How Did We Get Here? An Analysis

Canadian soldier at Kandahar


That is not my oil, that is not my beautiful car.

Originally published September 4, 2006

Canadian soldiers are now involved in a NATO counter insurgency in Afghanistan. This summer, for the first time since Korea we saw Canadian soldiers in a fire-fight. How did we get here?

Well, 9/11 happened - Al-Qaeda was blamed. The government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, aided and abetted them. On October 7 the area bombing of Taliban strong-holds began. The Americans supported one of several groups fighting in parts of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance and others formed a provisional government on April 18, 2002; officially ousting the Taliban; and institutionalizing US primacy in Central Asia.

Canadian troops were sent by the Liberal government of Jean Chretien in 2002; to fill a power vacuum created by US bombing, and to rebuild the country after 10 years of Soviet occupation and 10 more years of civil war.

Four years later the Taliban have regrouped. What we are doing there now, in no way resembles peace keeping or reconstruction. Canadian soldiers are involved in a NATO counter insurgency. Its time to take stock.

How did we get here, why are we trying to kill them? Oh yes.., 'the Taliban aided and abetted Al-Qaeda'.

The Taliban are no friends to democracy, rule of law, the enlightenment, or equal rights. They desire a theocracy like the Dark Ages(400 - 1600AD) - when Rome projected terror across Europe to maintain its' primacy - not anything like the German Fascism of the 1930's and '40's the Whitehouse keeps pumping. Neither are they friends of an oil pipeline on the northern border. A pipeline that would send regional resources west, to the USA; or the 'Great Satan', in their vernacular.

I personally wouldn't support a government like that; but that doesn't mean I would go to war with them either.

The Taliban stopped the opium crop when they were in power, something we cannot seem to do. The Taliban have never invaded a foreign land; they are not even a regional power. At this time, a multi-polar global power negotiation is in progress; Taliban rule, while hard to stomach could be a stabilizing force right now. The alternative, an unwinnable urban war could become much worse.

Tolerating the DE-facto situation in Afghanistan is not defeat, its clear thinking. Canada, as a member NORAD and a transmogrified NATO should push for another way.

We could have cut a deal with the Taliban in 2001; we may need to now. Before more blood is spilt, NATO's political leaders should talk with the Taliban who controlled 90% of the country pre-9/11.

A US 'No Fly Zone' would project Imperial tranquility with-in a schematic borrowed from British imperial history; a step 'back to the future', towards the G-8 model of the balance of powers pre 9/11. To facilitate this the Americans have to recognise Russian control of her oil industry; just as congress blocked China from buying UNICOL the largest energy company in the world(US), the Russians are protecting their national interest, albeit with slight of hand and 'lawyering'.

A 'No Fly Zone' would facilitate an intelligence net and the ability for the US to project influence on the Taliban government; and to maintain their primacy with-out Al Qaeda or other forces. It would continue to fortify and stabilize the Northern Alliance, and with Russian help, ensure passivity along the northern border; bringing relative stability to the entire region.

We need to deal. The question is, do the Taliban still want to make a deal, now that they have us perplexed militarily? The road out will hurt more than the road in; but less than an unending counter-insurgency amongst an increasingly desperate civilian population.

We have to make a deal. With in a model that recognizes American primacy we can propose: give the Taliban power with-in a new US hegemony that recognizes the strategic importance of the northern frontier and the impropriety of tolerating Al Qaeda's presence. This would serve all the demands of Bush's' 'war on terrorism' and the underlying strategic objective: an stable oil pipe-line corridor to Turkey.

One problem with this plan is that the Northern Alliance and the Taliban were at war pre 9/11. The Taliban may have been involved in the assassination of the Alliances top field commander, Ahmed Shah Masood. But the reality of the situation is that they would have no choice but to accept the power. Undoubtedly they would display a genuine front while perusing other agenda. This is standard when empires try to project their will.

All this speaks to the complex inter-dependencies present, in the largest Geo-political sense. Canada with its vast oil and gas reserves, has very little interest in any of these machinations, aside from one.

We need another assembly line at the Oakville Car Plant. In jest of coarse, but it represents a critical part of our Strategic National Interest. The basis of the post war affluence in Canada was the Auto-Pact. Canada traded leading Jet technology and expertise to the Americans for a share in the American automobile market and other things. This guaranteed Canada's post war affluence; and Americas primacy in air power and space power.

