately we are accountable to. I will level with the American people.

Kerry's Script: I will work with Republicans and Democrats on this health care plan, and we will pass it.

Actual Kerry: I will work with Republicans and Democrats across the aisle, openly, not with an ideological, driven, fixed, rigid concept, but much like Franklin Roosevelt said, I don't care whether a good idea is a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. I just care whether or not it's gonna work for Americans and help make our country stronger. And we will pass this bill. I'll tell you a little bit about it in a minute, and I'll tell you why we'll pass it, because it's different from anything we've ever done before, despite what the Republicans want to try to tell you.

Kerry's Script: These worries are real, and they're happening all across America.

Actual Kerry: These worries are real. They're not made up. These stories aren't something that's part of a Democrat plan or a Republican plan. These are American stories. These are the stories of American citizens. And it's not just individual citizens who are feeling the pressure of health care costs. It's businesses across America. It's CEOs all across America. This is an American problem.

Kerry's Script: That's wrong, and we have to change it.

Actual Kerry: Well, that's wrong, my friends. We shouldn't be just hoping and praying. We need leadership that acts and responds and leads and makes things happen.

Kerry's Script: That's wrong, and we have to change it.

Actual Kerry: Well, that's wrong. We had a chance to change it in the Congress of the United States. They chose otherwise. And I'll talk about that in a minute.

Kerry's Script: It's wrong to make it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices.

Actual Kerry: But not satisfied to hold onto the drug company's profit there, they went further. Medicare belongs to you. Medicare is paid by the taxpayer. Medicare is a taxpayer-funded program to keep seniors out of poverty. And we want to lower the cost to seniors, right? It's common sense. But when given the opportunity to do that, this president made it illegal for Medicare to do what the VA does, which is go out and bulk purchase drugs so we could lower the taxpayers' bill and lower the cost to seniors. It is wrong to make it illegal to lower the cost of tax and lower the cost to seniors.

Kerry's Script: And if there was any doubt before, his response to the shortage of flu vaccines put it to rest.

Actual Kerry: Now, if you had any doubts at all about anything that I've just said to you, anybody who's listening can go to johnkerry.com or you can go to other independent sources and you can track down the truth of what I've just said. But if you had any doubts about it at all, his response to the shortage of the flu vaccine ought to put them all to rest.

Kerry's Script: I believe we need a fresh start on health care in America. I believe we need a President who will fight for the great middle class and those struggling to join it. And with your help, I will be that kind of President.

Actual Kerry: I believe so deeply—and as I go around, Bob and Bill and I were talking about this coming over here from other places—that the hope that we're seeing in the eyes of our fellow Americans, folks like you who have come here today who know what's at stake in this race. This isn't about Democrat and Republican or ideology. This is about solving problems, real problems that make our country strong and help build community and take care of other human beings. I believe we need a fresh start on health care in America. I believe we need a President who's going to fight for the great middle class and those who really are struggling, even below minimum wage now. And they won't even raise it. With your help, ladies and gentlemen, I intend to be that kind of President who stands up and fights for the people who need the help.

Kerry's Script: Families will be able to choose from dozens of different private insurance plans.

Actual Kerry: Now George Bush is trying to scare America. And he's running around telling everybody—I saw this ad the other night. I said, "What is that about? That's not my plan. That may be some 20 years ago they pulled out of the old thing." But here's what they do, they are trying to tell you that there is some big government deal. Ladies and gentlemen, we choose. I happen to choose Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I could choose Kaiser. I could choose Pilgrim. I could choose Phelan. I could choose any number of different choices. That's what we get. And we look through all the different choices and make our choice. You ought to have that same choice. The government doesn't tell what you to do. The government doesn't run it. It gives you the choice.

Kerry's Script: Ladies and Gentlemen, here's the Bush Health Care Plan: Don't get a flu shot, don't import less-expensive drugs, don't negotiate for lower prices, and most of all, don't get sick.

