Coloured Pencils for the Blind

Today the people of Afghanistan were called to elect a new President. This is the second time such an election takes place under the general rules of a 'democratic' system.

The first time, in October 2004, the incumbent Hamid Karzai (photo below, inspecting a guard of honour in Kabul) was elected President. He is hopeful to be elected for a second term, but he is not popular with everyone.

Karzai is a Pashtun (or Pathan) and son of a wealthy and influential tribal leader from the south of the country. With close to 40% of the population the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and have provided the ruling elite ever since the establishment of the first singular state called 'Afghanistan' in 1747. Their territories are predominantly in the south, and they also make up a significant minority in neighbouring Pakistan.

There are more than a dozen other distinctive nations and ethnic groups in Afghanistan, of which the Tajiks - with ca. 37% of the total population - are the largest (and the second-largest in the country). Their territories are all in the north, and over centuries there has been a balance of power between the southern Pashtuns and the northern Tajiks.
All other ethnic groups are much smaller and less well represented in the political structure and make-up of Afghanistan. The two most visible of these minorities are the Hazara and the Uzbeks, each with about 9% of the overall population.

Politics in Afghanistan is based on strict tribal loyalties and age-old alliances between leaders of various clans. Even though there have been political parties for some time, they too reflect only too clearly the tribal structure of the country. The idea of an 'Afghan nation' has not arrived yet in the high and rugged mountains that control the links between the North and South of Asia, as well as the links between the West (Iran) and the East (China) of the continent.

Since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1973, some Afghan politicians have tried to establish some form of nationalism, but it has never worked or lasted for long. All their efforts ended in even more tribal conflict, which is still the predominant situation in Afghanistan.

Only a complete fool like George W. Bush, with no idea of history and ethnic structures outside the USA, could ever even think of invading Afghanistan and hoping to control it. Many nations and military leaders have tried - and failed - in such enterprises before.
Even Alexander the Great, perhaps the best army commander of all times, failed in his effort to control the mountains of the area that is now Afghanistan. And he was wise enough to realise that and withdrew his forces gracefully, after having founded a city that bore his name.

During the 19th century Britain tried - and failed - twice to occupy and rule Afghanistan and took massive casualties in the process. One of their expeditions entered the country with 42,000 men, of which only one single officer - an army surgeon - returned alive to tell the tale of total defeat.
More recently the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan from the north - at Christmas 1979 - with more than 120,000 troops. After nine years of fierce and bloody guerrilla war that helped to bring the USSR to her knees and end her existence, the Russians withdrew again - with a very bloody nose and tails between their legs - in 1988.

It has always amazed me that no-one in the political and military leadership of the USA warned George W. Bush of the dangers any military action in and against Afghanistan would bring to the invading force. Especially since they should have known what was waiting for them, after they had supported massively - but in a covert operation - the Afghan Mujahiddin (freedom fighters) in their struggle against the Soviet occupation force.
Perhaps they did warn him, but Bush - in his usual combination of ignorance and self-importance - did not listen. He just made one of his arogant and bellicose statements and sent his troops into war against a people who have not been defeated by anyone in more than 3000 years.
Like a blinded bear he just walked into the unknown, into the largest bear trap on Earth.

This was in the Autumn of 2001, and ever since Afghanistan has been - once again - an occupied country. The difference is that the current occupiers - the USA, the UK, NATO and a mixed bag of smaller contingents from various countries - claim that they are there 'to establish Democracy' in Afghanistan.

For the people of Afghanistan that means nothing. They remember only too well that the USSR was there not so long ago in order 'to establish Socialism', another idea with no value or meaning for tradional Muslims who live on the technological level of the Middle Ages.

- more to follow -
(I have to get some sleep first, sorry)

A special Day in German History

Since I was born abroad and grew up in foreign countries, I never got to 'enjoy' the Irish school system. And from what I know of it by now - as an adult who has been a part-time teacher and lecturer both in secondary schools and third-level colleges - I am rather glad that I got my education in countries that take the matter more serious than Ireland.

As a historian I was surprised and quite shocked when I first found out that European History in Irish secondary schools begins only in 1870, with the Franco-Prussian War. This means that Irish children are denied the knowledge of nearly two millennia of mainstream history, which includes many major events, great political, social and intellectual developments, crucial wars and important leaders and thinkers from many nations.

