Last year, full of dudgeon, Thus posted a modest and moderate commentary on the 2009 Afghan ‘election’ http://thusmagazine.com/2009/11/afghan-democracy-postponed-in-an-orgy-of-hypocrisy/. Read it and weep – or laugh sardonically, depending upon your smug levels. I’m certainly not proud of stating the obvious, then or now.

The ‘war’ (called, with no hint of irony ‘Operation Enduring Freedom‘ intensified following the ‘surge’ – which in Orwellian fashion was designed to lower the threat of continued violence by killing and maiming as many ‘insurgents’ as possible and winning hearts and minds by drone bombing civilian populations. General Stanley McChrystal, reluctant figurehead of this thinly-disguised ‘shoot-em-up-and-get-the-hell-out-of-here’ attempt to plait sawdust and sell it as a counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy, was allegedly none-too-keen in the first place but refused to take the blame for what he and others saw as desperation tactics on the part of certain Obama administration figures. His ‘unwise’ comments to Rolling Stone magazine in July got him carpeted and fired by Nobel Peace Laureate Obama. His replacement, saintly General Petraeus, ‘inventor’ of COIN’s Iraq surge strategy has had the lasting benefit of a recent increase in violence and an effective caliphate of Shia militias, despite the continued presence of over 65,000 US troops and $7 billion spend on ‘aid’ per month (2009).

The McChrystal-led strategy depended upon legitimising the position of Karzai, whom most of the Afghani population and anyone else with a grain of intelligence knows – not including the US and UK governments of the time – presided over an endemically corrupt, kleptocratic regime which was ‘re-elected’ in a fraudulent pantomime of ‘democracy.’ Petraeus will need to work with the same materials. Over 80% of the enormous Afghan ‘aid’ budget is administered by the Afghan government. As the US continues to ‘devolve responsibility to the Afghan people’ Karzai’s extended family will have correspondingly greater access and even less accountability, I’d say the winner of the Afghan conflict/war/insurgency/Jihad – call it what you will –  is none other than His Excellency President Hamid Karzai, dead heating with the Mullah Omar, whose Taleban Ulema will be ‘allowed’ to lark around chopping off heads and hands, tearing out hearts and warping minds in their own special playground in the south – or wherever they like, given the ‘strength’ of the Afghan forces.

At the risk of sounding unfashionably contrarian, I’d advocate making moderate elements of the Taleban – like the IRA, such people do exist – custodians of civilian-targeted regional aid rather than hand it all to the incumbent narco-kleptocrats. Or withdraw all the aid, 80% of which is stolen anyway. Even though former Thus favourite Ashraf Ghani, now on speaking terms with Karzai in what is presumably an attempted reprise of his time as Finance Minister from 2001-4 is there to keep an eye on the US cash, I doubt he will be capable of keeping Karzai under control as the ‘handover process’ accelerates – with increasing velocity as the next US elections approach – which Obama may lose, especially if the US is still in Afghanistan, now America’s longest war after Vietnam, and, like Vietnam (and Iraq), an ideological shitfight which it has clearly lost at huge cost.

John J Kelly

PS. Funny how we don’t hear much about al Qaeda , much less Osama Bin Laden, nowadays. Does anyone know why?

Thus predicted that widespread fraud would take place in the Afghan elections, based on first source analysis on the ground allied to the hunch that the occupation forces would allow blind faith, optimism, expediency and an ideological fundamentalist belief in ‘democracy’ to triumph over common sense.  Kai Eide, Ostrich-in-Chief of  UNAMA and the EU clown troupe observers decreed the elections ‘fair but not necessarily free‘ before any votes had been counted. On the grounds alone that UNAMA spent an improbable $250 million engineering the mechanisms for this danse macabre on the grave of democracy in a failed state, Mr Eide and his money eaters should be declared unfit for purpose. Expecting the current process to produce a team with the credibility to tackle the insurgency and restore stability is, therefore, not realistic. It is more likely that a disenchanted population that now feels disenfranchised will tolerate an expanded insurgency, thereby endangering allied lives and assets, and significantly increasing the nature and dimensions of the challenge to NATO.

