Hillblogger 3

Go, Roger Federer, go! UPDATED

2009-07-05T03:46:00.008+02:00

UPDATE It's over! Roger Federer, the greatest tennis player of all time... The whole match was touch and go with Andy Roddick, a truly worthy Wimbledon finalist, giving it all he got but after four hours and 17 minutes of play, Federer, ever a true champion, made the difference! Final score: 5-7 7-6 (8-6) 7-6 (7-5) 3-6 16-14...

oooOooo

After spending a great part of the afternoon watching the Williams sisters battle in the Wimbledon Women's Finals and then the women's doubles that saw the Williams sisters triumph one more time, will be glued to TV again this Sunday to watch Roddick v Federer Wimbledon Men's Finals 2009 -- and I'm batting for Roger!

Pre-4th of July celebration in Brussels

2009-07-03T03:37:00.005+02:00

Pre-4th of July celebration organised by the American Chamber of Commerce today Friday... Golf! Teeing off at mid-day with some NATO buddies.

Now, that's the best TGIF affair of the month...

Michael Jackson is dead reports CNN

2009-06-26T00:54:00.026+02:00

Have just tuned in on CNN virtually this instant. Shocking news... Michael Jackson, iconic pop star has died.

The Jackson 5 was the first LP album I owned as a pre-teen, a gift from my older sister, and I remember being absolutely awed by the boy -- literally a young boy, barely older than me, who was the lead singer of the band. I've been a fan of Michael Jackson since then. His haunting rendition of the movie soundtrack "Ben" was virtuoso performance!

My children knew about him even before they learned to read or write as they discovered his music over the years via my "walkman" and his video clips on TV... They too became fans of Michael Jackson.

Sad to learn that an amazing entertainer of your generation, an extraordinary singer and dazzling performer, someone who you practically "grew up" with, has died.

Link: "Thriller" on YouTube

International Paris Air Show at Le Bourget 2009

2009-06-13T22:25:00.010+02:00

Will be off for a few days beginning on Monday to attend the Paris-Le Bourget Air Show.

Links here and here.

Last air show's pic gallery here -- to view last show's video library, click here .

British fascist party leader whines after being pelted with eggs!

2009-06-09T23:35:00.008+02:00

This is the funniest story today: BNP leader pelted with eggs at Parliament

Nick Griffin, chief of British National Party and his fellow party lister Andrew Brons, were pelted with eggs by about 100 anti-fascism protesters at a planned press conference outside of the House of Parliament. Hah!

Griffing began to whine and moan after he was struck with eggs:

“The problem is, why aren't the police prosecuting these people? What journalists need to be asking is who is doing this, who is behind this, and they need to be asking the Labour Party why they are backing people who are using violence against legitimately elected political representatives.

“The next time they could throw a brick. The police were there today and they stood by and did nothing.”

The extreme right-wing BNP, which is reviled by mainstream political parties, has just won two seats in the recent European Parliamentary elections.

Well, well...I don't know if they can do anything substantial with their two seats in the EU. But I can very well imagine Griffin and Brons, who can be aptly described as rightful heirs to Genhgis Khan's right flank generals, will be able to play their sieg heil clown tricks before a very large and select audience in Brussels.

Pictures: Griffin attacked

Labour in-fighting opens door for BNP racists‎

D DAY

2009-06-06T15:33:00.006+02:00

Today we commerate the landing of Allied Forces on the beaches of Normandy to liberate France and Europe from German Nazi occupation during WWII.

President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, His Royal Highness Prince Charles and President Nicolas Sarkozy are at this moment paying homage to the young heroes who died and to the survivors.

I captured some TV images of the commerations and will post them later on.

UPDATE: As promised, here are the TV images I captured on D Day!

French-bashing Charles Bremner's jab at the French Rafale (w/UPDATE on his French snub of UK Royals cock and bull story)

2009-06-02T02:48:00.037+02:00

Charles Bremner (shown), The Times' in-country French basher has not disappointed. If you have been reading Bremner for as long as I have and seen through his prodigiously insidious summation of everything French, you will not fail to see the clever way he disguises his contempt for the French and things French.

Like any clever dick, er word hack, Bremner could fool you with his journalistic jingoisms -- seemingly factual but after a closer scrutiny, i.e., if you read between the lines, his "reporting" is often peppered with double entrendre, i.e., half malicious insinuations, which he plays to the hilt for the benefit of his adoring regular commenters (blogger here exempted).

In fact, Bremner will report -- and I suspect quite gleefully -- on anything that would attract the hungry pack of anti-French wolverines just like when he published a full-length article based on a piece by British smutty tabloid Daily Mail. And on the basis of that unverified report, Bremner opines:

In other words, this looks like a mess, another case of Sarkozy over-reaching and putting up backs with his self-promotion.

Which he followed with this self-righteous , anti-Sarkozy salvo:

Sarkozy should have known that D-Day, in which 73,000 British forces came ashore, is as sacred to the British as the Americans. Some might have told him that he would court trouble by trying to mark the 65th anniversary without them.

In his latest blog, Bremner, a Scottish-Australian employed by Rupert Murdoch, even manages to insert an inane comment about the French Rafale fighter aircraft by way of concluding his article when he actually was writing about Paris giving up pedestrian speedways, and I quote:

A modern example is the Rafale, the latest jet fighter from the Dassault company. No foreign customer has been found yet for a beautiful aircraft that has been flying with the French navy and air force since 2000. Potential customers deem the ultra-agile plane, which cost 27 billion euros to develop, to be too sophisticated and expensive for real-life service.

Ah... but that is my turf and so, I'd like to know the basis of his assertion. Did he actually interview "potential customers"? If so, could he name them? I have a suspicion that Bremner is making it up. There's more to the no foreign sale of Rafale than meets the eye and Bremner is the last person Rafale and its "potential customers" will inform or confide in on the whys or the why nots in matters of defence sales or acquisitions.

I don't know if Bremner will publish his reply to my questions which are still under moderation.

Anyway, as I've said in another post, CB's 'critiques' of the French, including the one you said he did is part and parcel of his job -- if he writes negative things about the French and France, he has to do it -- it's his bread and butter. Besides he works for Murdoch and Murdoch is not enamoured of the French (nor of the Brits for that matter.)

Here's an August 2008 news report featuring a combat simulation between France's Rafale and US F-16 that took place in Arizona.

The result of the contest was unequivocal victory for France: Six F-16s "shot down" against two Rafales.

UPDATE!

Meanwhile, Charles Bremner's report on the French snubbing HM the Queen appears to be nothing but a cock and bull story.

The Independent has just come up with a story of their own: 'Why the truth is a casualty of war in the battle of Obama beach' (H/T Old Frog in SuperFrenchie Forum) debunking willfull journalistic misrepresentations that have been printed on the so-called French snub of the UK Royals.

In the history of British bloody-mindedness, "Obama Beach" is one of the greatest calamities. Rarely have so many people been sent all verbal guns blazing into an all-out assault on a scandal whose basic facts have been so wilfully misrepresented.