If we continued the "head in the sand", Jean Chretien strategy of doing as little as possible while continually telling the Americans they're too loud, the USA might restrict trade with-in a post 9/11 xenophobic reaction.

American protectionism is not on the political front burner right now in Washington, instead it's been over shadowed by a ugly drift towards persecution of non-citizens, witnessed by the massive Latino demonstrations around the still stalled immigration bill. Illuminating just how important citizenship has become to protecting ones self from both real and perceived new anti-terrorism powers of the state.

60% of Americans polled think their army should be out of the Iraq debacle. They can hardly be vitriolic now if we suggest a different coarse. In fact we might be their best friends again by 2008. We should lead and innovate now, be the honest broker.

This congressional election year, the Whitehouse is easing up on the rhetoric and is trying to look more conciliatory. Surrounded by litigation and corruption scandals all around, and a quagmire in Iraq, the administration might be willing to talk.

Lets make a deal!





mh

Hill 145 & The Pimple

Originally published 11/11/06; Updated, 04/09/07, with new links!



General Arthur Currie

After 3 years of carnage, where the life-blood of entire generations from four continents was left in the soil of Europe, someone on the front lines was given real power to realize a plan that hopefully would see the Allies out of four years of senseless death. That person was Canadian General Arthur Currie and his plan was one the first sign of no front warfare.

(with help from: senior commander, Field marshal, Douglas Haig and Field Marshal Third Army, Julian Byng. It is important to note that after this battle Currie took over Byng's job, as Byng was shuffled up the ladder of success. Currie was the first Canadian Commander of the Canadian Corps.)

Curries plan was the logical progression of the ever increasing complexity of modern war but most inportantly a recognition of how artillary and machine gun had forced tactics to change.

'The Pimple' is the name given to the high ground upon which the German artillery dominants the great plain around Passchendaele just beyond Ypres. Hill 145, just to south, and in range of the Pimple, must be taken at the same time.

The soldiers who would be going over the top were informed of the details of the attsck and trained for weeks. On actual sized layouts of enemy positions, drawn on the ground from maps drawn by special forces and aircraft photography. A new tactic soildiers really liked, was going over the top in small lines, in sections, rather than as a line to be cut down like wheat to a silth of machine gun fire. They trained to walk slowly at an even pace under fire. For as they walked out into no mans land the morning of the attack, behind them, the guns would be sounding and in front of them a curtain of death,artillery, softening up the enemy and cutting. The Canadians were to walk calmly into this hell pacing like the zombees in 'Night of the Living Dead'.

By the end of the day, special forces on both hills are successful - but with horrendous loses (compaired with modern tactics) - and Canadians hold both hills. The fast pre-planned advance through the centre begins. Now the giant machine, Nye a CITY, the size of present day Vancouver, lurches to life, a collasal juergauraut. Forward, to exploit the opening, it moves 4.5 miles the first day, the largest single advance by either side since the first summer, 1914.

It was a template of war to come; at the end of this war, that was to ended by mutual exhaustion, rather than by victory by an army.

Currie created a mammoth information gathering and dissemination system, and supply infrastructure that looked like a modern government bureaucracy. Planners integrated real-time statistical information into battle plan. Like a coiled steel snake about to strike, it was designed to move quickly and powerfully in a synchronised fashion. It was designed not only to win battles but exploit them with powerful, rapid advances. This was one of the first successful examples of what later became known as Combined Operations.

Currie probably borrowed from Field Marshal Alfred Graf von Schlieffen; who's battle plan was the opening act of this war. More importantly I think, is Currie's first hand knowledge of the effects of artillery and machine guns on soldiers that was key to his success.

One of the flanks in this battle, we remember as Flanders Fields. It's where the beautiful poem comes from, from where the Remembrance Day Poppies come from. It was the first battle in the First World War where the Lines moved Miles rather than Yards. It was the beginning of the next wars; Blitzkrieg, Asymmetric warfare, Combined Operations.

No credit to the Canadian Military hierarchy, they buried Currie after the war. Thankfully we re-learned his lessons in time to contribute in the victory over Fascist Germany, in the second go around, called WWII.

If your a soldier in the Canadian Forces now, this should be required reading.

Links:

For King And Empire -a Great documentary, great web site, great maps!

Canadian Government Archives: War Diaries -original sources!

