The charges dropped - Or is Rahman really in the clear?

I smile whenever I read vega. Cause surely he does his place of origin proud with his moniker.

The solution in this case is the same as that which protected blacks from the lynchings of the KKK, the neo-Nazis, or whatever militia group there were.

Threat and enforcement of instant execution or arrest, upon any damage to Rahman either directly or indirectly. If we can't prove it in an Afghanistani court that some "cleric" assassinated Rahman, then we'd just order the cleric disappeared as an object lesson in who has the real power in the region.

This would have the effect of putting the clerics, the warlords, and the criminals in stasis. Karzai has to represent his constituents, but he has to also realize who holds the real power in the region.

When these clerics that called for Rahman's assassination, disappear and I do support their disappearance 100%, many will blame the United States government and many will say Karzai bended under Western pressure.

However, if Karzai were to say that he told America to effect the punishment of the traitors in Afghanistan, those that would fight against the lawfully elected government of Afghanistan for reasons of Islam, in public and we then confirm Karzai's words, Karzai would not only save face but he would also prove the power of the secular state vs the religious theocracies. This helps protect and create the institutions that Afghanistan needs for democracy to work.

All it would take is the death of a few hate mongering clerics. Not a wholly huge price to pay.

This is an opportunity, like many, that could have been capitalized by Bush if he had been willing to be aggressive and use violence. Bush, however, chose the non-aggressive path of peace, diplomacy. Condi Rice convinced Karzai to drop the charges.

This has weakened Karzai to charges of Western puppet controls, and increased the power of the religious hate militias in Afghanistan. This has made the greater US strategy more vulnerable to failure, because it will now be easier to convince Afghanistanis to commit violence to "purify" Afghanistan of anti-Islamic foreigners.

One such misstep is not fatal for the cause of democracy. But as you can see in Iraq and at the American homefront, a series of such missteps in capitalizing on opportunities given to you by enemy assaults, will produce an alarming sign of your defeat in this war.

Bush has latitude to make such mistakes in the short run, but his latitude is quickly running out. The only thing holding his administration and the war effort up are two things. Blogs and the military. That is it, those are the two main pillars of Bush's effective policy.

The UN doesn't back Bush, the Republicans don't back Bush cause it is his second term and his polls are low, and the Democrats don't back him. Not even his own bureacracy, CIa/State, backs Bush. Bush has no pillars of power in the diplomatic/peaceful/non-aggressive sphere. All his powers, or political capital, rests with propaganda in the form of blogs and military power in the military.

Those are Bush's strengths. Yet he wasted his political capital on domestic issues like social security, because he tried to play to his weaknesses.

As Sun Tzu has said time and time again, with few if anyone paying attention, concentrate your STRENGTH against the enemy's WEAKNESSES. When you are weak and your enemy is strong, avoid battle and confrontation.

Bush is strong on defense, the military, and on the blogs where information is freely debated and facts exist to be easily read.

Bush is weak on domestic propaganda, enemy propaganda, foreign diplomacy, international diplomacy, and internal politiking.

In such a situation as Abdul Rahman, Bush should have used his military option. He did not. Al-Sadr is the ultimate personification of what happens when Bush tries to use diplomacy to "sooth" the raging beast of Iraq.

Absolute, total application of force is not the best solution. Unfortunately, Bush doesn't have Hitler or Clinton's rhetorical skills. Neither does Bush have the propaganda skills of a Leni Riefenstahl or a Goebels or a Dick Morris. All that is left to Bush is absolute displays of force and threats, and he won't use it.

This is why the war is more or less inching along, and few if any ultimate victories are seen.

We're stuck in a trench war, where both sides are hitting our strong points (terroists vs our military) and we're hitting their fortifications (diplomacy vs Islamic propaganda and terror).

You don't win a war through attrition, by pitting your troops against the enemy's best fortifications and troops. Bush, though he knows it not, is relying on a strategy of attrition, to delay things until the Iraqis can take over. But that doesn't mean what Bush wants us to think it means. When the Iraqis take over, that means it is time to take the next town. And somehow I don't think Bush has any plans in the works for that, given his actions on Iran. If he wanted to take military action, he already would have. Like every other instance, Bush uses diplomacy. And because Bush has few if any access to good diplomacy, Bush's diplomacy fails miserably.

There is a way to use diplomacy to intimidate Iran into backing off and Syria into backing off, but it requires giving Iraq and Afghanistan nuclear weapons and launch abilities. It also includes raids into Syrian and Iranian territory, without a declaration of war. It also requires full naval blockade and sinking of Syrian and Iranian registered ships, with the point of not rescuing any survivors.

It's a good thing the charges were dropped. But there's just going to be another incident the Islamics will create so that they can capitalize on. The fight goes on, and few if any gains are acquired with this "victory".

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said she could not confirm that an Afghan court had dismissed the case and stressed the U.S. needs to respect the sovereignty of Afghanistan, which she called a "young democracy."

These words are part of the international law outlook of Washington, France, Germany, and the UN. It is categorically not the outlook of Americans and Jacksonians. It just isn't. Personally, I don't give a damn about other nation's sovereignty, since it's not like if we respect their sovereignty they are going to respect ours. France has no qualms about telling us what to do, regardless of us refraining from blasting France on their problems at the highest levels.

