If 18 is too young to die don't send them to war

There are lots of reasons to be opposed to the war in Afghanistan but British casualties isn't one of them. If the cause is right, if this war is just then we have to accept that some of our troops will die. We'd all hope those casualties would be kept to the absolute minimum but we should be hardened to the fact that if it's right to go to war then we have to take the tragically rough with the smooth.

If we're prepared to kill, or rather have someone kill for us, then we must also accept that some of 'our people' might be killed too. When British troops fought in Europe during the Second World War every casualty was a tragedy but there was never a time that people thought the cost was too high. Apart from fascist sympathisers obviously.

But whilst some seem to be saying that now British casualties are increasing (which they would do during a massive offensive) where were those voices when it was innocent Afghans feeling the brunt of our war? Take Razia (below) seen here in Bagram airbase where allied forces are kindly giving her medical attention.


After all, she needs it because she received such severe burns when her home was attacked with our rockets containing white phosphorous. I guess that's what you get if you live in what The Sun calls 'The Badlands'.

What's the mission that justifies this carnage? Does anyone even know? Are we making the world safe from terrorists? If so we're failing as the level of terrorism today is far higher now than before the invasion. Mind you Al Quaida's left Afghanistan, they're all in Pakistan and Iraq now - mission accomplished!

Are we ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban scourge? Well, no. They appear more fighting fit than they were a few years ago and, more importantly, they now operate beyond the borders of the country.

Perhaps we're instituting democracy. If so other countries better watch out because once we've democratised Afghanistan flat I guess we'll be coming for them next. Of course, Afghanistan did have a fledgling democracy once, but then that was before thirty years of invasion and war obliterated the country. Never mind, they now have a President who rules several square acres of land in Kabul and surrounds himself with foreign mercenaries to ensure he's not whacked by the grateful citizenry of his country.

Maybe we're fighting the war on drugs. If so it's a shame we invaded in the first place as the Taliban used to be very anti-drugs and wouldn't tolerate it's presence. Nowadays it's their main cash crop and Afghanistan is a major league supplier of opium based dazes to the world. The pre-Obama American forces had been pressing for aerial crop spraying to eradicate the drugs - but seeing as we can't tell the difference between drugs and beans I suspect all this will do is further impoverish some of the poorest people on the planet.

Whatever reason we're there for I think it's fair to say that unless you know what you are doing. and why, having extra helicopters is pointless. They don't know what they're achieving but the government do know that they are killing Afghans in their missions and they have no real way of knowing the difference between a Taliban and a local who thinks a bunch of murderous Europeans shouldn't be wandering round in his backgarden. Which he shouldn't.

Can a war be winnable if we don't actually have any firm objectives? There is no evidence that the life of Afghans is better now than it was before and that truly is saying something. Maybe it's just a question of face now. If we aren't seen to have done something, anything, with the military presence then all those deaths, all that oppression, all those lies will have been for nothing.

Well, maybe they were.


Oh, I forgot. The real reason we're in Afghanistan is to liberate the women. One burned child at a time. I think this video on women and Afghanistan is worth watching if you're wondering whether that's been a success or not;

Dark Poppies, full of blood and poverty

The war in Afghanistan is not going well for anyone. Not for the Afghans (whichever side, or caught in the middle) and certainly not for the occupying forces who've recently had to admit that they don't trust the Afghans to run their own nation and they've had to scale down their military objectives.

Now that Afghanistan is the source for the majority of the world's heroin we're in a bind. We came to make the world free from terror (mission accomplished, natch) and whilst we were at it we'd make the Afghan's free from tyranny (they'll get back to us on that one I reckon).

The justification for our foreign fighters being in Afghanistan is the war on terror - but whilst we're there we may as well pursue the war on drugs and blame the Taliban for the increased drug production. Under quite what mandate we're doing this I've never quite worked out.

The US forces have hoped to spray chemical agents from the air in order to destroy the only livelihood Afghan farmers have. A charming guy called Chemical Bill is very keen on the idea but they're always getting knocked back. Possibly because the whole concept does not fit very easily with winning over the hearts and minds of the Afghan population.

Whilst we should give Western forces the credit for sticking to what they know - destroying economies - this is not a tactic that is likely to end up with an effective and democratic state at the end of it. You don't meet developmental goals in one of the poorest places on the planet by poisoning the soil.

It seems we can't even do what the Russians did in the seventies, namely build a functioning state which delivered some sort of benefit to the population - or what the Taliban did when they all but eradicated drug production in the areas they controlled. With British backed corruption (that appears to go right to the top) and a third of the Afghan police as drug addicts you've got an uphill struggle on your hands.

What I don't understand is why we don't try the obvious solution. Instead of setting ourselves against the interests of the Afghans why not work with them? Buy up the poppy and manufacture medicines. We get life saving drugs, they get a legitimate income with which they can begin to build decent lives from themselves.

Afghanistan would be a better place to live, they'd be less violence in the world and maybe, just maybe, we'd stop stoking the flames of hate that creates terrorism and religious fundamentalism. Where's the down side? That it's not politically expedient for "respectable" politicians to endorse buying opium perhaps? Maybe, although my concern is that, in fact, it's because the welfare of the Afghan people isn't even on their agenda. It just is not part of the plan.

The crisis is a gift to the Obama campaign who have led with criticism of the Bush strategy on Iraq and Afghanistan, describing the Afghan situation as a forgotten war. We can hope that a removal of Bushite foreign policy from the White House may mark some sort of shift in the region, although I suspect it might not.

Of course, if Sarah Palin were ever to get a say over Afghan policy Christ knows what would occur seeing as she doesn't even know where it is (which I think is pretty bad when she is fighting an election where Afghanistan is one of the major issues).

Whatever the disheartening short term prospects, it seems to me that there are things that we can do to meet the aims of rebuilding the country, giving some sort of empowerment to local people and easing up on the killing and destruction that does not seem to have served us particularly well up to this point. But those alternative strategies involve working with Afghan people with their interests at the top of our priorities, which is probably why I'm pessimistic about the chances of that happening any time soon.

Interesting link on winter '08 survey of Afghan opium farming.

Interview: Salma Yaqoob

Many thanks to Salma Yaqoob for agreeing to this exclusive interview where we discuss Respect, politics in Birmingham and democratic reform.