The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation - West Points leading edge theory

( http://www.censol.ca/research/greatwar/links.htm )



mh

" Run And Tell All Of The Angels, Every Things Gonna Be Alright. "

Run and tell all of the angels every things gonna be alright.

Every stupidity that can happen to a Empire, is happening. Don't worry Everyone, the predicted Stumble has occurred. This column is intended to detail each and every insane empiric policy direction I can see.

The reality is back, the G-8 paradigm, the North/South dialog thing and the Extra G-8 negotiation. The negotiation that sets the ground work for the real, the negotiated New World Order.

TALKING is in, weather one likes it or not.

At the same time, new democrat law makers, finding themselves replacing Old Pork-Barrelers in Congress next month should pass laws to DE-fang the shadow air force; and especially Naval Intelligence Black-Ops, evidenced in the Congressional Iran/Contra investigation(please try to find the TEXT online, I could not). Here is a round-up of what Global Security.org said in 1994. Walsh is the Independent Counsel assigned by Congress:

U.S. OPINION: WALSH REPORT ON IRAN-CONTRA (Roundup of newspaper columns) (1070) Columnists and other opinion-writers are commenting editorially on independent counsel Lawrence Walsh's final report on the "Iran-Contra" affair -- the covert plan in the mid-1980's (allegedly supported by the Reagan White House) to sell arms to Iran and divert the proceeds to the "contra" rebels in Nicaragua, assistance to whom had been banned by Congress. The Walsh report was released on January 18, 1994. Following are excerpts from some of those columns:

(BEGIN EXCERPTS) THE NEW YORK TIMES, PETER KORNBLUTH AND MALCOLM BYRNE (CO-EDITORS OF "IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL: THE DECLASSIFIED HISTORY"):

...Mr. Walsh's report...makes clear that (Reagan administration officials) did indeed have much to hide. Once and for all the Walsh report dispels the carefully cultivated mythology surrounding the scandal, which involved illegal sales of arms to Iran, diversion of funds from these sales to finance the Nicaraguan contras and a cover-up to conceal the entire affair.

...It sheds light on serious flaws in our system...which allowed a constitutional crisis to occur and which remain unresolved. The report notes, in particular, the inadequacy of the 1987 Congressional investigation....

The report sets the record straight on the major players in the scandal. -- On Ronald Reagan: The report contradicts the popular image of a disengaged President misled by those around him. Mr. Walsh's investigators conclude that Mr. Reagan "created the conditions which made possible the crimes committed by others in his Administration," and "permitted the creation of a false account of the Iran arms sales to be disseminated to members of Congress and the American people."


The Cuckolding of this shadow power should be future Presidents up most priority. The continuance of the republic is at stake; as Special Operations are now able to wag-the-dog, here at home.

Canadian democrat's should be taking a leadership role in a re-definition of NATO with a mind to this new functioning. We can spin with the best of them, in fact we invented the post modern version of it as I'm sure your all aware. Our government helped invent the management, theory and practice of advanced societal Macro-Engineering. Check out Marshall McLuhans work and where it leads: on the one hand, MITs open source Internet world and Stanford's social experiments and the Military funded McGill LSD trial. In 1940 Britain copied the entire Empire bureaucracy in Ottawa, we mirrored it in our own war production and post war economy. See C.D.Howe, 1945.

Afghanistan is the First Counter Insurgency NATO has ever done, we are GREENING our troops so that they can become the sergeants of the next, larger contingent of Canadian Forces, apparently fighting for American Peace; or is it for Empire?

We should have learned our lesson in WWI, Empire is Foley.

Thankfully, War is Becoming More Democratic

Warfare is becoming more Democratic. Cities are now targets in "legal" war.


A revolution in gun metal technology in the 1800's created trench warfare. A later revolution in mechanization got soldiers out of the trenches and onto the roads. It became understood that speed and combined operations were paramount in avoiding an intolerable loss of soldiers inherent in trench war. Air power introduced a new vector into this functioning. Soon factories in cities became targets. In another quick-step of logic, the city itself becomes a legitimate target. Now a myriad of destructive agents, and delivery vectors are available - the bulk of which target cities.

As the technology of warfare achieved a thoroughness that is known as total war, the experience of it is being shared by more and more people. Since photographs of war were first displayed(Washington,1861), the experience of war has become ubiquitous.