Should the election process be validated and the results accepted, the following consequences are probable: First, the government will become more predatory as the officials who committed fraud will feel emboldened by getting away with large scale corruption. Favours promised will be called in. Second, the population would be disenchanted with the process, the integrity and intentions of the Allied and international mission, and the new government, and withdraw further into devising ways to protect themselves from all sides.   Third, the insurgency, facing an openly illegitimate government, will have a renewed rallying cry and cause for recruitment. Fourth, the neighbours, particularly Iran, will become more assertive in Afghan affairs, and the struggle between intelligence services, particularly that of India, Pakistan and Russia, will increase significantly. Fifth, a weaker international community will not be able to take a strong posture vis-à-vis the government.

Richard Holbrooke, US ambassador to Afghanistan, is meanwhile trying to backstop the mess by engineering a runoff between Hamid Karzai and ex-foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah (who declared the election fraudulent at an early stage). This is unlikely to enhance the legitimacy of the outcome, as corrupt chains of entrenched interests allied to both Karzai and Abdullah have already mobilized and near term measures will not suffice to loosen their grip on the levers of power and money. A rerun could consolidate and embolden those interests. Furthermore, an election in October will face major logistical obstacles. Given the discredit brought both on IEC and the UN agencies, proceeding with round 2 is likely to perpetuate some of the same symptoms. Moreover, according to complaints submitted to the Afghan Independent Election Commission, both candidates have engaged in widespread ballot rigging. Afghan sources speculate that if Karzai is disqualified (a big if) then the US should shift its backing to Abdullah on the basis that because he is weak he would be easier to control. The flaw in this twisted logic is that Abdullah has neither the strength, popular mandate nor ethnicity to keep the key warlords in check, his corruption might increase if mandated and once support was withdrawn he would be vaporised. Another option is a Karzai-Abdullah coalition – an infernal tag team if ever there was one.

Ashraf Ghani, whom, like Bashardost, ran on the anti-corruption ticket (as did Abdullah when he saw its potential) has proven experience in establishing governance and financial controls – he was finance minister in the last transitional government – has no presidential mandate (and originally stood reluctantly) but could play a key role as mediator, intermediary and Grand Vizier in a government of national unity, embracing all stakeholders, governed under strict, designed to restore sovereignty to the Afghans – an ostensibly ‘weak’ coalition, but infinitely preferable to a licence to steal for the next five years.

Thus has so far been the only site to point out the seeming anomaly between Karzai’s declaration of dubiously modest assets of $1000.00 plus $10,200 in family jewels‘ and his officially declared campaign war chest of a $2 million dollar interest free loan from the Bank of Ghazanhar. This sum represents 20% of the funds of this ‘bank,’ a philanthropic institution founded and run by the Ghazanfar family. How and when is this modest unassuming man on a salary of $487 per month going to repay the generosity of his altruistic supporters? Rather like the eponymous Producers in the Mel Brooks movie, he has already promised more seats in the new cabinet than currently available, to lovely men such as Dostum (Thus passim). He has polled 3000 votes in stations where observers only recorded 30 people voting. His brother Walid coincidentally hangs out with folks who allegedly control the opium trade while other family members, through sheer hard work no doubt, appear to run the country’s most  lucrative business franchises. He talks of having no truck with the Taliban but shamelessly passed the notorious wife-starving law shortly before the election. Is this a man ‘we’ can do business with? Though it pains me to say it, we have little choice. The most expedient figurehead leader would be Karzai, supported but not endorsed by the international community under strict and irreversible terms of conditionality.

The Taliban, meanwhile, have sat on their hands – having threatened to cut off the hands of anyone who voted – and shrewdly allowed the forces of ‘democracy’ to do their heavy lifting for them. They stand to gain from the continued uncertainty of a protracted runoff, a popular insurrection resulting from forcing through a blatantly corrupt result and a turf war between Tajik, Uzbek and Pashtun forces which would erupt if Abdullah is awarded the paper crown. Time is short: the results will be final on 17 September. So what to do? Clare Lockhart, of the Institute for State Effectiveness, summarises four options thus:

1. Accommodation with Mujahadeen: Accept Karzai’s claim of victory, and put together a Karzai-Abdullah coalition. This government could be stable in the short term, but is likely to be highly corrupt and unstable in the medium term. Some concessions could be extracted, including the inclusion of technocratic positions and commitment to the US 5-point agenda already discussed with candidates and the restoration of Afghan sovereignty. It is questionable as to whether concessions would be agreed upon or adhered to.

2. Formation of a national government headed by Karzai: Instead of waiting for implosion, action is taken now to put together a national government, with inclusion of broad stakeholder interest groups. A set of benchmarks and processes could be followed and the international community and the Afghan government could sign a binding compact.