False fact one: The French have "snubbed" the Queen by failing to invite her to celebrate the 65th anniversary of D-Day on Saturday. President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy will attend an "international ceremony" but not the British/Canadian head of state.

False fact two: The British government, and diplomatic service, have behaved despicably because they failed to ensure that the Queen was sent an invitation by the French.

False fact three: The French government has traduced the memory of British and Canadian troops – more then half of the forces engaged on 6 June 1944 – by describing D-Day as "mainly a Franco-American affair."

None of these "facts" are true. The history of the celebrations of the 65th anniversary of D-Day is a history of cock-ups, false-starts and changed minds by the British Government (Obama Beach mirrors Omaha beach to that extent.)

Full article here.

Clearly, Bremner's Sarkozy upsets British with Obama D-Day visit article was, as we say in French, not "info" but "intox" he designed for the consumption of his credulous French-bashing fan base. The man is simply incorrigible...

NB: I have posted a comment in the above Bremner article telling Mr Bremner that his readers deserved an apology for the innuendoes and for having wittingly fanned the flames of anti-French sentiment once again. Let's see if he publishes my comment or replies to it.

Sunset in Le Courégant, Morbihan

2009-05-30T00:00:00.015+02:00

I love sunsets... they're magical. Here are some pictures I took of a sunset view in Le Courégant in Morbihan, in southwestern Brittany, a province located in northwestern France.

More pics here

Has America finally acknowledged her role in "empowering" the Talibans?

2009-05-26T10:42:00.016+02:00

If we were to go by what Hilary Clinton has been saying (watch You Tube video below, H/T Marina Mahathir), America indeed has acknowledged her role in empowering the Talibans, and by extension, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

Stalwarts of the US Republican Party seem to have been suffering from memory loss these last few years but this space has never forgotten that the rise of the Talibans in the terrorism power realm was a result of America's aggressive, almost vindicative but short-sighted forward defence policy that was a cornerstone of the Reagan administration.

There is reason to believe that the short sighted approach that was America's, in her ardent desire to defeat the Russians at all costs, inevitably led to the formation of a fundamentalist-extremist terrorism oriented movement inspired by the Talibans, the Al Qaeda.

There were two real major factions in Afghanistan fighting against Russia's occupation of the country in the late 70s until the late 80s, the Talibans and the Northern Alliance. America supported and heavily funded the Talibans and encouraged the recruitment of fighters from fundamentally Islamist countries.

France, on the other hand, was supporting, financing and advising the Northern Alliance, led by Ahmed Shah Masoud (shown ), popularly known as the “The Lion of Panjshir” and who, incidentally, received part of his formal education in a French school in Kabul. The coalition eventually became the West's real major ally in the run up to America's war against the Talibans.

The rest is history -- the Talibans turned against America leading to the infamous 9/11.

Recommended read: Washington dismissed Massoud warnings about 9/11

On Aug. 6, while on vacation in Crawford, Texas, Bush was given a PDP, this one on the possibility of al-Qaeda attacks in the U.S. And not one but two FBI field offices had inklings of al-Qaeda activity in the U.S. that, had they been aggressively pursued, might have fleshed out the intelligence chatter about an upcoming attack. But the systemic weaknesses in the FBI's bureaucracy prevented anything from being done.

Recommended read: Examining the U.S. foreign policy missteps leading up to 9/11

Recommended read: French Intelligence Timeline

Recommended read: Complete 9/11 Timeline

More on the “The Lion of Panjshir” here and here

European Parliamentary Elections 2009

2009-05-26T01:45:00.012+02:00

European Parliament elections in the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) will be held between 4 and 7 June 2009 (7 June in France).

Billed as the biggest trans-national elections in history, 736 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will be elected to represent around 500 million Europeans .

This space will be watching the results in France and in the UK ... and will be batting for the candidates of UMP in France.

European Parliament apportionment for the 2009 European Parliament election:

Germany 99
France 72
Italy 72
United Kingdom^† 72
Spain 50
Poland 50
Romania 33
Netherlands 25
Belgium 22
Czech Republic 22
Greece 22
Hungary 22
Portugal 22
Sweden 18
Austria 17
Bulgaria 17
Finland 13
Denmark 13
Slovakia 13
Ireland 12
Lithuania 12
Latvia 8
Slovenia 7
Cyprus 6
Estonia 6
Luxembourg 6
Malta 5

TOTAL: 736 MEPs

Below were the results of the 2004 European Parliamentary in France or 5 years before the 2009 apportionement changes and the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania for the first time.

By all means, let a military tribunal try those prisoners claiming to be Al-Qaeda POWs

2009-05-15T13:05:00.007+02:00

Hottest news of the day:

President suspended hearings within hours of taking office but is to employ them for some detainees with new safeguards

The news blurb says:

While still on the campaign trail, Mr Obama denounced the military commission system as "flawed". He suspended them within hours of his inauguration in January, pending a review of the alternatives, and promised to close the detention camp on Cuba.

Administration officials confirmed yesterday that the new legal framework, to be used for the trials of only the most prominent a-Qaeda suspects now at Guantánamo Bay, would include restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence against detainees.
The revisions would also reportedly ban evidence obtained through coercion, such as waterboarding and other enhanced CIA interrogation techniques.
The move would affect, among others, five detainees charged with having played key roles in the attacks of September 11, 2001, including the plot’s self-proclaimed mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Hmm... I believe that with the new "safeguards" in place, the suspension of the military tribunals should indeed be cancelled in order to finally try these few prisoners whom I believe, claim to be prisoners of war. What was initially wrong was the summary detention, the abuses and the tortures on alleged Al-Qaeda terror suspects who, to compound the problem arising from a moral issue, had not been given access to legal defence counsel which should be a basic human right.

But this time around, I don't believe a trial by a military tribunal for those who claim to be prisoners of war poses any moral contradiction to the legal ethics that we all want applied.

Human rights activists should consider this: trial by military tribunal will give these prisoners the status they claim to have and is a step forward towards giving them the respect they've been clamouring. So, I really don't see any contradiction there nor anything wrong with Obama's decision to cancel the suspension of the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals.

So, is Roxana Saberi a spy or is she not a spy for the US?

2009-05-12T20:55:00.011+02:00

Same news but treated differently by two sources:

New York Times: Journalist's Release Reveals Divisions in Iran

TEHRAN — The release of an Iranian-American journalist imprisoned on charges of spying for the United States removes an obstacle to President Obama’s opening to Iran but illustrates the volatility of the Iranian government.

The Times: Jailed US journalist Roxana Saberi 'had secret document on war in Iraq

The American journalist Roxana Saberi was jailed for espionage in Tehran after obtaining a confidential Iranian document about the American invasion of Iraq, it was claimed today.

So, is she a spy or is she not a spy for the US?

I posted the following comments some three weeks ago in a fellow blogger's (An Average American Patriot) post that included subject Saberi.