Actual Kerry: So, Ladies and Gentlemen, if you had doubts about it at all, here's the Bush Health Care Plan: Don't get a flu shot, don't import less-expensive drugs from Canada, don't negotiate for lower prices on prescription drugs. And don't get sick. Just pray, stand up and hope, wait—whatever. We are all left wondering and hoping. That's it."

God. Stick to what is written man.

Deficit spending invariably leads to higher interest rates; high interest rates are not only a drag on the economy, but are many ways the same as a tax increase.

As for taxes, I quite frankly have no desire to pay to the private sector in terms of fees what I am now paying to the government in terms of taxes for the same service and I totally disagree with the Harper maximum that there is more freedom through less government. Americans earn more than their European counterparts. However, Americans work much longer weeks, have much less vacation time, retire later, are much more likely to be a victim of violent crime, are more likely to be hurt on the job, do not live as long, are shorter in stature (the average German, Swede and Dutchmen tower over the average American) are more likely to be overweight, and social mobility is much less than what it is in Europe. What is more, much of that extra income is eaten away by schooling costs for the kids and of course for health care. Europeans and indeed Canadians live less stressful lives and have more FREE TIME. This is in part because they have embraced the welfare state, supported by higher taxes in ways the US has not.

Belief and Desire not Choosen

Beliefs are not something one chooses. I do not choose to believe there is a computer screen in front of me, nor do I choose to believe I am now typing. I just so believe. The same goes with desires. I do not choose to desire a glass of water. I just desire one. Why anyone would think it any different when in comes to sexual desire is beyond me. The whole debate about whether homosexuality is a byproduct of biology, while interesting, is complete red herring. Whatever the casual history of a desire it is not chosen.

By the way, Tim Noah from Slate nailed it "I won't dispute that Kerry was using Mary Cheney to score a political point. But the political point was an entirely legitimate one, aimed, I believe, not at fundamentalists but at swing voters with libertarian leanings. Listen, Kerry was saying. This guy knows gay people, just like you and I do. So he must know that homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle choice." He must know that, and yet he pretends not to know it to score points with the religious right. How cynical can you get? And then he lends his support to a cockamamie Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that even his right-wing-nut of a vice president can't stomach because his own daughter is gay. But even Cheney won't really speak out against this administration's exploitation of the gay-marriage issue to score cheap political points. Some father he is." http://slate.com/id/2108318/

Kerry and I seem to be in the same boat:

Me: what I sent to the Democrats: “It was a mistake to outsource the job of encircling Bin Laden at Tora Bora to the Northern Alliance. The world’s most powerful army would have done a better job.”

Kerry: “I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.”

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271, “Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora. It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."

Liberal oasis came pretty close to saying what I did back in July.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/070404.htm

“What's interesting is that the Bushies are still outsourcing the Get Osama operation.
Sure, this excerpt from TNR sounds particularly conspiratorial:
...according to this ISI [Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence] official, a White House aide told [ISI director Lt. Gen. Ehsan] ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
But it's also pathetic.

The Bushies don't have much control over the situation if they have to ask another country to deliver the goods by a certain date, instead of taking the lead themselves.”

What I said about outsourcing is Tora Bora is later logically implied. “This same mistake was made in 2001 at Tora Bora, where we hired Afghan warlords to nab Osama, and they proceeded to help him escape.”

I take issue with some of what factcheck.org has to say: First: the administration is on record as saying on numerous occasions that they think Bin Laden was there, esteemed newspapers said so as do Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners and so for that matter does Bin Laden http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm : Christian Science Monitor from the link given above for example: “And on Nov 29, Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC's "Primetime Live" that, according to the reports that were coming in, bin Laden was in Tora Bora."I think he was equipped to go to ground there," Mr. Cheney said. "He's got what he believes to be a fairly secure facility. He's got caves underground; it's an area he's familiar with.

Meanwhile, in the weeks following bin Laden's arrival at the Tora Bora caves, morale slipped under the constant air assault. One group of Yemeni fighters, squirreled away in a cave they had been assigned to by the Al Qaeda chief, had not seen bin Laden since entering on Nov. 13.
But they say bin Laden joined them on Nov. 26, the 11th day of Ramadan, a warm glass of green tea in his hand. Instead of inspiring the elite fighters, he was now reduced, they say, to repeating the same "holy war" diatribe.