3. Formation of a Transitional Government for a two to three year period: The election is deemed fatally flawed and the International Community declare it invalid and disqualify Mr Karzai. A Transitional Government is put together, along the lines of the Bonn Agreement 2002-4, with the key change that key figures will commit not to run for elected office in future. This Administration would be tasked with stabilizing the country and building the basic institutions that would allow for exit of the international presence.

4. Form a quasi-protectorate under an US/international driven agenda, creating governance bottom up, and marginalize the Afghan institutions for a period of time.

Option 2 is the most likely and the most expedient. The loser in this entire sorry process has been the notion of democracy, at least in its US interpretation. The bigger loser could be Barack Obama, who will be a one term President if his administration allows Afghanistan to become his Vietnam.

]]> http://thusmagazine.com/2009/09/a-government-of-national-unity-is-the-least-worst-option-for-afghanistan/feed/ 0 http://thusmagazine.com/2009/08/can-we-fucking-move-on-these-people-goddamit-winning-hearts-and-minds-with-the-us-marines-in-helmand/ http://thusmagazine.com/2009/08/can-we-fucking-move-on-these-people-goddamit-winning-hearts-and-minds-with-the-us-marines-in-helmand/#comments Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:11:49 +0000 John Kelly http://thusmagazine.com/?p=4010 Fuck yeah – if it’s fucking hearts and fucking minds you want to fucking win over, walk this way with the fucking US Marines. We’ll capture those fucking hearts and minds or tear the bastards out and shove them up their sorry goddam asses. By John J Kelly.

Last night, BBC Newsnight aired a warning that the programme contained ‘extremely strong and violent language’ – which immediately got my full attention – referring to a filmed report of US marines patrolling Helmand, Afghanistan’s most troubled province, demonstrating the ‘new’ counter insurgency strategy of ‘building trust and relationships with the local population.’ The Brits had tried this tactic, we were told, but although they got to know the territory, they hadn’t got enough ‘combat power’ and ‘capability’ to do what had to be done. The implication was that they were ill-equipped (surely not?) and a tad wussy and incompetent.

The marines found and searched an almost-deserted village, the natives having sensibly fled in advance of the hearts and minds brigade. Only a young boy remained, with four old men, including a ‘sinister man in black’ (Johnny Cash?). ”Why is he shaking? What’s he afraid of?” a 19 year old military genius asks, as camouflaged, helmeted goons, bristling with weaponry, jostle the kid at gunpoint after ransacking his house, finding a rifle – which turned out to be a BB gun (air rifle) and ‘urging’ him to reveal the whereabouts of his friends and family. ”Last time we searched this house they wanted nothing to do with us. Ask them why?” Lance-Corporal Bunch demanded of the interpretor. You didn’t need a PhD to answer that question, but the marines decided that the old men standing nearby were intimidating the boy (possibly they were, but telling him ‘you’re fucked, kid’ and threatening to ‘wax this guy’s ass,’ might have had some bearing on his situation). I bet that village can hardly wait for the next patrol to pass by.

In contrast to their base commander and to various gurning politicians, the marines on patrol, some (literally) sick with fear, were respectful of the Taliban’s abilities and skeptical that they would ultimately  ’defeat’ them. The most likely outcome would be to ‘chase their asses into Pakistan’. Later in the sequence, a soldier observes: ”(The) Iraq war was different from this. Here . . this is like some Vietnam shit. No-one even mentions 9/11 here.” He is entitled to be dazed and confused. The ‘War on Terror’ formed the pretext to invade Afghanistan, whose (elected) Taliban government had provided a safe haven for Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora as the US turned its attention to Iraq, having ‘defeated’ the Taliban in 2001 (another hubristic Mission Accomplished). Cleverer people than this kid can’t make sense of the tactics or strategy, but the difference is that they, like me, are sitting comfortably outside the firing line. Yesterday almost 200 people died in car bombs in (post-surge) Baghdad, confirming that the ‘surge’ was a chimaera (Thus passim) But hell, they’ve got democracy . . . .

Don't worry about getting elected, Hamid, I didn't and neither did George Bush. Afghanistan is a true democracy now.