This week has seen three major political events; demonstrations marking the anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, the BNP appearing on Question Time and the postal strike. Politics seems to be becoming increasingly confrontational. What's your approach to this?

I don’t feel the issue of Afghanistan is such a confrontational one any more. In fact, the opposite is increasingly the case. A recent Times opinion poll showed that over 65% of the electorate favoured the troops withdrawing. Of course, it was not always like that. I remember well how difficult it was to speak about Afghanistan after 9/11. For example it was not uncommon to have abuse hurled at you when doing Stop the War campaigning in Birmingham city centre around that time. Thankfully those days, and that sense of isolation over the issue of opposing the occupation of Afghanistan, are gone.

Unfortunately, the issues of industrial conflict and racism are probably going to be very much with us in the coming period. As I write the BBC News are carrying stories about the deepening nature of the recession. At a time when we need more government investment to kick-start the economy, all the mainstream parties are proposing cuts, cuts and more cuts in public spending as a solution.

This invariably will provoke reaction from trade union members wanting, quite rightly, to protect themselves and their families from a crisis not of their making. Invariably, the political consensus of the mainstream parties will be accompanied by the politics of scapegoating. I am expecting there to be an increase in racism and votes for the BNP in the coming period. All the more reason for the broadest unity left wing and progressive forces in the coming period.

Many of my readers may not know much about where you stand on specific policies. I wonder if you'd be happy to say a few words about where you stand on a few? First nuclear power, second refugees and asylum seekers and third, democratic reform.

1. I think the recent United Nations Security Council vote in favour of the need to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons is an important development. However it is only a first step. We need binding and equitable international agreements on reducing nuclear arsenals. And those holding the biggest arsenals need to be the first in showing the way. One very simple but significant step this country could take would be to scrap Trident.

2. It is over 60 years ago that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written. 
In many ways it is a remarkable and inspiring document in its commitment to uphold protects the rights, freedom, dignity, respect and equality of all people. And of course it was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. We must never forget that it was so-called civilized Europe that gave birth to fascist inspired genocide. Our attitude to those others escaping oppression and tyranny today is simply a hallmark of how civilized a society we are.

Britain has a moral responsibility to provide a safe haven to such people and it is a disgrace that tens of thousands of refused asylum seekers are currently being kept in destitution, denied the right to work in order to drive them out of the country.

The way the mainstream parties promote and pander to reactionary and racist ideas about refugees and asylum seekers is deeply worrying. It was noticeable that in the recent edition of Question Time that one quote of Nick Griffin's that nobody mentioned was his comments about boats carrying migrants from Africa to Europe should be sunk. None of the panel dared to go near the issue of asylum and immigration except to present themselves as being ‘tough’ on it. Undercutting racism and prejudice on this issue is a critical task for the left today.

3. I support the call for proportional representation. British politics is suffocating because it is so dominated by the politics of tweedle dum and tweedle dee. The implementation of PR will allow more genuinely democratic expression and enable progressive opinion to better punch its weight. It is ideas, the contest between them, and the commitment to implement them, that will really breathe life back into a political system ossified by a lack of real choice and discredited by expenses abuse.

As a local councillor what do you think the key issues are that face local residents?

I am an elected councilor for Sparkbrook ward and I hold weekly advice bureau. There are three complaints that I hear again and again: lack of local housing, jobs and school places. Birmingham has shocking levels of overcrowding and a chronic shortage of council housing. It is to Labour’s eternal shame that they presided over a halving of the council housing stock in the city.

Similarity, unemployment is critical. A recent study in Birmingham found the with the recession beginning to take its toll, 37 per cent of adults of working age in the city do not have jobs. Finally, many of these same families are having to travel across the city every morning to drop their kids off, often to differing schools, because of shortage of school places, plus we have no secondary school in my ward.

I think it's fair to say that your party, Respect, has been through some radical transformations in its short life. How would you characterise the organisation today?

Making very healthy progress! The SWP are no longer with us and one consequence has been to make it easier for Respect to adhere to the thinking behind its original conception.

I always wanted Respect to be an organisation that seeks to progress the totality of the left, and not just our bit of it. I feel, for the first time, we are actually starting to implement that concept. For example, I am proud of the position we adopted in the European elections where we openly campaigned for Green candidates in the North West and West Midlands because they were better positioned to stop the BNP. And I am proud that we unequivocally came out in support of Ken Livingstone in the last London Mayoral election.

Respect is a very young, small party of the radical left with a real electoral footprint in two key areas. If we can emerge after the next general election with our support intact or even stronger I think our future will look bright. And I am confident we are going to emerge from the General Election in such a position.

You're running a strong campaign to win a seat in Birmingham at the general election. Good luck. What contribution do you think one lone MP can make whether we end up being under a Labour or Tory government?

Thank you. The only positive contribution a single MP can make is to use the platform to advance progressive issues. And that is the single reason why I am standing.

I have taken the hard route by going outside the ‘mainstream’, despite no shortage of approaches from them. But I have chosen this road because I value my independence. I want to be able to speak my mind about the issues I feel strongly about – war, racism, and inequality - unbeholden to anyone. My hope is to help stimulate genuine debate and discussion, rather than merely re-enforcing the status quo, which has caused many of the problems in the first place.

We need more independent voices in parliament. I hope after next May myself, Caroline Lucas and others will be adding ours to the likes of George Galloway in being prepared to use the office not only to speak truth to power, but to address the democratic deficit such that the concerns of millions of people as expressed through popular social movements are no longer ignored, but genuinely represented.

Red pencil: Afghanistan

You know, I always fancied being an editor. Just to try my hand I've taken this article from today's Guardian and applied a light editorial touch. In black is the original, as printed, and in white my editions - simply highlight them with your mouse to see my contributions. You'll get the best effect if you check it out space by space rather than all in one go.

Miliband looks beyond the war in Afghanistan into the abyss
Richard Norton-Taylor

With British soldiers and Afghan civilians being killed at the highest rate since the war against our former allies the Taliban started eight years ago, David Miliband, the hapless foreign secretary, will say tomorrow that more effort must be made to promote the political and economic development of Afghanistan in between bombing it back into the stone age.