The Roman and Byzantine Empire, the Crusades, the Hanseatic League, the Age of Reformation, the Thirty-Years War, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars - to name only the most significant periods - are not introduced to Irish children in secondary school. Thus they have no real notion about people like Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Charlemagne, Godfrey de Bouillon, Charles the Bold, Emperor Maximilian, Jan Hus, Erasmus, Wallenstein, Louis XIV, Prince Eugene of Savoy, Frederick the Great or even Napoleon - to name but a few.

In my opinion this is a sad and irresponsible shortfall, which has implications on everyone who ever went through the Irish school system. Their view on the world as a whole and on history in particular is very limited.
But I suppose this is the conditioning one needs to be able to be strongly interested in various players of Football, Golf or other pointless sports, which take a lot of time, attention and money from many Irish people, especially men.

However, since European History begins for Irish people in 1870, most of my readers will be familiar with the significance of this day - January 18th - in German history. Having defeated the much larger French army in several decisive battles during the second half of 1870, Prussia - supported by other German states (especially Bavaria, Württemberg and Baden) - emerged as the surprise victor from this war, which marked the end-point of a seven-year period of short wars (the first one in 1864 against Denmark) and ever stronger domination of Prussia inside the German Union (the lose confederation that had replaced the old Holy Roman Empire of German Nation in 1806).

Inspired by the total defeat of France, the various German kingdoms and principalities, which had been brought even closer to Prussia through the war, decided to form a new unified national state called the German Empire (Deutsches Reich). It began its official existence on January 18th, 1871 with the proclamation of Prussia's King William as Emperor William I of Germany.

This proclamation (pictured above) took place in the famous palace of Versailles on the outskirts of Paris, once the home of the French kings. Paris itself surrendered ten days later, but France had lost the war already by September 1870, when after the battle of Sedan the main field force under Marshal MacMahon surrendered to the Germans. Among the 83,000 prisoners of war was Emperor Napoleon III himself.

France, then the second Napoleonic empire, declared war on Prussia alone on July 19th, 1870, in the - as it turned out wrong - assumption that its stronger and superior army could beat the Prussians and re-establish French domination on the continent (as well as restore the fading popularity of the emperor at home). The French army had just finished equipping all its units with the new Chassepot rifle, which had a clear technical superiority over the Dreyse rifle used by Prussia, and also a greater range. On top of that France employed a new invention called the 'mitrailleuse', a multi-barrelled salvo gun which was a fore-runner of the modern machine gun.
The Prussians and the other German armies had no such salvo guns, but instead new Krupp steel cannons, the most advanced artillery in the world at that time. This superior artillery, together with the better training and organisation of Prussian and German troops, crippled the French army within a few weeks. Having started the war with invading Germany and trying to occupy a major German city near the border, the French army was soon forced to retreat to its fortress Metz, where 140,000 troops under the command of Marshal Bazaine were sitting idle until they surrendered as well shortly before the end of hostilities.

The traditional rivalry between the French and the Germans goes back to the year 843 (two dozen years before my own family appeared on the scene) when - after the death of Emperor Charlemagne - his lands were divided between his three sons.
This laid the foundations of modern France and modern Germany as national states. The buffer state between them was Burgundy (home of my ancestors), which established the traditions that are today carried on by Belgium and Luxembourg. Only after World War II, more than eleven centuries later, the two nations of France and Germany developed a new and friendly relationship, which became the core element of the EU.

But for the Germans, and especially Prussians, the 18th of January has an even deeper meaning than being the day when the second German empire was proclaimed, just 18 weeks after the second French empire had collapsed with the capture of Napoleon III. The date of the 1871 proclamation was chosen by Prussia's Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck very carefully and deliberately.
January 18th, 1871 marked the 170th anniversary of the proclamation of the Kingdom of Prussia. By selecting the same day for the foundation of the second empire, Bismarck created an emotional and historical bond of great strength between the two events.

Way back - on January 18th, 1701 - Prince-Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg (pictured left) stood in the great castle of Königsberg in East-Prussia (since 1944 occupied by Russia and called Kaliningrad), which had been the headquarters of the Teutonic Order of Knights since 1457 and seat of the secular Duchy of Prussia since 1525.
Ignoring the local bishop, who had been summoned for a ceremony, the Prince took a newly created crown, put it on his head and thus became King Frederick I of Prussia, remembered for his love of the arts and music.
His son, Frederick-William I, was more interested in the military and thus gained the nick name 'the soldier king'. With great energy and a lot of money he created a large and strong army and enjoyed watching his regiments on the drill ground and on parades. But he would hardly ever send them to war, as he did not like damage done to his 'favourite toy'.