Leaving the ME alone didn't prevent 9/11, it didn't prevent first Trade Center bombing, it didn't prevent the murder of 140 Marines, it didn't prevent the death of around 19 sailors on the USS Cole, and it sure as heck didn't prevent the execution of Americans captured while the terroists hijacked planes and cruise ships.

International sovereignty is a joke, and it is one that the Islamics understand quite well.

The very fact that Afghanistan is a young democracy, means that you have to MAKE IT LOOK like Karzai didn't give into Western pressure. You have to. Otherwise the next time you try and visit, the Taliban will be back in full force. If they aren't already.

With power comes responsibility, the power over life and death means you are responsible for Afghanistan, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice. The President, if he doesn't understand this fact, dooms the war effort to trench warfare.

While the U.S., Britain and other countries that prop-up his government have demanded the trial be dropped, Karzai has had to be careful not to offend Islamic sensibilities at home and alienate religious conservatives who wield considerable power.

Without missing their heads and limbs, will find it quite hard to "wield considerable power".

Historically, American democracy was quite bloody. Democracy requires bloody to be shed, because you can't have a democracy where the wacko White SUpremacists run around spouting their "politics" and assassination programs. The Wild West, if they ever caught a criminal, hung him. Chaotic situations are balanced by the sheer ruthlessness and moral clarity of the righteous and the peaceful citizens.

If you are unwilling to execute the enemy of democracy, Secretary Rice and President Bush, you will eventually end up with a government that isn't a democracy at all.

Let it be clear. Afghanistan does not have "sovereignty". Sovereign states don't rely upon an "umbrella" protection from a superpower. Proxy nations are protected by their umbrella sponsors. Sovereign nations have their own defense.

In this world of ours, few nations are sovereign, which is why the idea of sovereignty is a joke. To get true sovereignty means reducing American military power and influence, which is why the Democrats keep talking about sovereignty in relation to Saddam.

Policharki, a high-security prison housing some 2,000 inmates, including about 350 Taliban and al-Qaida militants who were blamed for inciting a riot there late last month that killed six people.

A fledging democracy would have executed these 350 people for traitors already.

But Afghanistan is unable to do so. They fear the reaction from the United States. Whether Rice knows it or not, but 70 to 90% of Afghanistan's domestic and foreign policies are decided from their perception of the reaction from the United States of America.

Republicans seem to have a rather shortsighted vision of American power and influence, to the point where they believe that it somehow doesn't affect other nations just because we don't want it to affect them.

The politicians, certainly do, if not middle America.

American decadence, such as the inability to execute someone guilty of mass murder in less than 1 year, and executing someone like Tookie without 25 years, is a weakness that fledging democracies should not be saddled with.

If the Wild West took 25 years to execute someone, their buddies would have sprung him and executed the sherrif in a shoot out. Eventually you won't have a sheriff or a federal marshall force to protect the town with.

You can afford to be merciful if you hold all the cards, but America has never held all the cards in the world, especially now. Even if we did, that doesn't mean Afghanistan could not be picked off even if America at large was safe. And as was proven on 9/11, if the enemy takes territory but not American territory, that still helps them with the logistics required to assault America herself. Seas no longer offer the same protection as they once did.

Bush obviously doesn't want to become an Empire, but the socio-political balance of powers in the world, demands that America either relinquish our power or become worthy of our power in this world. If you want to be a leader, then you must lead. Not only that, but you must be loyal to YOUR SIDE and ruthless towards the enemy.

No leader could maintain power by rewarding his enemies and punishing his allies, no leader could maintain power by ignoring threats and trying to "negotiate" deals between his allies and his enemies.

As I said before, the military plays a big part in sustaining our victory. That is why America, is so grateful. They see a strength and vitality in the military, a clarity of purpose, that they don't see in Washington. The military is not as decadent as American politicians. The military has the death penalty for many offenses still, under military law. Military justice is to justice as military music is to true music.

I'd take military justice over "let's parole child rapists" any day of the century. Administrative punishment is far better than the KELO Act.

The reason why the war isn't lost now, is because the military is facing the evils in Iraq and Afghanistan, and either freezing them or killing them. This buys the politicians time to create a political solution.

The solution is correct, it is the details of application that are wrong.

Whatever respect people hold for America, is because of Bush's determination and the force used by our military.

The West pays premium attention to "ideas" of liberty. But for the great majority of people in the Middle East, simple survival trumps ideas. If you can't provide our auxilliary forces (iraq/Afghanistan) with freedom from execution and assassination, then they're not going to go with such a weak horse as us.

This might be a hindrance if we were using Imperial politics. But since we are using idea and liberty politics, it is a sheer disaster to have the people we free, think we are weak because our military can use bombs but they Catch and Release terroists and criminals.

If the Mexicans caught an American rapist, and then released him and had him escape to Europe which is free from capital punishment, we'd be pretty pissed I would think. The Iraqis are just as upset when we catch and release Saddamites and terroists back into Iraq, for them to blow up more people.

When listening to a Virgin mp3, I came up with an idea about a very good psychological operation that would fullfill many needs. This is getting quite long, so I'll save that for later on my blog.