I have no doubt that Ms Seberi is being used by Iran to show off and "to test" the new US administration.

I believe that Ms Seberi 'spied' for the US.

Iran's action is condemnable because I do think that she (Iran) did it for all the wrong reasons, i.e., to "test" the the waters, see how the Obama administration woud react, and of course, because of the perception that she (Iran) does things in very undemocratic, backward, medieval age fashion.

I think we all agree that had Iran been a democracy, this probably wouldn't have happened or if it had to, it wouldn't have been a cause célèbre.

But let's just back off a bit and see this from a different angle...

What if it were true that the lady journalist was spying for the US. It could very well be true -- there's nothing stopping her from doing it and I personally believe she could be spying for the US. (And I say that if she were, good on her! I applaud her!!!!)

If it were then true that she was spying for the US, Iran -- as undemocratic as she (Iran) is, as medieval-aged her laws may be, as backward her social system could be, has all the rights as a sovereign nation, despite what we think or make of their legal system, to punish spies.

To the Iranians, the journalist is Iranian and that's that. America would do the same thing to individuals who spy on its territory for other nations.

Obviously, the US, as protector of its citizens, has all the right to protest and rightly so!

However, someone wasn't buying the idea that Roxanne could be spying for the US, so I followed on:

Actually, there's nothing wrong with spying for your country if you can get away with it. Miss Saberi perhaps wasn't exactly a female James Bond but am pretty sure that she was a US "asset," an operative of some sort. US needs her kind inside Iran.

And truly, Mss Saberi must be aplauded if she was indeed doing it. Takes guts, nerve, all sorts of things to do things for America.

We mustn't forget that America has "spies", "assets", intelligence operatives all over the world, even in countries that are traditional allies, eg., industrial spies, technology spies, etc., and not exactly wearing a uniform (just go to NATO land and you might just spot them!!!).

It's all part and parcel of how you keep the US dominant spirit alive and well (in a manner of speaking).

But let's not delude ourselves into believing that Ms Saberi was an entirely innocent victim who happened to have caught the ire of the Iranians.

Iraq and Abu Ghraib prison "abuses": Re-visiting The General's Report

2009-05-12T01:55:00.008+02:00

Attempts to redeem the Bush presidency for potential war crimes in Iraq will fail and the moral turpitude that is Condoleeza Rice will not go away for as long as The General's Report on the Bush presidency's violations of the Convention against Torture is on record for the world to see.

It's been almost two years since the New Yorker published a comprehensive article on former US Army Major General Antonio M Taguba (shown) detailing the official environment in which the general attempted to tell the truth about US military torture of Iraqi prisoners to his superiors but was instead blamed and 'repulsed.' (H/T Uniffors)

“Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”

On national responsibility, the Geneva Convention declares:

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949 . The United States is one of the key signatories to the Convention. The general provisions of the convention were entered into force on 21 October 1950.

A few US Army's lil Indians involved in the Abu Ghraib torture of Iraqi prisoners were punished but DoD and US military topside? No way! Command responsibility be damned!

President Bush announced bombastically in Panama in 2005: "We do not torture!" Oh yeah?

Asked whether Cheney was guilty of a war crime, Col. Wilkerson [top miilitary aide to then Sec Colin Powell] said the vice president's actions were certainly a domestic crime and, he would suspect, “an international crime as well.” 9 Wilkerson says his charges are based on an “audit trail” he prepared for Secretary Powell, including government memoranda and reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

America must realise and must recognise that she cannot and mustn't do to prisoners what she wouldn't want done to American prisoners elsewhere. Torture is torture -- it is illegal under US laws and international laws, a violation of the Geneva Convention, and no use of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld euphemism, i.e., "enhanced interrogation techniques", will or can change that.

Is Britain the new Sick Man of Europe? CER article says so!

2009-05-11T15:05:00.008+02:00

An article in the Centre for European Reform (CER) that attempts to compare Britain and France economic status today.

Are the British the new French?
by Simon Tilford, 5 May 2009

The British tend to deride France as a hopelessly statist, anti-entrepreneurial country full of bolshie workers intent on extracting a disproportionate rewards for their labour and a state too weak to resist them. This characterisation is not wholly inaccurate. But the implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption is that the UK is everything that France is not. This is not the case.

In some respects, Britain now looks worse than France. For all its faults, France produces good public services and decent social outcomes, such as relatively low levels of poverty and high overall skills levels. Britain, by contrast, now combines a very big state, patchy public services, generally poor social outcomes and increasing barriers to wealth creation. This is a poisonous mixture. The situation can be rescued, but not without breaking some eggs.

The figures are arresting. Britain has gone from having one of the smallest states in the EU to one of the largest. In 2000, public spending accounted for 37% of GDP in the UK, just three percentage points above the US and a full 15 percentage points below France. By 2010 the OECD estimates that state spending will account for 49% of GDP in Britain, against 53% in France (52% in famously high-spending Sweden). Britain has already overtaken Germany and the Netherlands (44% and 46% respectively).

This unprecedented expansion of the British state would be less of problem if the UK now had Scandinavian (or even French) levels of public services or first-rate physical infrastructure. But improvements in British public services over the last ten years have been nowhere near big enough to justify the increase in expenditure. Most of the money has gone on increased employment and wages, rather than improvements in services. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the stranglehold that the unions have on the public sector, productivity has stagnated.

It is also notable that Britain’s welfare-state is not comparable to that of Germany or the Netherlands, let alone France or Sweden. Unlike in these countries, many of the ordinary Britons currently losing their jobs will receive only derisory sums in unemployment benefits because these are means-tested. And only a forensic scientist could spot significant improvements in the country’s physical infrastructure. Britain’s roads remain as congested as ever and its railways expensive and unreliable.

Of course, the tax burden in the UK is still lower than in France. In 2008, taxes accounted for 49% of GDP in France compared to just 42% in Britain. But the gap between tax and expenditure in Britain is completely unsustainable, given the parlous state of the country’s public finances. How it is closed will to a large extent determine Britain’s economic prospects. If the gap is bridged by cutting expenditure, the UK stands a chance of returning to a relatively strong growth path. But if it is closed primarily through increased taxes, Britain will have a bleak future. The tax burden will be among the highest in the OECD, but public services (and the country’s social outcomes) will be nowhere near good enough to justify the tax take. In short, Britain will have Scandinavian levels of taxation and American levels of public services and social welfare.

The Labour party is poorly placed to sort out this mess because of its close links to the public sector unions. Under Labour the public sector has become a privileged class that is impervious to change and reform. By way of illustration, public sector wages are currently rising by close to 4% a year at a time of economic crisis. And this despite the fact that public workers are on average better paid than their private sector counterparts and enjoy generous pension entitlements. What about the country’s physical infrastructure? On the government’s forecasts, public investment will halve over the next 4 years. In fact, the only significant cuts the government intends to make are to investment.