In a speech at Nato headquarters in a secret volcano in Brussels, Miliband will stress the need for a comprehensive strategy beyond the fighting by mainly US, Afghan and British soldiers in southern Afghanistan as that clearly isn't working.

His intervention comes at a time of concern within the government at the impact on public opinion of the rising number of British deaths because public opinion matters, deaths don't. Ministers and defence chiefs have warned there will be more casualties as British and US troops mount extremely offensive operations in an attempt to provide more death and security for the Afghan presidential elections next month.

The incumbent puppet, Hamid Karzai, is expected to win, though privately both US and British officials are concerned about his dependence on corrupt warlords who pay scant regard to basic human rights but you can't fight a war without the Pentagon can you?.

Miliband is expected to emphasise the need for development aid to be channelled to economic and welfare programmes to help kill ordinary Afghans. Military action must be complemented by measures to improve the way the remaining Afghans are governed, Miliband is expected to say.

The coming months are regarded as crucial if Nato-led forces are to force the Taliban and any other Afghans who are in the way to retreat and lead to a humiliating reconciliation process involving at least some of their leaders to negotiate an inclusive agreement involving Pashtuns and with the blessing of Pakistan or else.

Whitehall officials said tonight that Miliband would go easy on European allies, most of whom have sensibly refused to allow their soldiers to be deployed for combat in a war that can't be won.

I enjoyed that. The whole process has reminded me of that excellent poem, the woman who wasn't there (I think that's what it was called). By the way, no offense to the journalist in question, he's actually one of the better ones.

Umbrella against the war

As always last night's CamPeace meeting was excellent in a fraught kind of way. It included an in depth discussion on the history of Afghanistan by local StWC co-ordinator Jannie and the usual robust, frank and sometimes off the wall debate.

I made a terribly controversial contribution making the outrageous claim that the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were carried out by Al Queada style terrorists rather than the CIA and/or MI5. Apparently this makes me part of the lunatic fringe of the anti-war movement. Sigh, that's a burden I will just have to live with.

However, it was the indomitable Doros who, in his usual straight to point way, managed to draw the first blood of the night - by condemning the Stop the War Coalition in the harshest possible terms (although in informal discussion later he did claim this was because "he loved them", on that I shall reserve judgement).

The argument from StWC members was that we should all be under one banner and they compared, in unfavourable terms, the turn out of twenty for the monthly CamPeace meeting with the "eighty" at StWC's November public meeting (which seemed slightly disingenuous to me).

The difficulty for me was that whilst I think CamPeace should be affiliated with StWC and there is no question it is part of the anti-war movement, its value lies in the very independence that was being criticised and the (possibly unintentional) implication of StWC's argument was that CamPeace should wind up and just take part in their routine of broad meetings with the Lib-Dem MP, building for the next demonstration and sloganeering about an invasion of Iran that isn't going to happen.

CamPeace people do attend and build StWC events and that's all that can be expected of them. Unless the local Coalition is going to create a space where we discuss issues in depth, and the background to what's happening in the world today (which it isn't going to happen) then CamPeace has a role. It's also a space where genuinely independent activists and controversial ideas can be discussed without being squashed as heretical.

After we'd all benefited from a really useful talk by Jannie on the history of Afghanistan from the 1600's to today it seemed obvious, to me at least, that we can't get this anywhere else. One audience member even claimed we shouldn't spend *any* time thinking about the background of Al Quaida, the Taliban, or the Iraqi insurgency - because the only problem in the world is us, the West. I think that's dangerous, unnuanced and completely uninspiring.

We need to know who and what we are dealing with, and an understanding of the history is extremely valuable. Al Quaida and the Mujaheddin's roots in the Western backed war against the USSR's occupation is important, and the two hundred year history of Imperial interventions in Afghanistan is very instructive and gives us a good all round grounding in the region which prepares us for well informed discussion rather than arguments born out of simple gut feeling, no matter how well intentioned.

For me, it comes down to how we "do" pluralism. We should come together in as united a possible way, for instance like during last summer's invasion of Lebanon and Gaza by Israeli armed forces, but we need to have space to be ourselves. You can't have a united movement that never comes together but you can't have a diverse movement that insists on homogeneity.

Church groups do things that SWP branches can't, and visa verse - and we need both, and a hundred other variations, to build a movement that gets into every nook and crannie of society.

Next month (Thursday, March 1st, 7.30 pm, Friends Meeting House, Jesus Lane, Cambridge) CamPeace will be discussing "Democracy and the Balkans" with top notch brain box Liz Fearon leading off discussion.

It's important to look at the record of these democratic and/or humanitarian interventions so we do not forget the lessons of the past the next time those at the top come to us saying "well, we have to do something... so let's send in the bombers" and unfortunately this is the only space in Cambridge where we are able to have the more in depth discussions that we so desperately need as part of a wider, more comprehensive anti-war strategy.

Operation Afghan Democracy

The elections are underway in Afghanistan, not that you'd know it from the rather minimalist press coverage on the subject. I mean it's not as if these elections have been controversial (ie rigged) in the past, or that Afghanistan is a prominent part of our foreign policy.

As well as taking place amidst a military offensive in the south the US also killed two protesters today, and four more have been killed over the last week by Afghan police. You can feel the place getting more democratic with every bullet fired can't you?

They really are becoming more Western as we speak. Yes, the bank has failed in Kabul with many customers unable to withdraw money due to queues and, cough, lack of money. But this isn't just a failed bank, it's a corrupt unregulated bank working hand in glove with the regime that helped to steal last year's elections.

Juan Cole points to the that the bank "gave millions to the presidential campaign of Hamid Karzai last summer" has an executive as election advisor and Karzai's brother owns 9% of the bank. "NATO should not have allowed Karzai to steal the presidential election. (At least now we have more of an idea how the theft was accomplished). It should not have allowed him to block corruption investigations."

We criticise the Taliban, rightly, over their attitude towards women's rights and human rights more generally, but turn a blind eye to Karzai's government when it commits the exact same offences.

Women activists in Afghanistan say democracy is moving backwards "Five years ago things were different... Women campaigned openly even in provinces like Kandahar and Helmand. “I could not believe that women were able to put up their posters in those areas,” Saqeb said. “But they conducted campaigns and they won. Now — forget about it.”