Later in the programme we heard that democracy’s beacon, President Karzai’s last act prior to the election had been to confirm a ‘Status Law‘ enshrining the rights of Afghan men to rape or starve their wife if she withholds sexual favours, despite specific condemnation from towering world figures such as Gordon Brown. Douglas Alexander, the ludicrous Blairite UK Development Minister, brushing aside this minor setback, urged us to ‘celebrate’ the fact that no-one knows who will win the election.’ Bollocks. We do, and so does he. Alexander refused to condemn the principle of endorsing and funding – under the pretext of democracy – a government which passes medieval laws and has promised to include internationally-condemned war criminals such as Dostum (see previous post) in their next regime. In short, he is an example of the prevarication, hypocrisy and expedient madness of  bad compromises which have placed the US, UK and the so-called ‘international community’ in the hole into which they are digging themselves deeper by the day.

Thus we were given evidence of how and why the US stands no chance of ‘winning’ and how the election will be spun as a victory regardless of the outcome. The Newsnight bulletin, and the preceding reporting leading up to today’s election, has been enlightening and relatively objective, helped by the absence of posturing hounyhymn jackass, Jeremy Paxman. File under ‘you couldn’t make it up’ – and watch the sequence yourself.

President Karzai failed to turn up for the ‘historic’ first live TV election debate last month, lauded as a sign of Afghanistan’s political maturity, leaving his two main challengers at the time, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister, to largely agree that corruption and extreme lack of governance were the root cause of the country’s problems, not to mention over 30 years of foreign occupation, civil war and insurgency. Yesterday, Karzai attended a TV debate, sponsored by Radio Free Europe. This time, leading contender Abdullah was a no-show, leaving Ghani and former planning minister and popular underdog Ramazan Bashardost to belabour the incumbent with allegations of corruption. Karzai repeated his claims that he had ‘saved Afghanistan’ and blamed its problems on the Taliban and the presence of occupying forces, while claiming that, once re-elected, he would convene ‘a grand council, or loyal jirga and other militant islamic groups, to try and negotiate a peace deal.’ (Washington Post).

Welcome back, General Dostum. Not much has changed since we sent you into exile for war crimes

His ace card is the ‘surprise’ return from exile in Turkey of ‘ex-warlord’ General Abdul Rashid Dostum. The former Soviet communist won 10 per cent of the 2004 vote, and leads the Uzbeck minority in the north, where much of Abdullah’s (Tajik) support emanates. In return for a position in the next Karzai administration, he has urged his followers to vote for Karzai and ‘avoid a runoff at all costs.’ His endorsement could neutralise the threat from Abdullah, whom some polls have given as much as a 25% share compared to Karzai’s 40%. (In passing, the ‘polls’ are about as reliable as the election process, in a country where the Taliban have threatened death to voters). The reappearance of Dostum, who changed sides several times in the tribal wars of the 1990s prior to the Taliban government, emphasises the danger and inherent instability of Karzai’s dependence on dark forces to ensure his victory. ‘Aleem Siddique, a U.N. spokesman in Kabul, said Afghanistan “needs more competent politicians and fewer warlords.” A U.S. official said Washington had made its concerns clear to the Afghan government, and Dostum’s reputation “raised questions of his culpability for massive human rights violations.” (Reuters).

As another Kabul car bomb killed 5, including two members of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and rockets were allegedly fired at the presidential palace, NATO occupying forces and the UN have conceded that ‘more than 10%’ of polling stations will be unable to function because of the security threat. Ballot papers are on sale, in bulk, to the highest bidder, dangerous criminals have been released from gaol in return for their votes and just about the only thing all parties, Taliban included, are agreed upon is that they want the freedom of Afghan self-determination. A version of ‘democracy,’ imposed by occupying foreign military forces stands no logical chance of halting the cycle of violence, corruption and tribal and ethnic conflict. Yet only yesterday US President Obama repeated his pledge to increase the number of troops on the ground in a conflict which has now cost over 25% of the Iraq war, and stands even less chance of resolution by belligerent occupation.

The recent elections in Iran were clearly riddled with voting irregularities, fraud and intimidation, leading to street protests and several deaths. They were widely and rightly condemned by ‘The West’ as illegal and ‘undemocratic.’ Before a vote has been cast in Afghanistan, we have already seen more deaths, undeniable evidence of outrageous corruption and yet our politicians and the UN are craving the indulgence that ‘any election is better than no election.’ No it’s not. Afghanistan, Obama’s ‘War of Necessity‘ has already become his Vietnam. This horror show election should not be taking place on these flawed terms and allowing to be used as a vehicle to give Hamid Karzai a mandate to plunge the country further into klepocracy and anarchy is giving the Taliban and the Four Horsemen a mandate for a second term.