Before these technological innovations, wars were fought between armies on battle fields. Sometimes armies siege cities or did battle in cities, but the city itself was not the primary target, the army with-in it was. Since WW II, the city itself has become an important target.

Cities account for 90% of populations in 'First-world' economies, 10% are 'on the land'. Chinese plans forecast that during the current modernization, a population shift of 300 million people will take place. The majority of humans will soon be resident of cities, targets in 'legal' war.

The economist Karl Polanyi talked of how technology 'dis embeds' itself from the society that created it. In other words, advances in the technology constantly challenge the previous cultural construct negotiated in the previous cultural/technological paradigm.

The technological advances in warfare have brought us to a fundamental contradiction with in a Polanyian' model. The technology of warfare like all technology is dis embedding, but unlike other technological eras, the ultimate effect of this dis embedding could be the total destruction of the civilization that created it.

On the other hand, with this level of technology comes the World Wide Web, the infrastructure of direct democracy. "The Rights of Man", liberty, property, security, and the opportunity to resist oppression(the pursuit of happiness), are intricately linked to the functioning of a modern economy. The inter-connectivity of the modern post-industrial society paves the way for advances towards direct democracy.

So different elements of the current technological Diaspora are dis embedding at different rates. The innovative manipulation of communications technology in a truly mass scale is creating a hooking function, where-in two objects with different vectors pass each other, one hooks on altering the vectors of both. Or as in this example, slowing the dis embedding of technology and speeding the cultural adaptation to it.

This is expressed in our time by a qualitatively New Left.

The explosion of the Seattle Movement that 'came out of nowhere' was the first truly mass virtual Movement. It did not come 'out of nowhere' though, it came from the www; e-mail organizing, web paging and faxing, and connected by mobile phone technology.

Next, the World Wide Peace Movement showed up, marked by world wide demonstrations in 2003 around the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. The movement choose the best slogans in an Internet 'fashion show' of ideas in art, a design process that took place in communities from around the world. There was no edict issued from any where, people just choose what art-work best expressed what they felt. Advertising in reverse I guess you could say.

The speed at which the 9/11 Truth Movement has reached 'critical mass' is astonishing. Fueled by lap top movie making and distribution, they have collectively/independently created a sub-culture of dissent, a 'buzz' that marketers salivate for is mushrooming out of the American diaspora.

A revolution in the Democratic Party is an on going development. Go to 'Daily Kos.com' to take a warm bath in it.

So, war is becoming more democratic; and so is the civilization that created it. The question is: Will the culture be able to 'catch' the quickly dis embedding military industrial complex? Can the information revolution change the repeating algorithm before it destroys its creator?

It sounds like the outline for a Godzilla movie.

" Mothra! Please help. "

WWIII: An Oil-Centric View.

"Americans are paying $3.00 a gallon," I heard someone say, "in Europe they've been paying $4.00 a gallon for years."

WHY?

Europe was reconstructed, post-WWII, with a built-in high gasoline price structure - to reflect the relative value of the European economy to the rest of the world. Europe was re-building after total destruction.

$4.00 a gallon expresses the value of the regions' economy relative to the American economy at $1.00 a gallon(in our recent past experience).

The victors of WWII(August,1945) had to tie the American dollar to something tangible the real world. They announced the price they would pay for oil, a world price. At the same time they tied the value of the American dollar to the value of a barrel of oil ($35 American = 45 gallons of oil).

They could do this because they were the biggest buyers and they owned the most aircraft carriers.

They set the price low, and they wanted all they could get. Caveat emptor though: if supplies are curtailed the USA would consider that an Act of War. The fact that the US could declare this to be - and have it stick - was the Final Victory of WWII. The USA was the Empire du jour, if she choose that enterprise.

Four years later the world changed. The USSR, a country with the most men in uniform at the time, (5 million) achieved nuclear capability and rocketry. They thus became a De-facto Super Power along with China - shortly there after. The nuclear 'club' has expanded ever since.

The true value of nuclear weapons appears to be coming under some question though: China has said they believe the nuclear threat is that of a Paper Tiger. Apparently it is so; conventional proxy wars continue today as before, through the end of the so called 'Cold' war.

In 1999 real American debt was so high, its value was in question. A result of a concerted effort towards global dominance. This amounted to a revolution in world power. American power was no longer 'Super' with out the balancing terror of the opposite force.