The Tories stand a better chance of taking on entrenched public sector vested interests, but it will be a battle. Moreover, they will need to avoid the mistakes of the 1980s when they reduced spending by cutting services and investment rather than by increasing public sector efficiency. If they do this again, UK taxes will remain very high relative to what those taxes deliver in terms of services.

Britain still has strengths, of course. It is straightforward to set up a business in the UK and the labour market remains flexible. But overall Britain looks increasingly like one of the sick men of Europe, and certainly as sick as France. The French state is an efficient provider of services and quasi-state institutions construct and manage first-rate physical infrastructure. France, unlike Britain, has bitten the bullet on public pensions, increasing the retirement age to 65. The French have no qualms about allowing private companies to provide healthcare. Even the Tories do not appear to have the stomach for dismantling the NHS’s near monopoly on the provision of public healthcare.

The British need to get over the idea that they took all the difficult decisions in the 1980s and that Britain is an example for others to follow. It has a huge state, yet has poor social outcomes. Much of its growth in recent years has been down to a turbo-charged financial services industry and an unsustainable expansion of the public sector. Both trends have now run their course and the public sector has become a dead weight on the economy. Britain needs to concentrate on improving the climate for wealth creation. This will require much better public sector productivity and high levels of investment in human capital and physical infrastructure.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.

CER insight 5 May 2009

I would say that on the whole, the author's laments about the British economy have a leg to stand on and could be taken seriously. But I do not like nor agree with his introduction which I believe is patronising and is derision oriented disguised as favorably contrasting France against the UK.

"The British tend to deride France as a hopelessly statist, anti-entrepreneurial country full of bolshie workers intent on extracting a disproportionate rewards for their labour and a state too weak to resist them. This characterisation is not wholly inaccurate. But the implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption is that the UK is everything that France is not. This is not the case.

"In some respects, Britain now looks worse than France. For all its faults, France produces good public services and decent social outcomes, such as relatively low levels of poverty and high overall skills levels."

His general portrayal of France, to wit: "This characterisation is not wholly inaccurate. " is uncalled for. Besides, to qualify Britain as now looking "worse than France" implies that France "has always been bad", which I feel is not true. If the CER wish to be credible, they must provide serious data to prove that France has "always been bad" so that their own characterisation that Britain "now looks worse than France" will make sense.

In my view, the author is using a tested "Anglo-Saxon journalist" (eg., Charles Bremner of The Times) technique when he interjects something that resembles French bashing right at the beginning of his article in order to attract readers to what, otherwise, would have been perceived as another bland item about the British economy.

NATO ACT moving to France? A load of British bullshit!

2009-05-11T14:14:00.006+02:00

Someone e-mailed me this Daily Telegraph blurb:

NATO Supreme Command to Move to France?

Diplomatic sources in Washington have indicated that talks may be underway regarding a major concession to France as part of a deal to reintegrate the French into NATO's command structures. If implemented, the concession - a possible relocation of a key NATO supreme command from the United States to France - would significantly undercut American and British power within the alliance, and is clearly against the national interests of both Great Britain and the United States.

It was first revealed in February that French officers would be placed in command of Allied Command Transformation (ACT), currently based in Norfolk, Virginia. ACT is one of two supreme NATO commands - the other, Allied Command Operations (ACO), is based in Mons, Belgium. France has also been given the lead of Joint Command Lisbon, one of NATO's three main operations headquarters, which controls the NATO Rapid Reaction Force.

The relocation of the ACT headquarters away from U.S. soil (possibly to Lille, the home of the French Rapid Reaction Corps) would represent a major transfer of power to Paris within the NATO alliance structure. It would place both of NATO's main supreme command centres physically in continental Europe and would additionally be a boost to French plans for the creation of a European Union defence identity.

A move to France for Allied Command Transformation would result in the sidelining of both American and British military planners, shifting the balance of power within the alliance away from Washington and London. It would also be a hugely costly exercise implemented for purely political reasons as a sop to the French.

There is still every opportunity to derail what would be a foolhardy move by the Obama administration. It's unclear to what degree the Brown government has been involved in any discussions over the future location of the NATO supreme command, but British defence chiefs and MPs should speak out against a move that, if enacted, will significantly strengthen the hand of continental European powers at Britain's expense.

Unless seriously top officials in NATO are in cahoots with French authorities about keeping this "move to France" secret, no one among my friends, close or not close, nor among people I work with at NATO, has heard of ACT being moved to Lille or to wherever.

I reckon Telegraph reporter was trying his hand at creating a scoop -- unless of course he got wind of a recent trip to Lille by a NATO group headed by 2 US generals some 3 weeks ago and construed it as something of the sort being in the offing. The truth is those generals went to Lille for a totally different reason: it was to visit a French defence giant's installation for a project that NATO was in the midst of evaluating with a view to purchasing (the product).

And re: "and would additionally be a boost to French plans for the creation of a European Union defence identity." C'est vraiment du n'importe quoi !

Clearly, a load of British bullshit from someone who does not understand.

Off for a week, destination Naples

2009-05-05T16:13:00.005+02:00

Off for about a week starting tomorrow...

First stop is Naples to attend a NATO industrial advisory group meet, then will be wandering around the Napoli region and if the weather permits, we just might climb Mt Vesuvius before heading for Rome.

It's almost a ritual this time of the year when we kind of start going to a NATO meet that is usually hosted in a "NATO city".

Will be posting a few pics of the trip when we get back.

Cheers!

Picture of Naples Bay loaded from Wikimedia.

The moral turpitude of Condoleeza Rice (with Update!)

2009-05-02T00:58:00.015+02:00

Former British ambassador, turned writer and human rights activist Craig Murray has very harsh words to say in his blog about former US State Department secretary Condoleeza Rice.

Condoleeza Rice - The Mask Slips

Since being outed as the person who approved waterboarding, Condoleeza Rice has been unable to maintain that veneer of manicured niceness. She has a hunted, vicious look in this video from the brilliant Marjorie Cohn.

This line of steaming bullshit from Rice shows just how very rattled she is:
"By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligations under the Convention against Torture."

I understand Craig Murray's ire...

The president of a nation that's signatory to the Convention against torture cannot violate the obligations that his nation signed and not expect a backlash. Not to honour the terms of a treaty under the guise of some presidential privilege is synonimous to the act committed by a despot that led to WWII: when Hitler broke his word to PM Nevile Chamberlain not to attack Czechoslovakia.

Condoleeza Rice has reached the limit of moral turpitude.

Pictures above show some of the 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union. The Sydney Morning Herald

Marjorie Cohn is the author of Cowboy Republic, Six Ways the Bush Gang has Defied the Law.

UPDATE: 'Abu Ghraib US prison guards were scapegoats for Bush' lawyers claim

Prison guards jailed for abusing inmates at the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq are planning to appeal against their convictions on the ground that recently released CIA torture memos prove that they were scapegoats for the Bush Administration.
The photographs of prisoner abuse at the Baghdad jail in 2004 sparked worldwide outrage but the previous administration, from President Bush down, blamed the incident on a few low-ranking “bad apples” who were acting on their own.