John J Kelly

We don’t know how many ‘enemy’ combatants have been killed and most people cynically couldn’t care less – the Taliban are less than human, after all. Except they’re not. Most of these ‘insurgents’ are farmers by day and are only doing what any British or American citizen or yeoman would do if a foreign army invaded. What we do know, despite the froth from British military figures and the preposterous Hitler-moustached UK Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, is that the much-vaunted ‘surge’ clearly has failed. ‘Operation Enduring Freedom‘ is more about enduring and nothing to do with freedom.

But the election, a foregone conclusion, will be spun as a victory for democracy, despite the overwhelming evidence of corruption, bribery, intimidation – by the Karzai government, much less the Taliban – and a full-blown insurgency which ensures that the turnout will be skewed, to put it politely. The UN, having spent an estimated USD 150 million on organising the election, have little option but to declare it a success, despite some cack-handed and counter-productive arrangements. For example, to avoid multiple polling, voters will be marked with indelible ink on their fingers. The Taliban have promised to cut off the fingers of anyone with inky fingers. There will be allegedly ‘thousands’ of election monitors, but already there is evidence of fraud – improbable numbers of people appear to have registered to vote, especially in Karzai-controlled regions.

Ashraf Ghani

Miracles notwithstanding (Ashraf Ghani, inshallah), Karzai will ‘win’ on Thursday. Unless he gains more than 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff, most likely against Abdullah, if opinion polls are to be believed (and undemocratic tribalism prevails). This will postpone the result – and probably guarantee increased violence and mayhem – until November. Victory for Abdullah would ‘unacceptable’ to Pakistan, on account of his historic connections with the Northern Alliance, to the Pashtuns and, obviously, to the Taliban. So if Karzai has to win, he might as well do so outright. Having done so, he should seriously consider forming a government of national unity including his main challengers and dedicated to addressing the root causes of the past and present preconditions for a failed state which make Afghanistan not worth fighting for. Unless he agrees, tacit and explicit support from the US and ‘NATO’ for his regime should be withdrawn.

Whatever the eventual result, one lesson to be learned from this deadly misadventure, which has yet again cost so many lives in the pursuit of ‘managed’ democracy, is that the UN should never again be given a mandate to organise and run an election. Incompetence, self-interest and pomposity have endangered the lives of those who are brave enough to vote, increased the possibility of fraud and wasted many tens of millions of dollars, not to mention the lives of soldiers and civilians. Last time I looked, the UN was established to do exactly the opposite.

John J Kelly

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - oh, alright, you can take a quick look - it's probably all made up anyway

Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, Metropolitan Police anti-terror ‘supremo’ ‘promptly’ resigned yesterday after he was photographed outside 10 Downing St clutching a top secret document listing UK Al Qaeda suspects atop a sheaf of papers. “YOU CAN’T QUIT QUICKER THAN A THICK QUICK QUITTER” screamed the Sun, referencing the cheery advertising slogan of KwikFit, a tyres and exhaust (muffler) depot. But Thus readers know that his resignation, far from timely, is long overdue. On December 22, 2008 Thus Passim: bob-be-nimble-bob-be-quick-resign-from-the-enquiry-now/ detailed how Assistant Commissioner Quick was leading the investigation into Home Office leaks which saw an outrageous and probably illegal raid of the office of Tory MP Damien Green under the auspices of the government, who openly accused the Tory Front Bench of colluding in efforts to compromise national security. We questioned whether it was appropriate for Quick to head up this enquiry – into himself. Needless to add, the ‘investigation’ continues. More worryingly, Thus reported that had compromised the security of his own family and his own force by running a wedding car hire business under his wife’s name from his home, boasting in local newspaper advertisements: “Cars . . with former police officers at the wheel.”

Loadsamoney! Taser lady Jacqui Smith can't stand all this whingeing about executive perks. She pays her mortgage, subsidises her sister's house, employs her hubby and buys his TV porn, all on a miserable Cabinet Minister's salary. What's your problem, losers?

Had PC Quick done the honourable thing at that time, the alleged security services raids on UK ‘terrorist cells’ in Manchester and elsewhere which the spin doctors are now predictably calling ‘a real and present Al Qaeda threat to Britain’ would not have been allegedly compromised. He was gifted at the time with the full support of Home Secretary ‘Taser’ Jacqui Smith (Thus passim) herself deeply implicated in the politically-motivated raid on the Tories. Subsequently Ms. Smith herself was revealed to have ‘misinterpreted’ the rules on MPs’ expenses, having used her ‘second home’ allowance to pay the mortgage on her (first home) family residence while staying at her sister’s London house. It was also revealed that Ms Smith’s husband (employed at taxpayer expense as her constituency secretary) had bought subscriptions to porn movies which the Home Secretary had submitted as expense claims.