The catalyst for this destabilization was China's new demand for oil which is in the process of changing the balance of power in the world. The relative rarity of the commodity is causing price fluctuations. Instead of a duality (two super-powers) we face an algorithm involving seven power centers: USA, UE, UK, Russia, China, India and Brazil.


This thing, it should not be spoken, least it be believed.


The US could not allow this to happen; firstly because of their incredible foreign debt, the cost of financing it would sky-rocket and hobble the economy; Secondly, it wasn't true , the US economy remained the most efficient and productive, and the largest by double.

One solution was to break OPEC's monopoly through conquest. Another has been the creation of a speculative price bubble, which oil companies and corporate banks are trying to maintain right now - to ensure a stable High-Oil price; since they can no longer maintain the Cheap-Oil model. A retreat for future gains.

The new players in the post cold war era are supporting the insurgency in Iraq. They hope to stale-mate the Bush Whitehouse's conquest plan, and use it as leverage, covertly, not publicly - as that would be an act of war they cannot win. They are forcing the Americans to address a realignment of power with-in a new international political reality.

Politics through the barrel of a gun. A proxy war in Iraq between the same old powers(and some new ones) who involved themselves in the last two world wars, this time with Arab civilians and coalition volunteers as fodder. Now we see the reason there had to be a 9/11 pretext; The politics of fear and greed. There was no reason that this realignment needed be violent, except by an ascension to power of a Military Industrial/Political alliance in Washington.

The disgraced Neo-Con politician, and deep thinker Newt Gingridge said, as we watched Israeli air power in July 2006, "WWIII has begun."

I love this guy!

Couldn't have said it better.













Newt Gingridge

Economist, J.K.Galbraith Offers Lessons from the Terror Bombings of WWII.

Total war, as we're seeing in Lebanon, includes Strategic Bombing.

In that the Israeli tactics are not an appropriate response to what is not a critical threat to the country, it is a war crime.

Photo: Reuters

During the London Blitz in 1940-41, 43,000 people lost there lives. Out of this came the Area-bombing of German cities, an attempt to derail the Nazi war machine. We should have no illusions, destroying the war capability of the Nazis from the air meant destroying factories and transportation networks. Around these factories and roads and train tracks live the people who work them. This was the first lesson in the horrors of Air Power.

But it went further than that. As the tide began to turn; as the allies began to develop fighter escorts that could fly deep behind German lines, the thinking changed. Area bombing of German cities came to be seen as a second front that our Soviet allies had been begging for.In the Strategic Bombing Survey, economist J.K.Galbraith determined 300.000 German civilians were killed and 750.000 were injured in the area bombing campaign. 73 million died on both sides in the war over all in only 5 years of world war. Air Power meant Mass Death.

The tactic should be considered a war crime. If We all could vote on it I'm sure the remaining voters would pass the law.

In 1945, a different kind of mass death was designed and tried on Dresden. A non-industrial city full of refugees and wounded, a city of the arts and culture. With no warning, Strategic Bomber Command immolated the entire city in a raid in two horrendous waves. All those who didn't leave before, before.. Before they would never. Estimates go as high as 200,000 civilians killed. The British, choose 45,000 dead. As I am a Canadian, I must report a conflict of interest - roughly half of those sorties were flown by Canadians.(this is based on a break down of nationalities of pilots in the RAF at the time.)

"We're all sons-of-a-bitches now", the nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer said. He was commenting after viewing the 'results' of the Strategic nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, August 6,1945.

If there's no good guys any more then I'm afraid the gig is up. We cannot choose total war and throw out civilization. There must be limits, therefore the UN should pass a resolution against the use of area bombing. It is state terror, and thus President George.W. Bush's representative Mr. Bolton should lead the way.

"But were not aiming at the houses." goes the familiar refrain nowadays, "And we have smart bombs!". Smart bombs are great for taking out infrastructure as a precursor to invasion, or to decapitate the enemy's command.

But what of this vengeful flattening of cities? Stalingrad showed us that razing the place doesn't avoid the street to street fighting all generals want to avoid; the enemy actually ends up with better cover. It has no purpose other than terror, to clog the roads with refugees, which disrupts enemy maneuvers. If this is not a crime, watch the starvation now beginning in Lebanon, watch how it asymmetrically plays on TV.