Around him that day sat three of his most loyal fighters, including Abu Baker, a square-faced man with a rough-hewn scruff on his chin."[Bin Laden] said, 'hold your positions firm and be ready for martyrdom,' " Baker told Afghan intelligence officers when he was captured in mid-December. "He said, 'I'll be visiting you again, very soon.' " Then, as quickly as he had come, Baker says, bin Laden vanished into the pine forests.”

It seems I did “overstate” it when I said Bin Laden was encircled. That though is worse for the Americans. Routes that should have been blocked off were not and some Al Qaeda troops left via these routes. Others escaped as is generally known by bribing Hazret Ali and his men.

By the way: for those of you who love Rumsfailed, Bin Laden mocked his air power and outsourced milita plan at Tora Bora:

"Trench warfare

We also realized that one of the most effective and available methods of rendering the air force of the crusader enemy ineffective is by setting up roofed and disguised trenches in large numbers.

I had referred to that in a previous statement during the Tora Bora battle last year.
In that great battle, faith triumphed over all the materialistic forces of the people of evil, for principles were adhered to, thanks to God Almighty.

I will narrate to you part of that great battle, to show how cowardly they are on the one hand, and how effective trenches are in exhausting them on the other.

We were about 300 mujahideen [Islamic militants].We dug 100 trenches that were spread in an area that does not exceed one square mile, one trench for every three brothers, so as to avoid the huge human losses resulting from the bombardment.

Since the first hour of the US campaign on 20 Rajab 1422, corresponding to 7 October 2001, our centres were exposed to a concentrated bombardment.
And this bombardment continued until mid-Ramadan.

On 17 Ramadan, a very fierce bombardment began, particularly after the US command was certain that some of al-Qaeda leaders were still in Tora Bora, including the humble servant to God [referring to himself] and the brother mujahid Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The bombardment was round-the-clock and the warplanes continued to fly over us day and night.

War in Afghanistan

The US Pentagon, together with its allies, worked full time on blowing up and destroying this small spot, as well as on removing it entirely.

Planes poured their lava on us, particularly after accomplishing their main missions in Afghanistan.

The US forces attacked us with smart bombs, bombs that weigh thousands of pounds, cluster bombs, and bunker busters.

Bombers, like the B-52, used to fly over head for more than two hours and drop between 20 to 30 bombs at a time.

The modified C-130 aircraft kept carpet-bombing us at night, using modern types of bombs.
The US forces dared not break into our positions, despite the unprecedented massive bombing and terrible propaganda targeting this completely besieged small area.

This is in addition to the forces of hypocrites, whom they prodded to fight us for 15 days non-stop.

Every time the latter attacked us, we forced them out of our area carrying their dead and wounded.

'Alliance of evil'

Is there any clearer evidence of their cowardice, fear, and lies regarding their legends about their alleged power.

To sum it up, the battle resulted in the complete failure of the international alliance of evil, with all its forces, [to overcome] a small number of mujahideen - 300 mujahideen hunkered down in trenches spread over an area of one square mile under a temperature of -10 degrees Celsius.

The battle resulted in the injury of 6% of personnel - we hope God will accept them as martyrs - and the damage of two percent of the trenches, praise be to God.

If all the world forces of evil could not achieve their goals on a one square mile of area against a small number of mujahideen with very limited capabilities, how can these evil forces triumph over the Muslim world?

This is impossible, God willing, if people adhere to their religion and insist on jihad for its sake."

Tora Bora "Disaster"

http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2004_election/ “So here’s my question for Senator Kerry, the armchair general (who served in Vietnam, don’t you know):
What would you have done differently in Afghanistan?

Presumably, he would have used American military forces, instead of “outsourcing” the effort to local warlords. But what forces where available in theater at the time? The first large contingent of conventional forces in Afghanistan, a brigade of 1,000 US Marines, arrived at an airstrip near Kandahar on November 25, 2001. That city, which had been the last stronghold of Taliban leader Omar, didn’t fall to anti-Taliban forces until December 7.