The decision by President Obama to release the memos showed that the harsh interrogation tactics were approved and authorised at the highest levels of the White House.
Some of the guards who were convicted of abuse want to return to court and argue that the previous administration sanctioned the abuse but withheld its role from their trials.
More here.

If, as Condi Rice asserts, "If the president authorised it, then it's not illegal," these convincts who were jailed for torture, can actually be set free as they can rightly claim they were merely following 'legal' orders.

In the same breadth, former Pres Bush and his staff who approved and authorised the "harsh interrogation tactics", may not be prosecuted since, according to some legal experts, there's no provision in the law that prohibits the president from authorising torture.

Sonovagun! That's all gobbledygook to me. In my book, George Bush is indictable for war crimes.

There's always the international tribunal... George Bush had better think twice about travelling outside the US, least of all to Europe because I believe there are groups in Europe who would not balk at having him arrested to answer for war crimes.

Summing up America's forward defence

2009-04-23T12:50:00.008+02:00

In a previous post, Filling the knowledge gap, missing pages in US classroom history textbooks, I itemised some of the American gripes against France then, but which sadly continue to be basically the same today, and the official US response (to those gripes) published in Paris by the ‘Information & Education Division’ of the US Occupation Forces 1945.

I noted this interesting paragraph in the official US response:
Message

American security and American foreign policy have always rested on this hard fact: we cannot permit a hostile power on the Atlantic Ocean. We can not be secure if we are threatened on the Atlantic. That's why we went to war in 1917; that's why we had to fight in 1944. And that's why, as a matter of common sense and the national interest, President Roosevelt declared (November 11, 1941): "The defense of any territory under the control of the French Volunteer Forces (the Free French) is vital to the defense of the United States."

If we apply this today, and I have no doubt, the same basic US foreign policy tenet is still applied today, then we come up with two scenarios:

Firstly the Atlantic: Now we can see why the USA will always support NATO and why it is prepared to spend to keep European military capability alive. It does this by paying some 22% for NATO. Thus the attack from the East will be defended in Europe and not allowed to arrive in the USA.
Secondly in the Pacific: Now we can see the absolute need for a weak and US influenced area in the region, eg., the Philippines, as this gives them an entry point and a secure base in Asia. Also the need for Taiwan becomes apparent as it focusses Chinese aspirations on an island in Asia and reduces the USA to a secondary issue.

This is forward defence with a vengeance and now we can trace it back over many years. Actually, I have always believed that there is absolutely nothing stupid about the USA; one of its presidents may be dumb and reckless to the point of jeopardising America's own interests but the foreign policy machinery of the US still churns out some of the best minds in the world. America is not the dominant power in the world for nothing in that they are never lacking in strategic thinking and intelligence.

ooOoo

On a totally different topic but one that concerns Pres Obama and US 'prestige,' here's an interesting article from Newsweek...

How to Deal

It will take a lot more than SEALs and snipers to defend global shipping and American prestige. What Obama can learn from the French.

From Somalia, to the Caribbean to ancient Phoenicia, a look at high crimes on the high seas
.../...

In the dusty pirate havens of Puntland, a province in the country formerly known as the nation of Somalia, today's Kalashnikov-bearing buccaneers are said to be leery of the French flag. If they're not, they certainly should be. Three times since April of last year Somali gunmen have seized pleasure boats with French passengers and crews—and all three times, including just last week, the French have negotiated, stalled (in the first case even paid a ransom), then attacked. The French response to Somali piracy is now so well known that "in Puntland they talk about avoiding 'the French option'," says John S. Burnett, author of the prescient 2002 study of modern piracy, "Dangerous Waters." "They know French commandos will come after them," says Burnett, "and some of these French guys are really tough mothers." Burnett says that to his knowledge the Somalis have never attacked a cargo ship carrying France's flag.

More here.

Filling the knowledge gap, missing pages in US classroom history textbooks

2009-04-22T03:38:00.021+02:00

Miquelon, the international French blog in the English language that has been at the forefront of combat against French bashers (the other one is SuperFrenchie) these last five years, has just published an excellent response, Barry Farber Flunks History, to a calomnious piece authored by Barry Farber (shown) who purports ...

"So President Obama stood on the soil of France and apologized for “American arrogance.” Let see. Who’s the arrogant one? America, after doing most of the fighting, bleeding and dying to liberate France from her Nazi conquerors, gallantly lowered its profile to allow General Charles Andre Joseph Marie de Gaulle and his rag-tag Free French army to look like they were liberating Paris? Or the French, who commemorated the sixtieth anniversary of their freedom with the battle cry “Paris se libere!” (”Paris liberates itself!)?

What a display of incredible arrogance sparked by extraordinary ignorance!

Rest assured that Miquelon -- for whom this blog is batting for Légion d'Honeur award, responded with an excellent rebuttal that would put any self-absorbed French basher to shame as it must have done to Farber (see Farber's reply to Miquelon here.)

As a follow on to that magnificent rebuttal, I thought it would do very well to re-publish certain facts related to this chapter in French-US history in order to fill in the pages that have been missing in most US classroom history textbooks.

Americans griped (and continue to gripe), "We're always pulling the French out of a jam. Did they ever do anything for us?"

They did. They helped us out of one of the greatest jams we were ever in. During the American revolution, when almost the entire world stood by in "non intervention" or was against us, it was France who was our greatest ally and benefactor. France loaned the thirteen states $6,000,000 - and gave us over $3,000,000 more. (That was a lot more money in those days than it is now.)

45,000 Frenchmen volunteered in the army of George Washington. - Thev crossed the Atlantic Ocean in small boats that took two months to make the voyage.

Washington's army had no military engineers; it was French engineers who designed and built our fortifications.

The name of Lafayette is one that Americans will never forget, and the French are as proud of that name as we are.

You can judge the measure and meaning of French aid to our Revolution from the letter George Washington sent on April 9, 1781 to our military envoy in Paris, asking for help from France: "We are at this hour suspended in the balance; not from choice but from hard and absolute necessity... Our troops are fast approaching nakedness... our hospitals are without medicines and our sick without nutrition... in a word, we are at the end of our tether, and... now or never our deliverance must come."

It was France that came to our aid in our darkest hour.

Americans griped (and continue to gripe), "We came to Europe twice in twenty-five years to save the French."

We didn't come to Europe to save the the French, either in 1917 or in 1944. We didn't come to to Europe to do anyone any favors. We came to Europe because we in America were threatened by a hostile, aggressive and very dangerous power.

In this war, France fell in June of 1940. We didn't invade Europe until June of 1944. We didn't even think of "saving the French" through military action until after Pearl Harbor - after the Germans declared war on us. We came to Europe, in two wars, because it was better to fight our enemy in Europe than in America. Would it have been smarter to fight the Battle of the Bulge in Ohio? Would it have been smarter if D-Day had meant a hop across the Atlantic Ocean, instead of the English Channel, in order to get at an enemy sending rocket bombs into our homes? Would it have been smart to wait in America until V bombs, buzz bombs, rocket bombs, and - perhaps - atomic bombs had made shambles of our cities? Even the kids in Germany sang this song: "Today Germany, tomorrow the world." We were a part of that world. We were marked for conquest.