It's been book since WWII, to neutralize a strongly defended city that would slow down your fast advance go around it, and siege it so it doesn't get out and crawl up your back. This is no picnic for non-combatants either, but at least it leaves an opportunity for escape, or to negotiate a walking exit, before the artillery starts. This window for civilians should be standard operating procedure. After all that's what we're fighting for isn't it, the ones we leave behind at HOME?

In April 2004 a large part of the city of Fallujah, Iraq was flattened with air power and artillery.

Read the link RAHUL MAHAJAN. He's lucky to be alive, they drove right into a free fire zone controlled by the insurgency. Luck, just plain luck.

The siege of the city started slowly and built for two weeks. First the US commander turned off the electricity. What he was saying was, "Go now."; Now, no water, "GO!"; Road blocks choke the food supply, "GO!!". But now incompetence (or worse), there were mixed messages at the road blocks. Some US forces weren't letting people out!

The word must have spread like wild-fire with in the dying city, forcing innocents to make choices about their lives and the lives of their children, choices they didn't need to make!

The local insurgency adapted in the horror and came back a month later, more professional and disciplined in organization and tactics, and perhaps in numbers too.

Area bombing doesn't work as a tool of counter insurgency. Check out the British Empires experience in India.

I can hear King George W. Bush the ll, somewhere down the road to the New American Century codify, "We will have a free and democratic world empire, even if we have to kill all the voters and destroy all the institutions to do it!"

As J.K.Galbraith said, concerning allied area bombing during WWII, "random cruelty and death inflicted from the sky had no appreciable effect on war production or the war."

You can't bring enlightenment with random death. You can't get oil from blood. You can't win friends with shrapnel (sung to 'The Simpson's tune, "You can't make friends with sal-ad").

Israel's tactics seem confused, unless their headed for Damascus

What's being spun in the media with regards to Israeli tactics(or lack there of) in south Lebanon paints them as red faced Zealot kicking some butt in response to the killing and kidnapping of several of it's soldiers. Because smashing things around the house isn't stemming the rage, like a rage-aholic, first it's the dishes, then the walls, now an assault.

This view appeals to everyone concerned; it reflects a adolescent reaction seen amongst the ignorant; Western media eat it up because it's an simple story confused busy western voters haven't time for depth.

For Iran and Syria, thinking of their enemy as confused or insane provides them a convenient rationalization to avoid thinking a regional war might be at hand, and thus preparing for it.

If one wanted to take Damascus a number of 'musts' exist; Firstly, ensure the war doesn't leak out of the immediate area, Israel, Lebanon, Syria. Secondly, the Syrian Army must be drawn to a fight and its mechanized capability destroyed, preferably in the Syrian desert. Thirdly US forces must end up in control of Damascus when the fighting stops.

To accomplish this, imagine a 'hard cup' southwest of Damascus, accompanied by a small operation to secure the Turkish boarder to the north; an advance on the centre by a large creeping force, and a fast main force that slices along the Jordanian boarder, completing the encirclement of Damascus.

What caught my interest today was the fighting in Ba'labbak. With-in this plan the city represents the northern arch of that 'hard cup'.


UPDATE: August 9, 2006 Thinking the same thing at Anti-war.com, 7 days later, no connection.

Also, check my link from the article to the opinion of Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. He thinks the best way to stabilize Iraq is disengagement. With in this plan US forces would withdraw to US bases inside Iraq. Using air power and special operations commandos US commanders could create a 'Balance of Tensions' inside Iraq. This frees US forces to then 'stabilize' other regional players; like Syria and Iran.



mh

Our troops stand point for the Empire in Afghanistan, Is US Theater Command putting them at Risk?

War is like a conversation.

Canadian troops are engaged in rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. We're cutting deals and developing grass roots intelligence. Sometimes out of the ditch crawls a fascist, he hits us and we hit him back. The situation remains neutral, we control the roads and trade or at least the enemy does not.

Then we get involved in a combined operation with Coalition Forces, and speaking on Our channel, in Our Command Region, they communicate a message with air power, and 70 civilians are dead (US numbers).

We are reminded of the friendly-fire incident last year, where in 4 soldiers died and many more were injured.

Canadian operations should focus on Combined Canadian Operations not integrated operations, where we try to mesh with another nations Military.

Its like going to a club, all dressed up - with a psycho. Things are going great, then buddy... ..we've all been there.

The Canadian government should negotiate a Canadian Air Command around Kandahar. We can talk for ourselves, and by the look of it, we need to.