Cloying statements of regret and gratitude from Ms. Smith for Bob Quick’s sterling work in saving the country from (unspecified) perils float on a reeking sea of cant. Video footage which shows that 47 year old father of nine, Ian Tomlinson, who died of a heart attack at the recent G20 protests, was not only an innocent bystander posing no threat and taking no part in the protests, but was savagely assaulted by a masked riot police officer surrounded by colleagues, who were not ‘showered by bottles and stones’ and who did not identify themselves after the incident, indicates the dangerous levels of unaccountability into which ‘Fortress Britain’ has descended. The ‘investigation’ into what looks very much like criminal assault resulting in death will be held by another division of the Metropolitan Police. We all know the conclusions, so why bother?

Jacqui Smith should resign, not least for her abuse of the public purse, but also for promoting, sponsoring and endorsing Quick’s former worrying behaviour in running a second business, albeit in his wife’s name, using police credentials as its calling card. Predictably, the Establishment has attempted to spin away from this latest descent into Third World farce by listing the tireless work in which the police and security services are engaged to keep the Al Qaeda threat at bay. But whilst we marvel in admiration at their efforts, let’s not forget the last time we heard about a major terror threat emanating from Manchester. On 19 April, 2004, 400 police raided several homes and held 8 Asian men, a woman and a 16 year old boy on suspicion of engineering a plot to blow up Old Trafford stadium and cause mass carnage. The evidence was a block purchase of tickets by a ‘group of Asians.’ The headlines in the (Murdoch-owned) Sun, at that time a partisan supporter of Tony Blair, read: “EXCLUSIVE: MAN UTD SUICIDE BLASTS FOILED.” There was absolutely no substance to the plot. Their only crime was supporting Manchester United (not yet indictable). They received no apology. Neither did those accused of the equally fantastic, unfounded ‘Ricin plot.’ Today’s Daily Telegraph cites ‘M15 sources’ in stating that thousands of shoppers were targeted over Easter. Despite the release without charge of one of the ten Pakistani students arrested and no discovery of a bomb factory or explosives of any description so far, Phil Woolas, the gaffe-prone northern Immigration Minister whose particular fetish is identity cards, declared brashly on Channel Four news: ‘We got them.’ Manchester police have now declared the ‘target zones’ safe for Easter shopping after all, so Woolas must be right. There appears to be some confusion amongst these high level sources, however. Some reports claim the Pakistani students were Taliban, others Al Qaeda. Britain, and the US, are certainly ‘at war’ with both, but Taliban activity so far afield would be very rare, if not unique. Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Kashmiri group allegedly behind the Mumbai attacks would seem the more likely candidates if any, especially since a couple of the nitwits behind the failed 21/7 London suicide bombings were allegedly members. Two of the suspects travelled to Pakistan last year, but then again, they are Pakistani. Two come from Peshawar, a hotbed of terrorism, but then again Liverpool John Moores University, where they study, actually has a student recruitment agency in Peshawar. But I’m merely speculating, unlike our brilliant police and security services, who have saved the day yet again.

It would be cynical to see this latest ‘Al Qaeda terror threat’ outbreak as an attempt to spin the beleaguered UK government and its incompetent Home Secretary out of the more prosaic clear and present danger resulting from an objective enquiry into her personal affairs, abuse of police power for political gain and the unlawful killing of an innocent man (two, if you count Juan Charles de Menezes). It would probably be unfair to equate the uptick of fearmongering with the tactics of Tony Blair in 2005, who announced, on BBC Radio Woman’s Hour of all places: “What they [the security services] say is that you have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people – there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts – you have got to give us power in between just surveying them and being sure enough to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt. There are people out there who are determined to destroy our way of life and there is no point in us being naïve about it.” In the year following the introduction of the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act, despite the ‘several hundred identified terrorist operatives,’ only 17 people were convicted, but the government diverted attention away from a far more destructive force – Gordon Brown’s bulimic public spending surge, designed to disguise the Tsunami of the swelling bubble economy. 

Al Qaeda, whoever or whatever they may be, needs to do nothing at all. The UK government’s off-the-leash attack dogs are acting as the provisional wing of the public relations department of Terrorism Inc. They need new handlers.

John J Kelly