When France fell, our last defense on the Continent was gone. France was the "keystone of freedom" on land from the Mediterranean to the North Sea; it was a bulwark against German aggression. France guarded the Atlantic, and the bases the Germans needed on the Atlantic for submarine and air warfare.

American security and American foreign policy have always rested on this hard fact: we cannot permit a hostile power on the Atlantic Ocean. We can not be secure if we are threatened on the Atlantic. That's why we went to war in 1917; that's why we had to fight in 1944. And that's why, as a matter of common sense and the national interest, President Roosevelt declared (November 11, 1941): "The defense of any territory under the control of the French Volunteer Forces (the Free French) is vital to the defense of the United States.

(This is still true today! NATO and US allies in Europe are still serving as umbrella cover against potential attacks on the US. - HB)

Americans griped (and continue to gripe), "We gave the French uniforms, jeeps, trucks, supplies, ammunition - everything."

We didn't give the French these things. We lent them, under Lend-Lease, a 1aw passed by our Congress as "An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States". We lent military equipment and supplies to our ally.

Where else could the French have gotten uniforms, guns, ammunition, supplies ? From the Germans?

A Frenchman aimed with an 03 rifle could kill Germans. It was wiser for us to turn out weapons and uniforms to arm the French than to turn out additional American soldiers.

(Same deal with Britain! Britain has virtually just finished paying off the debts incurred for the supply of US war material during WWII. The war didn't come cheap for the French nor for the British. There was no such thing as a "free lunch" even between war allies. - HB)

Americans griped (and continue to gripe), "The French let us down when the fighting got tough. What did they do - as fighters - to help us out?"

Here are a few of the things the French did:
The French fought in Africa, in Sicily, liberated Corsica, fought in Italy, took part in the invasion of Europe and fought through the battles of France and Germany -- from Normandy to Munich.
Units from the French navy participated in the invasions of Sicily, Italy, Normandy and South France.
Units of the French navy and merchant marine took part in convoying operations on the Atlantic and Murmansk routes.
On June 5, 1944, the day before D-Day, over 5,000 Frenchmen of the resistance dynamited railroads in more than 500 strategic places.
They delayed strategic German troop movements for an average of 48 hours, according to our military experts. Those 48 hours were tactically priceless ; they saved an untold number of American lives.
French resistance groups blew up a series of bridges in southern France and delayed one of the Wehrmacht's crack units (Das Reich Panzer Division) for twelve days in getting from Bordeaux to Normandy.
About 30,000 FF1 troups supported the Third Army's VIII Corps in Brittany: they seized and held key spogs ; they conducted extensive guerrilla operations behind the German lines.
25,000 FFI troops protected the south flank of the Third Army in its daring dash across France: the FFI wiped out German bridgeheads north of the Loire River ; they guarded vital lines of communication; they wiped out pockets of German resistance; they held many towns and cities under orders from our commmand.
When our Third Army was approachiung the area between Dijon and Troyes from the west, and while the Seventh Army was approaching this sector from the South, it was the FFI who stubbornly blocked the Germans from making a stand and prevented a mass retirement of German troops.
In Paris, as our armies drew close, several hundred thousand French men and women rose up against the Germans. 50,000 armed men of the resistance fought and beat the Nazi garrison, and occupied the main buildings and administrative offices of Paris.

These are some of the things the French did.

(Should have been "50,000 armed men and women"... - HB)

Americans griped (and continue to gripe), "The French brag a lot about the fighting they did, but you don't hear any Americans passing out bouquets to them."

General Patton cabled General Koenig, the French commander of the FFI, that the spectacular advance of his (Patton's) army across France would have been impossible without the fighting aid of the FFI.

General Patch estimated that from the time of the Mediterranean landings to the arrival of our troops at Dijon, the help given to our operations by the FFI was equivalent to four full divisions.

The Maquis who defended the Massif Central, in the south-central part of France, had two Nazi divisions stymied; they kept those two divisions from fighting against us.

Perhaps some of us don't like to pass out bouquets - to anyone but ourselves. Perhaps we have short memories.

SOURCE: ‘Information & Education Division’ of the US Occupation Forces, published in Paris, 1945.

Afghan command and control; America's 2-war readiness strategy

2009-03-30T14:35:00.006+02:00

I have a feeling that my favourite political cartoonist, Peter Brookes, is going a bit hard on the new US president more than he should... that said, I do think it's time to put Pres Karzai of Afghanistan on a short leash and Pres Obama had better do it fast.

On another note but war related, I read an IHT article by Thom Shanker a couple of weeks ago that U.S. is reconsidering its "2-war' readiness strategy"...

Here is the copy of the article (unfortunately, I didn't keep the exact link):

U.S. reconsiders its '2-war' readiness strategy

Published: March 15, 2009

WASHINGTON: The protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are forcing the administration of President Barack Obama to rethink what for more than two decades has been a central premise of American strategy: that the nation need only prepare to fight two major wars at a time.

For more than six years now, the United States has in fact been fighting two wars, with more than 170,000 troops now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The military has openly acknowledged that the wars have left troops and equipment severely strained and has said that it would be difficult to carry out any kind of significant operation elsewhere.

To some extent, fears have faded that the United States may actually have to fight, say, Russia and North Korea, or China and Iran, at the same time. But if Iraq and Afghanistan were never formidable foes in conventional terms, they have already tied up the American military for a period longer than World War II.

A senior Defense Department official involved in a strategy review now under way said that the Pentagon was absorbing the lesson that the kinds of counterinsurgency campaigns likely to be part of some future wars would require more staying power than in past conflicts, like the first Gulf War in 1991, or the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.

In an interview with National Public Radio last week, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made it clear that the Pentagon was beginning to reconsider whether the old two-wars assumption "makes any sense in the 21st century" as a guide to planning, budgeting and weapons buying.

The discussion is being prompted by a top-to-bottom strategy review that the Pentagon conducts every four years, as required by Congress and officially called the Quadrennial Defense Review. One question on the table for Pentagon planners is whether there is a way to reshape the armed forces to provide for more flexibility in tackling a wide range of conflicts.

Among other questions are the extent to which planning for conflicts should focus primarily on counterinsurgency wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what focus remains on well-equipped conventional adversaries like China and Iran, with which U.S. Navy vessels have clashed at sea.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he believed that the Obama administration would be seeking to come up with "a multiwar, multioperation, multifront, walk-and-chew-gum construct."

"We have to do many things simultaneously if our goal is to remain the ultimate guarantor of international security," Mr. Donnelly said. "The hedge against a rising China requires a very different kind of force than fighting an irregular war in Afghanistan or invading Iraq or building partnership capacity in Africa."