“There are not going to be elections in Kandahar,” she snorted. “There is no security, and everything there has already been decided.”

Without financial or Western backing for bodyguards women candidates and anti-occupation candidates find themselves in mortal danger. If you're not part of the puppet regime it is extremely difficult to make your voice heard as security forces refuse to give protection to opposition and women candidates.

Reuters reports on electoral fraud complaints against government officials going uninvestigated and protests against lack of polling stations being attacked by police - and of course the election boycott by Taliban supporters and the fact three candidates have been killed in recent weeks.

This is not what democracy looks like, so the press seem to have decided to look away. David Miliband should get up and tell us how well his war is going, that should help his Labour leadership election campaign if, that is, he hasn't already bought the result.

Blog Bits: interview with Kate Smurthwaite

Kate Smurthwaite is a brilliant stand up comic who writes over at Cruella blog, among other numerous places. She's even been on breakfast TV roasting some sexist creep - wooo!

In the fourth in my short series of interviews with fellow bloggers we discuss Michael Jackson (his first mention on this blog), grammar and how much money Germaine Greer has cost her.

• What are the highs and lows of blogging for you?

The biggest high is always when I blog about someone in the public eye and they notice and respond. I've had that from MPs, authors and also newspaper columnists. If they agree with my points great but even more satisfying when I can tell I've really gotten under their skin. For instance a Sunday Times columnist (who shall remain nameless) who wrote on her own blog that I was "probably too intellectual to brush her own hair".

The only low really, aside from days when I don't feel like blogging, is when someone who is supposed to be (in my head) a good guy/gal suddenly turns to the dark side. Robin Ince (super left-wing comic) agreed to appear in FHM recently and I cried. If "good" people behave like that what hope is there for "bad" people?

• How does blogging fit into your politics, comedy and life generally?

I blog about all of the above. I blog my opinions, I find out about others experiences through my blog, I publicise my comedy and political activism on my blog and I use it to tell stories from my own life. I also understand politics in the context of my own life and tell stories from my own life in my comedy.

My comedy is very political and my political campaigning is full of comedy. Scientists have shown that jokes affect political opinion more than serious statements do. The revolution starts here.

• How long does it take you to write a post?

Longer than I think. I assume it will take ten minutes (like this interview) and then once I've started writing I end up taking hours and being late for whatever else I'm supposed to be doing.

• How does writing a Cruella blog post compare to writing elsewhere?

When I write for my blog I write about whatever I feel like writing. Anywhere else I write they're going to have pre-emptively pigeon-holed me (and maybe themselves) so I'll already be there as an expert on whatever they think I should be an expert on.

I write much more about "mainstream" politics and rationalism on my blog but when I go elsewhere the first consideration is usually "has a vagina, is only entitled to write about sex or issues specifically affecting only women". But hell, I'll take the work, at least I'm getting work. Also I don't really bother double-checking spelling and grammar on my blog, my readers are smart enough to figure it out.

• If you could imagine a perfect blog - what would it look like?

It would look like a newspaper that divided coverage up based on a strict set of rules - so one sentence per person killed, etc. So several pages a week about Iraq and Afghanistan, several pages about male violence against women every week and then a single line "Popular singer Michael Jackson died this week at his home."

And proposed law changes would be discussed based on rational scientific basis of lives saved or dramatically ameliorated. If I had time I would write this myself but I never will, it would take a big team.

Quick fire round:

1. Jo Brand or Shappi Khorsandi? Both - how could you choose?
   
   
2. History or economics? History. Economics is a bunch of theories and most of them don't work.
   
   
3. Fourth Plinth - hot or not? It's hot. I'm still watching.
   
   
4. Guardian online or hard copy? Online, I buy The Independent in paper copy.
   
   
5. Afghanistan - troops out now? Of course - our prescence so far has boosted Taliban numbers to the point where they're now capable of invading parts of Pakistan. Why continue driving people to them?
   
   
6. Action movie or comedy? Comedy. Good one though, there's a lot of rubbish on the market these days.
   
   
7. Coffee or beer? I don't drink coffee.
   
   
8. Opera or Oprah? Opera
   
   
9. Greer or Dworkin? Dworkin. I don't even consider Greer a feminist any more plus she publically said women weren't funny and it's affecting my income. Dworkin was great.
   
   
10. There's a free ticket on the next space shuttle - do you go or do you send your enemies? I'm on it. I think humans should have started colonising space decades ago. Not instead of solving problems here but instead of causing them (see above under Afghanistan).

More Cambridge bombers

As I was walking to work this morning I passed the Mosque, as I always do, and was surprised to see a load of TV cameras outside. Later I saw the headlines in the local press. At least two of the bombers that have been arrested recently worked at Addenbrokes and attended Mosque round the corner from me.

In addition to that Dr Kafeel Ahmed, the bomber who was wrestled to the ground in Glasgow and is probably the most recognisable, if charred, face of the recent plot, studied at Anglia Ruskin University. He's supposed to have had links to Hizb ut-Tahir whilst in the city, who appear to be (or have been) very organised in the area.

It's believed that Cambridge is where the bombers met, as friends, and began a relationship that ended in attempted mass murder of air travellers and "slags". One former friend described Bilal from their meetings in Cambridge like this;

"Bilal had grown up in Baghdad. He told me how he hated Saddam Hussein, how even after the American invasion his extended family stayed there. All were of the same ideological persuasion. All believed in Wahhabi ideology. He didn't see himself as being radical: he saw himself as following Islam. He developed a vitriolic hatred for the Shias after one of his closest friends at university in Iraq was killed by a Shia militiaman. He would say they needed to be massacred. He called them kafirs, disbelievers who insulted the Prophet...

"He refused to frequent the local halal takeaway in Cambridge because the Turkish guys there didn't attend mosque. He used to say to me: "We should have soft hearts for the believers and hard hearts for the non-believers." He epitomised this. He was very humble and polite and had an endearing and distinctive belly laugh."

It's a chilling but all too believable portrait of someone who has allowed their passion and commitment to what they see as a better world to lead them into dark and horrifying acts. These men may have been determined opponents of the war on Iraq and Afghanistan but it's clear they share little common ground with progressive politics.