Prussia's third king - Frederick II (pictured right) - combined the passions and interests of his father and grandfather and added to them great courage and high strategic and administrative skills. Under his rule there was little time for the drill and parade grounds, as Prussia fought a number of major wars, including the Seven-Years War, and every last man - the king included - was needed in the field.

Between winning battles, Frederick II loved to play music, especially the flute, and he composed a large number of musical pieces, many of which are still played today. He reformed and modernised the structure of his state, created the modern civil service with a special loyalty ethos, and found the time to oversee the construction of some of the finest buildings in central Europe, including the palace of Sanssouci (photo below), which he modelled on Versailles.

Frederick II was also an active philosopher, who was in regular discussion (by correspondence as well as through personal meetings) with Voltaire, the greatest French philosopher of the 18th century. We still know and remember the man as Frederick the Great.

Due to the low standards of our history teaching, today few people know of these great people and events, and of the double significance of January 18th for Germany, the largest of our EU partners. So I thought I will bring them back to common memory, on a day when nothing much is happening in Ireland, except that it is a rather cold, wet and unpleasant day with high winds up to storm force 10 and 11. In other words, a day to stay at home, keep the fire burning and spend the time with plenty of tea, a pipe, a good book and some history.

The Emerald Islander

US Military Death Toll in Iraq reaches 4000

Four US soldiers were killed when a bomb hit their vehicle in south Baghdad late on Sunday evening, bringing the total number of US military personnel killed in Iraq to 4000. (This number does not include five members of the US "Delta" special forces whose death in Iraq was reported in the media, but not confirmed by the Pentagon.)

The grim milestone was reached at about 10 p.m., on a day when also more than 60 Iraqis were killed and dozens more injured in attacks in Baghdad and north of Iraq's capital. It comes shortly after the fifth anniversary of the illegal US invasion of Iraq. (see my entry from March 19th)
The number of American service personnel wounded in Iraq (or invalided out of the military for mental instability and other psychological reasons) is meanwhile close to 65,000.

Five Years of Lies, Crime and Carnage

Today is the fifth anniversary of the begin of the illegal US invasion of Iraq. Immediately after George W. Bush had declared war on Iraq, a massive air attack began, with indiscriminate bombings of Iraqi cities and military targets. This air war was conducted mostly by the US Airforce, with the British Royal Air Force in a minor support role.

Only after most Iraqi cities were heavily bombed, Allied ground forces entered Iraq, encountering little resistance from the inferior and demoralised Iraqi army. And within six weeks it was all over, at least officially. Even though few people seem to remember the fact, but it is worth to point out that George W. Bush declared on May 1st, 2003 that the war was over and the Allied forces had been victorious. This declaration was spectacularly staged on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), one of the largest and most modern ships of the US Navy (pictured below).

But five years after the begin of the war US and British troops are still in Iraq, and still fighting. So is the war still going on? Then Bush lied to the world (and not for the first time) on May 1st, 2003.

However, in international law the situation looks a bit different. By declaring the war over, Bush - as head of state of the main belligerent country - made a legally binding statement, which binds not only him, but all US citizens, civilian and military, including all members of the armed forces of the United States.

After this official declaration, the USA (United States of Aggression) had no right to stay in Iraq as a fighting force. They could have stayed on as an occupational security force, but with limited powers, not much different to that of a police force. But this is not what happened. The USA did not only keep a large fighting force (currently 158,000 troops) in Iraq, including heavy battle tanks and helicopter gunships, as well as fighter and bomber aircraft, the US leadership orchestrated a second war - this time against the entire Iraqi population - after their war against Iraq's army and the ruling Baath Party was over and won.

This war is still going on, with no end in sight. And it is even more immoral and illegal than the first one, which started five years ago. Most people are not familiar with military and international law, and so they believe that the current war in Iraq is still the one that began exactly five years ago. But this is not the case. It could be, if George W. Bush had not - very prematurely, as it turned out - declared victory, "mission accomplished" and "combat operations over". Given the low intelligence of George W. Bush, he might not have been aware at the time what his declaration means in international law. However, in his position he has a large team of highly-trained and very well paid experts, advisers and lawyers, and they must surely have known better. Did they not dare telling him? Or were they all enthralled in the same false belief that by invading Iraq, destroying the army of Saddam Hussein and abolishing the Baath Party they would gain complete control of the whole country and its population?