But Mr. Donnelly cautioned that the review now under way faced a familiar challenge. "If there has been one consistent thread through all previous defense reviews," he said, "it is that once the review is done, there is an almost immediate gap between reality and force planning. Reality always exceeds force planning."

It already is obvious, a senior Pentagon official said, that the Defense Department will "need to rebalance our strategy and our forces" in a way that reflects lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, a liberal-centrist policy organization, said that senior Pentagon officials knew that the new review needed to more fully analyze what the rest of the government could bring to national security.

"We have Gates and others saying that other parts of the government are under-resourced" and that the Department of Defense should not be called on to do everything, Mr. O'Hanlon said. "That's a good starting point for this — to ask and at least begin answering where it might be better to have other parts of the government get stronger and do a bigger share, rather than the Department of Defense."

Among the refinements to the two-wars strategy the Pentagon has incorporated in recent years is one known as "win-hold-win" — an assumption that if two wars broke out simultaneously, the more threatening conflict would get the bulk of American forces while the military would have to defend along a second front until reinforcements could arrive to finish the job.

Another formulation envisioned the United States defending its territory, deterring hostility in four critical areas of the world and then defeating two adversaries in major combat operations, but not at exactly the same time.

The most recent strategy of the administration of George W. Bush, completed four years ago, added requirements that the military be equipped to deal with a broad range of missions in addition to war-fighting, including defeating violent extremists, defending U.S. territory, helping countries at strategic crossroads and preventing terrorists and adversaries from obtaining biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

But Pentagon officials are now asking whether the current reality of Iraq and Afghanistan really fits any of those models.

My thoughts right off the cuff:

Message

This is a US issue and does not involve anybody else or any nation for that matter but it has implications for everyone else as the underlying assumption is that the US is the world's ultimate guarantor of security. There are many many people, nations and groups who would disagree with this including many Americans.

There is also the question of what is a war. If we consider that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars, then a conflict with China is something else. I do not believe that even the US really believed they could fight and win against China with their current military forces. They will have been realised that if there was a major war the exisitng services would only hold the front line until mobilisation can get underway to provide major reinforcements of soldiers and for the industrial base to be turned onto a war footing to provide the ramp-up in weapons that would be needed.

Thus the US two war strategy, a discussion that's always been a normal event in the US, was always a compromise and the regular quadrennial defence review will see where the compromise needs to be adjusted. Once again a new strategy will be formulated that is the "best fit" compromise arrived at by the military, industry, government, think tanks, academia and anyone else who is asked. The vision will be for the near term future needs and an appropriate response.

How it affects the West depends on how much impact will it have on the rest of the world. Because the US currently has the most military strength in the world, it is safe to say that many will base their security on following the US, but conversely many will base their security on countering them. In four years it will be re-visited.

This Brit must be hanged from the highest London lamppost and flogged!

2009-03-15T00:53:00.008+01:00

Anjem Choudary, a British-born hate-filled Islamic cleric has called on his followers to "stop spending their money on their families and to divert it to Muslim soldiers waging jihad."

While the idea that we should just laugh at these clowns sounds like the British thing to do in the face of such rocambolesque inanities by Choudary, I am inclined to suggest a less lenient course of action in dealing with the tiresome Islamic extremist. My initial recommendation is for the man to be hanged from the highest London lamppost and flogged, or if you like, caned!

I do think it is utterly unacceptable that someone holding a British passport should be allowed to incite UK born Moslems, and worse, foreign combattants to commit atrocities on members of HM's armed forces.

The man must be investigated, arrested, charged, indicted, convicted and thrown into the dungeons for a wee while at the very least.

Lest I be accused of racial discrimination, cultural xenophobia, religious prejudice or whatever, let it be known that I'd react in the same fashion and would suggest the same course of action against a British Christian or anyone belonging to another cultural, political or religious denomination, who should possess the same treasonous mien as Choudary's.

Why NATO will find it difficult to lead the global war against terrorism

2009-03-06T03:14:00.012+01:00

There is an interesting discussion going on in the Atlantic Community following an article published by Yasser Abumuailek suggesting that NATO should lead the war on terror.

In his article, Mr Abumuailek, who is completing his BA degree in Politics and Society at the University of Bonn, avers:

If NATO applies global governance principles, it will be able to become the global leader in combating terrorism. Its military expertise and success in security provision, a sense of global legitimacy and its civilian-military approach to security promise success.

While I fundamentally agreed with Mr Yasser Abumuailek that problem of terrorism needed to be dealt with at a global level, I also believe that the solution for leadership tends more towards the UN, and here's why:

The idea of terrorism as a global problem is an evident truth. The need to organise at a global level follows swiftly from this. How to organise is much more difficult and in theory NATO could become the global leader in combatting terrorism, but there are several pre-conditions that make the idea difficult to achieve.

Off the top of my head these include:

1. NATO has no decision making capability at this level it does only what its members allow and any decision will be by 100% consensus. In order to arrive at a point wherby NATO is the leader we have to first persuade 27 nations (and shortly 29 nations) that this is the right way forward.

2. Acts of terrorism are perpetrated on sovereign territory even though the terrorist may be a non-state player. This means that nations have a strong incentive to deal with terrorism at a national level to satisfy thier electorate. This effect works/creates resistance at a national level to giving the lead to an international organisation.

3. NATO is NOT a global organisation. Technically, it is strictly limited to the North American and European area. And it is safe to say that many parts of the world "regard" these areas as oppressive. Huge areas of the world will find it difficult to accept such a limited leadership - and here I speak of South America, China, India and Russia.

4. Terrorism uses, as foot soldiers, those who have nothing to lose. This means the poorest of the poor. To reduce recruitment to this potential army will take economic support and this is clearly NOT WITHIN the purview of NATO.

5. Terrorism builds also on religious fanaticism. It is amongst Moslem religious fanatics that the leadership for terrorism has its roots. NATO is or may be seen by these fanatics as a predominately Christian organisation even as we know that this is this is not true, i.e., as Turkey, the US and Europe, countries that count huge Moslem populations, however the perception is still there. I doubt we will persuade the Moslem and Hindu diaspora that NATO is the right global leader.

That all seems rather negative; that said, I fundamentaly agree with Mr Yasser Abumuailek that this problem needs to be dealt with at a global level. I also agree that NATO, if the idea is SOLD WELL, can indeed be a powerful voice in the combat. But realistically, I believe the solution for leadership tends more towards the UN.

Like all international institutions, the UN is powerless and can only do what the members allow. If we want global leadership, then the UN is the only global body. It then becomes a question of persuading the larger nations that they need to give the role and the means to the UN. One of the follow-ons could be for the UN to ask another international body to lead on defence aspects - and here, NATO would be a good candidate.

To back up what I am trying to say in the last two paragraphs, I would point to the potential looming failure of the NATO security operation in Afghanistan. NATO clearly won the war. They held the security line for several years, BUT they are losing the long term stability and reconstruction phase. Not because the military is failing, but because the reconstruction is too slow -- living standards are improving too slowly and so an Afghan man can provide more for his family by joining the insurgents than by staying at home and waiting for reconstruction.