I was surprised to read what appears to be a new approach in the latest Socialist Worker that "Attacks on civilians in Britain are unjustifiable – just as are the killing of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere" by editor Chris Bambery (who is a great admirer of the pro-terrorist film Battle of Algiers). I hope this means a more nuanced approach from Socialist Worker and Respect towards the Iraqi resistance in future.

These attacks were not only an unjustifiable reaction to the Iraq war, a small secret cell carrying out unaccountable and poorly planned actions that could benefit no one (especially foreign workers in the NHS), their heads were also bound up in the baggage of a reactionary and backward form of Islam that didn't simply oppose "Imperialism" but went against many of the progressive advances, like a women's role in society, that have been made in the last thirty years.

My enemy's enemy is not always my friend - and whilst we should keep up the dialogue with those with whom we disagree, if we beginning to duck important issues - like what kind of society we would like to see and what kinds of political actions are effective then, I think, we'll be doing ourselves a great disservice.

Saturday's Stop the War Coaltiion conference

A little bit late but I thought I should get round to writing a report on Saturday's Stop the War Coalition's AGM. You can read the official report here, and I've seen three other reports; from Joseph Healey, Weekly Worker and Craig Murray. It's not all complimentary I'm afraid, but I'll come on to that.

In general it was a very good conference I thought, certainly better than I feared it might be. Smaller than the last one I went to two years ago certainly and, to my mind, slightly directionless but in some ways that's much better than being too narrow in scope.

For me one of the best speakers, among some very good contributors, was Daud Abdullah (from the MCB) who was very softly spoken and moderate in tone and was wickedly funny on the idea that the West has "common values" when some of us thought bombing countries was a good idea and others thought it was a touch mistaken. That might indicate a slight difference in values.

Another excellent speech was from Seumus Milne who was very convincing on the fact that US bombs and troops don't represent the strength of its imperial power, but in fact its failure. I should say there was an undertow of friendly disagreement on the new regime in the US which was never explicitly tackled.

Speakers like Tony Benn and George Galloway tended towards seeing this as some sort of positive shift and others, like Sami Ramadani and Jeremy Corbyn, seemed to see little difference between the administration of Obama and that of Bush. A broad movement should have space for both of these positions even though, frankly, I think the latter is more a product of dogma than anything else.

Never-the-less there was an unacknowledged, but correct, shift away from the "don't attack Iran" slogans towards a re-emphasis on what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There was an excellent and very funny contribution from an Afghan journalist, Mohammed Asif, who was particularly damning of how the aid money gets spent.

The Green Party was ably represented by Joseph Healey who was squeezed onto the platform at the last minute after some difficulty getting someone onto the platform at all. Joseph talked about the recent Nato demonstration in Strasbourg and the role that the coalition has here in terms of influencing and communicating with anti-war movements elsewhere in Europe and the world.

In particular I thought he was very good on the need to move away from a society where we are producing arms for sale and use towards renewable technologies and sustainable economics.

There were a number of motions, the majority of which were completely uncontroversial - which you can read at the Stop the War website. There were excellent ones on women and war, on the EDO demonstrations, and Pakistan for example. Sadly the affiliation of Hands off the People of Iran, an organisation that opposes war and sanctions as well as providing solidarity with Iranian trade unionists, feminists and other progressives, was again blocked.

The speeches against came from the chair, in his capacity as chair (where else does this happen?), and a particularly vacuous individual who actually said that if Hopi wanted to support the progressive movements against the Iranian regime they should hop on a plane and do it in Iran. But where do they campaign against sanctions or invasion from?

I've been told to go back to Russia a number of times in my life but this is the first time I've heard go back to Iran. I look forward to this person denouncing those who provide support to anti-occupation movements in Afghanistan and Iraq and demanding these people go to these countries if they want to fight the regimes there. No? Thought not.

What was the longest and most controversial debate? The members database! I think a few members were a bit frustrated by the fact that they weren't able to raise organisational points at their AGM and I have some sympathy with them as the conference did seem organised in a rather hap-hazard fashion. For example we were told that we couldn't amend motions and then the chair started amending motions - very confusing. However, in general the day went very smoothly considering it was organised on a shoe string budget.

I think the concept of a broad movement that brings in people of all kinds of political positions under one tent is absolutely essential. The coalition supplies this, albeit imperfectly. It does let itself down though, and not just on Hopi.

I refer here to the esteemed Craig Murray who has been an invaluable resource in exposing the hypocrisy of the British State's foreign policy. In what amounted to an excellent speech he made a rather misguided remark. Sexist even, but not something you'd be surprised to hear in any workplace or cafe. Brace yourself, he said;

"You know, I make no claim to being politically correct. So I can say that, if I were married to Jacqui Smith, I would probably use a lot of porn too."

Now, the moment he said it I thought "Oh Craig, you've let yourself down there" and there was a frisson that rippled across the hall, directly after the laugh. Now in my opinion the thing to do was to ignore it. It's one small remark that amounted to, probably, less than 1% of the speech. A remark that should not have been made, but let's keep it all in proportion.

However, leading SWP member Elaine Heffernan thought it necessary to make a point of order on this and rudely demand that Murray withdraw his remark (which he didn't do, I think he was a bit taken aback by the response). It seems to me that, as a human being, if you can't let one tiny remark in the context of an excellent speech go then you're a sociopath. More to the point I suspect that the STWC will now treat Murray as a persona non-grata (they've not put his speech up on their site for example), this is quite worrying more so because it stems from a minor remark that took less than a second to say and was outside the main scope of the speech.

If the coalition wants to be broad and inclusive it should be aware that haranguing people who are not conversant with the ins and outs of left-speak then it will limit it's own growth. This kind of attempt to insist that people do not speak like the rest of the population is far more misguided than the initial sexist remark. If the coalition is to build on the excellent work it has done so far and renew itself for the challenges ahead it does need to throw off some of these dangerous habits of trying control what people say and how they say it.

Afghanistan: Bring them all home

Just a quick snippet on the video released by the Taliban of US soldier Private Bowe Bergdahl.

I'm not sure I have any particular revulsion at the way the Taliban are parading this captured soldier, although I certainly do hope that they treat him properly and release him without injury as all prisoners of war should be treated with respect, fed, watered and definitely not tortured (like in Guantanamo or Abu Graib).