If so, it only shows to the world how naive, inexperienced and incompetent the entire leadership of the sole remaining "super-power" really is.
Everyone knows by now that the Pentagon had absolutely no plans for the occupation, administration and post-war reconstruction of Iraq when they declared war. The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saw no need for that, since he firmly believed that the US troops would be "welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people" and "hailed as liberators".

Subsequently the hastily established Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) under L. Paul Bremer, a former diplomat and Bush cronie, who was totally unprepared, unqualified and unsuited for the job, ran a medieval terror regime while squandering billions of dollars without proper accounts or receipts.
During the twenty months it was in charge of Iraq, each month a huge crate, containing 1 billion dollars in cash (!), was flown from the USA to Baghdad for the day-to-day operations of the CPA. Most of this money has disappeared without trace, and it has been alleged that a large part of it went right back to the USA, into the private pockets of CPA officials and US contractors working for it.

Meanwhile there have been elections and there is an official Iraqi government, complete with a President and Prime Minister, a large cabinet and a complete administration. The problem is that rival parties who hate each other have been forced into an undesired coalition, and they use their limited power predominantly for their own purposes and benefits. The general population of Iraq has no confidence in this government, nor in the newly created Iraqi army and police force, well armed and trained by the USA, but nevertheless still completely useless.
This is not entirely accidental, because as long as the Iraqi politicians and their new armed forces are incapable of ruling and controlling the country, a massive US presence can be justified by the White House. No one in the Bush administration has the slightest interest to leave Iraq, since it is needed as the assembly ground and jumping-off base for a war against Iran, which has long been planned by the Pentagon and is still a possibility, as long as Bush is in charge.

Earlier today Bush made a bullish speech at the Pentagon, praising himself and the war in Iraq. Sometimes I really think he actually believes all the lies and nonsense he tells the world, but in reality he is just a remote-controlled puppet, executing the orders he receives from his father, Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney (who is the real ruler of the USA) and others who did buy the presidency for him in December 2000. And when he makes a speech, he is repeating words and doctrines his advisers prepare for him. Only when he has to answer ad-hoc questions the real George W. Bush comes to the forefront, a bumbling fool with no idea of politics or the world, a man who is not even in proper command of the English language and often mixes up his metaphores. Once a lazy daddy's boy and alcoholic, he is now a lazy but willing puppet for the unholy alliance of right-wing religious fundamentalists, oil barons and arms manufacturers who took control of the USA in a bloodless coup d'etat in December 2000 and put him into the White House.

Those who write Bush's speeches are professionals and masters in the art of manipulation and propaganda, and even the infamous Dr. Joseph Goebbels could learn from them. In today's war anniversary speech there was only good news and praise. No mention of the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) Saddam Hussein never had, but whose apparent existence was used by Bush as the main excuse for the war. No mention of the length of the war, which is meanwhile going on for longer than the First World War. No word either about the astronomical costs for the American taxpayers, which have recently passed the 500 billion dollar line. (for the exact amount at any time have a look at the running cost counter in the information column on the right side of my weblog)
There was of course also no mention of the human costs. Close to 4,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq so far (only 139 of them in the first war against the Iraqi army, the rest in the war against the whole Iraqi nation), and more than 60,000 have been wounded, many of them seriously and to the point that they will never again be fit for active military service.

But these are small numbers, compared with the amount of Iraqis who have lost their lives. As the USA does not even bother counting Iraqi dead and the new government in Baghdad issues only doctored statistics that makes them look good, one has to rely on independent international sources. The lowest estimate - from Britain, which is still the USA's only real ally in Iraq - puts the number of Iraqi civilians killed since March 19th, 2003 at "about 151,000".
The International Red Cross (ICRC) is more realistic and lists 654,965 Iraqi civilians as casualties of the war. But another source, the international ORB survey which has monitored events in Iraq closely from day one of the war, reports a death toll almost twice as high, with 1,220,580 Iraqi civilians and more than 14,000 members of the new Iraqi security forces (army & police) killed since March 2003.