I think the idea that the US will spend 150M$ per year providing some 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, whereas the same money could provide ONE million Afghan soldiers has the kernel of the solution to the problem. Creating a one million man Afghan army could be the beginning of the defeat of terrorist recruitment in Afghanistan, i.e., on the very basic economic front alone, it certainly would help alleviate the economic problem facing the Afghan man and his family. As we all know, it is not with military force that we will win, but by creating prosperity so that people do not want to become fanatics or to risk their lives by being terrorists.

Pictures taken during a Kabul sortie with Gen Jim Jones (Ret), current NSA to Pres Obama, while he was SACEUR.

Women and Cars

2009-03-06T02:41:00.004+01:00

Apologies to those who visited and left comments... I deleted the video inadevertently and the comments with it -- am re-posting the video, unfortunately, can't recover readers' fun comments...

On Time Magazine's insidious question: "Did France's Secrecy Cause a Nuclear Submarine Collision?"

2009-02-25T12:50:00.017+01:00

I've just discovered that Old Frog, a fellow commenter and a regular contributor at one of the more popular international French blogs, SuperFrenchie, had pointed to this blog ("channeling" as he/she termed it) in The Forum where the topic of the recent collision between French and UK nuclear submarines HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant was being discussed.

After reading the Time article that was in fact the basis of discussion in the said forum, I was actually a bit aghast. Eben Harrell and Bruce Crumley, the authors, managed to imply albeit very cleverly that France might in fact be to blame for the near underwater mishap!

In any case, having now been "channelled," I turned to my fellow Hillblogger (whom I fondly call SubsCdr) for his comments on the Time article and to answer the question: Did France's Secrecy Cause a Nuclear Submarine Collision?

Here's SubCdr's reply to my missive:
Mes

Ferguson covers the gound well -- his description of water space management is very good and up to date. That said the business of declared submarine areas is a real cat and mouse game.

Submarines operate clandestinely. That is the reason we have them. Sure, we declare an area of operations, but in the case of our most secret operations -- and deterrent patrols are, arguably, the most secret operations, there will then be a second area released to a highly restricted distribution list who will be told where the submarine really is. And in the case of the national deterrent, this is most unlikely to extend to the four countries named by Ferguson.

All this to say that both sides are secretive about the position and patrol areas of deterrent patrols. It is insidious to try to imply one country is more to blame than the other. Both countries will investigate thoroughly and will discuss how to avoid this in the future.

More interesting is the thought that neither of these nuclear submarine detected the other before the collision. That is a truly fascinating thought. It implies that the submarine threat in modern warfare is still huge. Nuclear submarines are noisier than conventional submarines. What does this say for the threat posed by small nations' conventional submarines in the open ocean. (Look out the US battle fleet!)

Back to our collision -- my thoughts are that the two submarines did detect each other, I have no doubt that analysis will show this.

Two scenarios:

1. Both crews sonar team were so bad they did not notice -- frankly inconceivable.

2. Realistically, both submarines detected the other -- one of the most interesting parts of the analysis will be who detected who first, the collision then came about due to the operations team in both submarines miscalculating range and manoeuvring inappropriately. Who will then be the most to blame: the one who detected first and, therefore, had more time to consider and react? Or were they in contact for enough time for this not to be relevant?

This will not be the first time submarines have collided, but in the past, collision has been between submarines deliberately manoeuvring in close proximity.

I am sure this will all be analysed to death and we will never hear the full result. Too sensitive - after all the deterrent force is the nation's last line of defence but one thing is sure, at this stage, it would be cavalier to lay blame on one or the other.

SubsCdr served most of his naval life in HM Submarine Service and spent most of it in a nuclear submarine tracking and "playing cat and mouse" with erstwhile nemesis, i.e., USSR submarines.

Le Monde: Ann Webb, American and homeless in Paris

2009-02-24T03:30:00.014+01:00

Photo shows tents for the homeless in Paris

Ann Webb found herself penniless in Paris and little by little, became one of the thousands of homeless people in the French capital.

The fascinating and moving story of an American woman who started off as a tourist, found herself penniless and stranded and inevitably homeless in France is recounted in a 3-page article by Le Monde (h/t SuperFrenchie).

The 40-something American nursing aid, who speaks virtually no French was interviewed by Le Monde. Webb who had been rebuffed by the US consulate when she went for help was finally given an "audience" at the US Consulate through the intervention of the French broadsheet. The US Embassy in Paris offered to loan her some money for her return fare but she would have to surrender her passport until she's paid back every penny of the loan. Webb refused the US Embassy offer.

Webb has found shelter in a refuge for the homeless and says "Ici, même les SDF ont une meilleure qualité de vie." (Here, even the homeless have a better quality of life. )

Webb who says that she has not a penny saved at all anywhere, also has no home back in the US because in all likelihood, her landlord will have taken back her room. She adds that it's possible that she's also lost her job when she did not report for work. Her parents are dead and she doesn't know where her ex-husband is anymore, and so has nothing to go back to anymore. She dreads the idea of finding herself homeless in America and reiterates that she'd rather be homeless in France than in the US.

"Je suis tellement impressionnée par l'absence de violence. Je ne vois des policiers que pour garder la tour Eiffel, je ne croise personne avec un couteau. Je peux laisser mon sac par terre dans un magasin et le retrouver ! L'Amérique, croyez-moi, ce n'est pas ce que les gens pensent ici. Le coût de la vie est si élevé qu'il faut travailler très dur pour tout. Vous n'avez pas idée… A partir de Bush, cela n'a plus été comme sous Clinton. Tout le monde a deux boulots pour nourrir ses enfants. Le 'Land of opportunity', c'est fini !" (I'm impressed by the absence of violence. I see policemen only because they have secure the Eiffel Tower, I don't meet people with knives. I can leave my purse on the fllor in a shop and find it back! America, believe me, is not what people here think it is. Cost of living is very high that you have to work so hard for everything. You have no idea... After Bush took over, things changed, no longer like under Clinton. Everyone has to have two jobs to feed their kids. Land of opportunity? It's finished!)

She said that in desperation, she almost accepted the suggestion that she should apply for refugee or asylum status to avail of the official state assistance to refugees which would enable her to have official documents of some sort but she had second thoughts about it. She said that once she applies for asylum, it would be like turning against her own country.

There's more to tell, or rather, more to translate but I will have to take some time out of my home renovations to do that. (There is no doubt in my mind that after Le Monde got wind of her story, Ann Webb will be able to one day convert this excruciating chapter of her life into a best selling autobiography.)

Will be back shortly to try to re-tell the French story as recounted in Le Monde or after I've translated most of the interesting passages and put it in Anglicised version. Meanwhile, cheers to alllllll!

(Come to think of it, perhaps, I should offer her a job to help me out with some of the gardening and putting order in my country home until she can find a more stable job... But I'm sure that after her plight was published in Le Monde, aids and offers of help by truly benevolent people will be pouring in.)