It's more the response from the US armed forces themselves that I find interesting. According to the BBC "Capt Jon Stock, condemned the use of the video."

"The use of the soldier for propaganda purposes we view as against international law"

Well hold on. Who established this practice of parading prisoners for propaganda purposes? If the US regards this sort of thing as against international law why has it consistently allowed footage and stills of captured troops to be released to the media? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander surely?

Admittedly when we pioneered the practice it was to persuade the home population of the rights of our various invasions rather than to try to demoralise an invading force but none the less the US (and its allies) have been more than happy with the 'parading' of captured enemy combatants whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I hope this soldier is returned fit and well to his family soon and, in fact, that all Western soldiers are returned to their loved ones through the mechanism of a full and complete military withdrawal from the region.

Obama gets tough

If Barack Obama could see my face he would be looking into the eyes of an unimpressed person. Very unimpressed. Ms Clinton taunted him at their YouTube debate saying he wasn't tough enough (because he said he was willing to talk to people like Chavez and Castro) but he mis-heard and thought she said he wasn't deranged enough and so he's threaten to send troops into Pakistan whilst simultaneously poking them with a sticky stick. Gee, thanks so much "anti-war candidate".

Here's a snap shot of what he said "Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again...If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President (Pervez) Musharraf won't act, we will... Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan."

As Philip Giraldi says at the Huffington Post "Democrats are invariably obsessed with demonstrating how tough they can be... Obama's new, tougher stance to teach the treacherous Pakis a lesson is already being used by the Pakistani media to flail Musharraf for his ties to the United States. Obama might be surprised to learn that no one particularly wants to be invaded by the world's sole remaining superpower, particularly as Iraq has proven to be such a success. Obama also seems unaware that his posturing for political gain could have real foreign policy consequences."

And as Peter Preston says "Can the Pakistan army occupy and subdue the vast tribal territories along the Afghan border? It has never managed to in 60 years. The army is basically Punjabi: the frontier land is alien. The best Islamabad has contrived in peaceful times is a kind of ad hoc devolution which lets the tribes govern themselves. But these aren't peaceful times. Guerrilla cum civil war is one more potential swirl in the growing chaos."

Obama is asking of the Pakistan government something the US government has not been able to achieve in any of the areas it has dominance over, and threatens military action if they do not comply. Charming. He obviously likes seeing marines come home in body bags.

Whilst the Hindustan Times and the Daily India seem curious rather than angry, the reaction in Pakistan is a little more, well, pensive at the prospect of US marines yomping over their northern border.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri demonstrated a mastery of understatement by saying “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.”

“Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,” Pakistan's Minister of State for Information Tariq Azeem said a little more robustly. “This seems to be a reaction to their own failure in Afghanistan to control the US casualties and instead of addressing the situation there, they are finding scapegoats and damaging their own cause.”

It's been left to George W. Bush to ring up Musharraf to reassure them that the US "respects Pakistani sovereignty". God, he's such a soft touch that bloke. He hasn't launched a war for ages and now he's trying to stop other people getting stuck in! Damn hippy.

Of course, this has been a week for US Presidential candidates to threaten unilateral military action in other people's countries. Republican hopeful Tom Tancredo made the interesting suggestion of using nuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina if "the terrorists" were to attack America. Nope, can't see any flaws in that plan. Foolproof.

US foreign policy, even when it's trying to be progressive, just can't get away from the logic of... well... imperialism. We can use that word these days can't we? It's not de rigeur is it? The fact these plans are being mooted should be no surprise from a governing class that seems to think to way to end all conflicts in the Middle East is by flooding the region with weapons. Remind me, how do you spell "yeee haaa"?

Walter Mosley on Afghanistan

I was pleasantly surprised when listening to Radio Four last night to discover Walter Mosley was being interviewed on Front Row (16 mins in). Whilst I've not read everything he's ever written that's largely because he writes faster than I read and so it will take longer than forever for me to catch up.

Anyway, during the interview he mentioned that he was for the Afghan war. He thought that since Obama was elected "Now we're trying to change, we're trying to do the right thing." He conceded that Obama was upping the troops presence but he said he'd be willing to "go along with him" on that one.

I have to say I was shocked. Not that someone could say that, of course there are plenty of people in favour of an Afghan surge, but that this passionate critic of capitalism and imperialism was willing to "go along" with the war.

However, he introduced a condition. He'd only support it if "he institutes the draft." The draft would mean that "all Americans would have to go off to fight, not just the poor ones who have to join the Army."

The interviewer, knowing Mosley, was surprised and so Mosley explained;

"Look, if a country's going to go to war, a country should believe in that war... If [all the 18-27 year olds] are drafted and their parents are still okay with it and want them to go to war, you know the voters, then fine!...

I think that if middle class men and women have their daughters about to be trundled off the Afghanistan they're going to think two, three, four, five times, but they're not going to worry when some poor black, Mexican or white kid gets sent over."

I guess that's one way of getting your point across, although I still wish he'd warned, at my age any sudden surprises could be my last.

Afghan corruption is life and death

I've only just seen this but The Sunday Times had an in depth story by the exceptionally fine journalist Christina Lamb on Afghanistan. It includes revelations about the recent shooting of five British soldiers that made my blood run cold;

The 25-year-old, an unmarried man called Gulbuddin, was part of a 15-strong team that manned a police station in the Nad Ali district, in the heart of Helmand’s poppy-farming lands.

Embedded with the Afghan police were two trainers from the Royal Military Police and a protection force of 14 soldiers from Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, the Grenadier Guards.

The Taliban subsequently claimed Gulbuddin as one of theirs. Senior sources say local intelligence shows the claim is false, however. In addition, witnesses contacted by The Sunday Times say other factors lay behind the massacre.

According to two Afghans who knew him, Gulbuddin had complained of being brutally beaten, sodomised and sexually abused by a senior Afghan officer. A policeman named Ajmal, a friend of the gunman, said Gulbuddin had been constantly tortured. “He was being used for sexual purposes,” said Ajmal.

Another policeman, Kharullah, who was injured in the shooting, said: “Gulbuddin was beaten many times and that’s why he got angry. One day when he was patrolling with British soldiers, he swore he was going to kill him.”