The only other US forces in Afghanistan at the time were Special Forces, and CIA paramilitaries. Their job was to help organize the various militias into a coherent force capable of defeating the Taliban, and to call in Coalition air strikes as required. It was this combination of Special Forces and local militia that had already driven the Taliban from the strategic city of Mazar-e-Sharif, the airbase at Bagram, and the capital Kabul.

The only US military on the ground at Tora Bora was a contingent of about two dozen Special Forces who were airlifted in to the area on December 2. Their mission was to coordinate the ground attack and to “laze” targets for US bombers. There is no way that these men could have taken Tora Bora without assistance – And the Marines in Kandahar already had their hands full. In any event, Tora Bora was completely overrun by December 12 – but not before the al Qaeda leadership escaped to Pakistan.”

Why trust an amateur military analyst such as Indepundit? What did real military analysts say about Tora Bora? Barry Posen M.I.T: “we missed a number of opportunities and the reason was that we didn’t want to take risks. Tora Bora was a disaster, universally acknowledged as such, and never explained. …. Using drones and a bunch of mercenaries and bombs in a cordon operation. We couldn’t have done a worse job.”

“Let’s make one thing clear: outside of this “outsourcing” plan, there would have been no significant military action in Afghanistan prior to November 25 – but by the time those first Marines arrived, the Taliban had already been largely defeated. “Outsourcing” the war in Afghanistan was not Bush’s idea. It was the Pentagon and the CIA that came up with this plan. But President Bush did approve it, and it worked.”

What, did I miss something? IT DID NOT WORK; Bin Laden and most of the Al Qaeda head cheeses escaped. The next time Bin Laden attacks the US, and make no mistake about it, he will, I want Americans to ask themselves whether they think the Rumsfailed’s outsourcing idea was a good one.

“The only military alternative to this plan would have been a massive invasion of Afghanistan with several heavy divisions. Of course, these divisions would have had to get to Afghanistan by coming ashore in Pakistan and driving through the ungoverned (and largely hostile) Tribal Areas, where the Pakistani army wouldn’t even go. In any event, it would have taken several more months for these forces to arrive in theater – plenty of time for the terrorists to dig in and prepare for the fight.”

This is perfect example of a rhetorical trick known as a false dilemma. There were more than two choices and what is more no one was talking about putting 3 Divisions into Afghanistan – no one. After the Tora Bora “disaster”, Posen calls it, the US quickly pumped in another couple of thousand troops. This only begs the question. Why if this was possible, did it take until November 25th for the first US deployment of any size to land in Afghanistan?

“Does anyone see any problems with this plan? It seems to me that the Russians tried this approach a while back, and the British before them. Both got their asses handed to them. Nevertheless, I’m sure that the Pentagon presented this option to Bush, with all of the caveats above. In my judgement, Bush was right to reject this plan, and go instead with the “outsourcing” approach.”

It seems to me that you are wrong. The Russians were trying to prop up a failing regime and not topple a government with virtually no tanks or aircraft. What the Russians tired to do is similar to what the Americans are trying to do in Iraq now. Some of the problems are the same too. One of the biggest problems for the Soviets was the number of Afghan troops and going to fight with the rebels whenever they were pressed into duty. Incidentally, comparing troop looses in Afghanistan and Iraq is misleading. America has always placed a far greater value on the lives of its soldiers than the Soviets and this is reflected in the tactics that they used and the emphasis they placed on providing care to wounded soldiers.

This favorite Bush bitch defense fails in two other ways: First, everyone and their uncle supplied the Afghan resistance with arms and training. No one was going to so arm the Tailban. Second, disease (malaria and Hep B) proved a far greater opponent than the Afghan resistance and accounted for the vast majority of Soviet casualties in Afghanistan. http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins53.html Needless to say, while, disease is certainly an obstacle the US army must overcome it is not something that could cripple it.