As excuses for the war Bush presented the most ridiculous list of "reasons", well phrased, but only fooling those who were brainwashed beforehand. He said: "1) Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. 2) Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good. 3) Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. 4) Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. 5) Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. 6) Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer."

Well, let's just deal with these examples. Number 1 is true, because Saddam Hussein is dead, hanged by the Iraqi puppet government after being sentenced to death in an US-controlled Iraqi kangaroo court. Now it is US troops who fill Iraqi fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Number 2 is true as well, since torture chambers in Iraq are now operated by the CIA and the US Military Police. Number 3 - true also. Bush only forgot to mention that it was the USA who provided Saddam Hussein with those weapons when he was still their friend and ally. Number 4 is of course correct as well, since Saddam is dead and his regime gone. So now families of Palestinian suicide bombers receive their payments from Saudi Arabia, which is America's closest ally in the region. Not surprisingly, number 5 is true also, as no-fly zones no longer exist in Iraq since 2003. Instead the US Airforce is now regularly bombing civilian targets with the excuse that they are "suspected terrorist hideouts", without ever providing any evidence for the claims. And number 6 - well, Mr. Bush, there you have slipped badly. Only someone with absolutely no brain, who is also blind and deaf could believe this outrageous and truly idiotic statement.

If you want to read Bush's whole speech, you can find it through this link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080319-2.html

Thanks to Bush and his criminal administration the world is in complete economic turmoil, with the Middle East and some other areas also in political chaos. In Iraq the world's one remaining "super-power" has not been able to restore normal supply of drinking water and electricity after five years, not to mention the many other shortfalls that make life in Iraq hell for the Iraqis. No surprise that 4 million Iraqi people (which is 1/7 of the population) fled their homes and are now living as refugees, about half of them in other parts of the country, and the other half fled to foreign countries, the majority to Syria and Jordan.

And America safer? Well, perhaps for Mr. Bush and his cronies, who are constantly surrounded by dozens of body guards from the Secret Service, travel only in armoured limousines and special aeroplanes, and have the whole US security apparatus protecting them. Ordinary Americans pay for all this with their tax dollars, but in return they get ever worsening conditions in every area of their lives, from security and policing to personal freedom and the economy. Not to mention all the other problems people in the USA are only too familiar with...

This is a very sad day for the whole world, and Bush's triumphalist speech makes it even more so. In 2002 and early 2003 I attended numerous anti-war demonstrations, where thousands of Irish people made their voices and views heard, long before the illegal occupation of Iraq started. The build-up to the war was only too clear and visible for us, with many thousands of US troops and their supplies being transported to the Middle East stopping over at Shannon Airport. But no one listened to us and to the millions of people who held similar demonstrations in other countries. While always using the words freedom and democracy very liberally, neither Bush nor his willing vassals Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern paid any heed to the people. While Bush and Blair had their set agenda and just wanted this war, regardless of the costs and public opinion, our Taoiseach simply did not have the spine and moral fibre to say "no" to the use of Irish airspace and Shannon Airport. But in committing war crimes the small helpers are as guilty and responsible as the big leaders and the executers in the field.

There will come a time when the people as well as their leaders will see the Iraq war for what it is: the greatest combination of ordinary crimes, war crimes and carnage in modern times. And when the historians write their books about it, George W. Bush will find his place in eternal infamy, close to Stalin and Hitler. Sadly many more people - Iraqis and Americans alike - will be paying for his crimes and war crimes with their lives before someone will find the courage to end this war, which the US administration calls meanwhile "The Long War".

The Emerald Islander
(sad and sick, but still writing)

P.S. They say that history repeats itself for those who have not bothered learning enough of it. I found this quotation and reading it makes one think deeply and shiver...

Cost of Iraq War over 500 billion Dollars

The financial cost of America's war in Iraq since 2003 and the ongoing illegal occupation of that country is now more than $ 500 billion. This historic landmark line has been reached and passed today - March 5th, 2008 - at 10:43 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (3.43 p.m. GMT).

The sum is based on information from the independent American monitoring group National Priorities Project, which analyses and clarifies US federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent. It does not include the costs to human life (like soldiers killed in action) and only covers the expenses incurred by the United States.

The other countries in George W. Bush's "coalition of the willing" - most prominently Britain - are also spending huge sums of money from their national budgets on their ongoing involvement in Iraq.

For more information visit:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/