When Gulbuddin opened fire with a machinegun, his target was his alleged abuser. According to the Afghan sources, the five British soldiers were killed simply because they were present and considered to be the man’s protectors.

The allied task to prop up this corrupt regime is not simply one where we are making the best out of a bad situation but one where we are actively protecting rapists, ballot-riggers and reactionaries.

Far from being killed by the Taliban it appears that these British servicemen were in fact killed by a police officer that we'd severely let down in the most horrendous way. I've no doubt that they did not deserve to be killed, just as Gulbuddin did not deserve to be raped and beaten by a superior officer protected by a ring of British bayonets.

Speaking on Question Time last week Sir Ian Blair had said the problem was that the police officers were being recruited "off the streets" (i.e. they come from Afghanistan) when in fact the main problem is that the regime the police serve is itself corrupt to the very top.

27th Carnival of Socialism

Yes, it's Carnival of Socialism time again, in fact it's well over due. I've got a pot pouri of posts that I've spotted in the last couple of weeks - plus a few that have been suggested by Carnival watchers. Those suggestions are always vital to keeping the carnival fresh I reckon, which might help cut against what seems to be a bit of an anglo-centric bias - anyway let's dive in!

There's a lot of talk about the economy at the moment - quite understandably. Ben Solah looks at whether the Australia's economic crutch is breaking? Notes on the Front looks at the Irish economic indicators.

Which means that trade union action needs to be an indispensable part of what the left is doing. Liam lays down a perspective of leaders vs bureaucrats in the trade union movement. Jon Rogers talks union strategy, and Tom Ramplin thinks unions should be targeting casual workers. Talking union lays out a plan for the left to take up an economic justice agenda.

A different Jim looks at poverty for those in work, and Peter Cranie looks at the same topic from a more personal perspective.

Lenin looks at how the airwar in Afghanistan is intensifying, Stroppy wonders whether the claims about women's liberation have not quite come to pass in the region. The enormous brain of Immanuel Wallestein sets about Obama's Afghanistan policy. Meanwhile Shiraz Socialist looks at Russian invasions then and now.

He's not exactly what I'd call a socialist but I couldn't pass up Jesse Jackson's piece on Obama's promised land? Whilst Catch a fire looks at efforts to curb crime in Bermuda.

Tami posted this excellent post on polyamory and Complex System of Pipes has a critical post on Manchester Gay Pride. Meanwhile Hysperia notices a bizarre story about a nun beauty pageant. Jess has a very nice piece on why feminism and capitalism can't mix.

On to culture; Splintered Sunrise has an interesting review of Mark Steel's new book Whats going on? I'll allow for one Olympics reference so let's have this great piece from Reading the Maps, oh alright, let's have Harpy Marx on competitive sports too. Dave Riley ponders Brecht, Bermuda Radical commits heresy by not particularly liking Slavo Zizec, and Bob from Brockley remembers Leo Abse.

Oh, and Cara mentions in passing that Peter Hitchins is a piece of shit.

And lastly what I thought was a really excellent piece on left blogging itself from Phil, which sparked what I found a very productive discussion. Mick Hall adds his opinion in for good measure.

The next one was to be over at the Steeltown - but he's having to take a break from blogging so get your name in quick to host the next edition!

Out with the old and in with the new

In the year that Dr Gius Balthar became the chancellor of the Exchequor and not-so-secretly undermined the economy creating vulnerabilities for the Cylons to exploit I thought I'd take a look forward to what we might expect for the 2011.

The first shock of the year comes when the planned statue of Tony Blair is scrapped. The Lib Dems hail yet another alteration to government policy when an enormous statue to Nick Clegg is erected standing astride Westminster bridge eating the dismembered body of a baby.

Simon Hughes declares this proves the party's critics wrong as the Tories were probably planning a statue of Darth Vader or something.

Next Vince Cable is awarded a special honour by his leader of a bright jewel embedded in the centre of his forehead. This not only shows the world how important the quick stepping Octogenarian is, it has the added facility of allowing Clegg the ability to monitor all his conversations with 'constituents' in order to 'help' him with any extra work load that may need taking off him.

The new year will not be free of scandals and mis-speaking moments either.

Green MP Caroline Lucas will be heard declaring that the next organisation to give her an award will be "awarded a knuckle sandwich" in return. When discussing the issue of her many awards, Lucas thought she was talking to a resident of Brighton Pavillion, who was in fact a staffer at The Pidgeon Fanciers' Gazette picking up their biggest scoop of the year.

Lucas was thought to be annoyed that people thought one token sane MP in the House of Commons was enough. "If I don't get some decent company in the voting lobby soon," she declared "I'm going postal. No, honestly, I am. Postal. You just watch."

Comeback of the year will go to David Laws who returned to frontbench politics in the Exchequer for several hours until it was revealed that he had been charging the taxpayer for wages for a member of staff who turned out to be his six month old love child. His insistence that the child, "Broken-No", was indeed doing light typing and answering the phone cut little ice with the public.

Promotion comes unexpectedly to Tory Nadine Dorries who's brief at the Ministry for Equality takes many campaigners by surprise. Her promise to re-inject religious values into politics and make the Taliban look like "rank amateurs" makes some on the government benches uneasy.

Michael Gove is finally sacked as education minister when he is found literally setting fire to a primary school.

The Prime Minister had forgiven his previous bulldozing of a secondary school but was visibly shaking on a TV interview as he reminded viewers "That this school is in Surrey. Surrey!"

David Miliband makes a surprise return to politics as a government adviser on Afghanistan. David will say that "Given the rank corruption, treachery and poor leadership we have seen, Afghanistan will make a refreshing change from UK politics."

In international news Sarah Palin will launch a new Crusade to the holy land. A five thousand strong volunteer army joins her in storming Graceland, handing over the running of its gift shop to Halliburton. Sadly Palin was injured in a friendly fire incident when a stray bullet hit her in the head.

Doctors say that had the bullet hit her "three feet lower, it would have gone straight through her brain."

My last prediction is that the coalition breaks up and an early general election is called. The surprise winner by a landslide is a newly formed party "Just dance" which was put together by party leader and founding member Lady Gaga in response to the deep cynicism of politics.

"Politicians are always wearing a poker face and claim there is nothing else I can say while hiding their true motives. To them it is a game that they love, but this love game leaves most of us cold rather than chillin. With my experience with the paparazzi I can end this bad romance of a media manipulated political game. When I am Prime Minister anyone will be able to pick up the telephone and speak to me direct, even Alejandro."

Sadly, this all turned out to be bollocks.

William Hague and gun boat diplomacy

Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness does not just have one of the coolest blog names you could possibly imagine he/she has also written a very useful post on Conservative foreign policy.

William Hague's latest speech gives a good indication of how the Tories are attempting to style themselves as a mixture of economic pragmatism and social liberalism.

For example, Hague said that the Conservatives would stick to existing commitments in Afghanistan but would "renounce the interventionism which Labour has practised during its time in office." He went on to denounce "the proselytising style favoured by David Miliband and other government figures [which] will be replaced by respectful engagement."

Which, to me at least, reads as distancing himself from everything that's now universally regarded as a foreign policy failure (even when the Tories supported it at the time) whilst not rocking the Afghan boat.

More than a little shade of Obama there, which is a clever move as Labour is utterly contaminated by it's behaviour during the Bush years. Whilst Labour will have to justify their foreign policy disasters for years Hague does a convincing impression of someone who has learned from mistakes he had nothing to do with and certainly did not vote for. Oh no.

However, there's nothing here that goes beyond good spin on a realpolitik forced on any government in an age of economic crisis and the growing power of non-Western states. For example Hague's speech was "predicated on financial constraints which the UK will experience during the next number of years. "

So he's committing not to fight new wars that we can't afford to fight anyway. All credit to him for dressing it up as respect for other cultures, not everyone would have thought of that.

When Hague says he wants to "develop a "sustained dialogue and close understanding with China", which would involve raising human rights but not allow the issue to cloud relations" he's essentially restating the current policy, frowning about human rights for the benefit of the UK press whilst pressing ahead with unhindered trade relations.

And again Hague wants to "Work with Muslim countries even if they do not have democratic and liberal values that are taken for granted in the west." Same policy on Saudi Arabia then. No surprises here, but thanks for the warning.

It seems that this time we're not going to be Bush's attack dog, we'll be Obama's fancy poodle. Plus ca change.

Pakistan in crisis: selected reading

The recent attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team have highlighted to the world what people in Pakistan were only too well aware of - that Pakistan is in crisis and terrorism has become a daily occurrence.

In a country where democracy has been overturned more than once in the last few decades and political leaders, like Benazir Bhutto, are assassinated it is unsurprising that there is a well of inequality and injustice in the country that has no democratic outlet. The government often lacks the legitimacy to tackle those who will use force to push their political agenda. This unrest is deepened whilst they verge on a regional cold war with India and are tied to the US conflict formally known as the war on terror.

I've tried to assemble a mini-reading list here of blog reactions, analysis and news reporting. If you know any other links that would be useful for people please feel free to let me know.

Media;

• Imran Khan: this is the result of weak government and the war on terror.
• The Daily Times (Pakistan) says the attacks point to the regional threats.
• India draws fantasies from misery, The Daily Mail (Islamabad).
  
• Al Jazeera has a useful Pakistan timeline.
• Reuters India looks at the contours of the current crisis.
  
• The Washington Post draws in Afghanistan and the tasks facing Obama.
  
• Reactions to the attack. BBC.
• The New York Times has a round up of responses online.
• Tariq Ali in the Malaysian Insider.
• The Wall Street Journal on the daily threat of terrorism in Pakistan.
• Kashmir Observer on Muslims of India since partition and here on Pakistan should clamp down on its past friends..
  
• The Hindu says these attacks are a threat to the entire world.
  

The Left;

• Dissident Voice looks at how the US is still training Pakistan special forces.
  
• OpEdNews provides a glossary and analysis.
• International Viewpoint looks at the "anarchy".
  

Blogs;

• Dave Osler calls on the left to be far clearer in its opposition to the attacks.
• Neil Robertson, Liberal Conspiracy, thinks the attacks were wrong and stupid.
• Shariq on Pickled Politics argues that nothing is sacred in Pakistan anymore.
• William Dalrymple in CiF thinks the US needs a good dose of the blame.
• Liam asks whether Pakistan is going to hell in a handcart.
• Instablogs has a quotes round up.

Sports writers / stories;

• Mike Selvey, in the Guardian.
  
• Mike Atherton, in the Times.
• Kapil Komireddi, on CiF.
  

Daily Sport - what a stunna!

You may be aware of a publication called the Daily Sport. It's soft core porn in a newspaper format, for those who wish to pretend not to know. Anyhow, it's not a paper with much of a distinguished journalistic or campaigning history and is the kind of publication that those of us on the left eschew with distaste and alarm.

It's also the most 'read' paper by British soldiers posted abroad who find it's lack of in depth studies of Shakespearean theater and absence of exposés of the insurance industry refreshing after a hard day out on patrol, which makes the fact that the Sunday Sport has launched a Bring Our Boys Home Now! campaign absolutely outstanding.

The Sport hopes to collect 10,000 signatures on its petition for withdrawal from Afghanistan and they couch their explanation for the campaign in terms that are tailor made to appeal to squaddies. In other words they are reaching into places that anti-war activists could never hope to reach and on a scale that it would be impossible to emulate.

Would it not be churlish to refuse to support this worthy campaign?

Of course, I'm not expecting to see them follow this campaign with one against the objectification of women but well done all the same. I wonder if we'll see the editor invited to the next Stop the War Coalition AGM?

Selection

• River's Edge has an excellent editing of the Carnival of Socialism.
  
  
• An excellent piece in the Guardian on the naval serviceman refusing to fight in Afghanistan.
  
  
• The Coalition are planning to abolish the detention of children. Now please.
  
  
• AVPS asks us to remember our posties this Christmas.
  
  
• Kevin highlights how the Telegraph misled the public over a death in custody.
  
  
• The Weekly Worker has an illuminating review of a Christmas Carol.
  
  "Dickens - and his protagonist, Scrooge - has to confront a contradiction here, between Christian religiosity as a bulwark of the existing social relations of industrial exploitation and impersonal finance, and Christianity as an embodiment of shared, communal life."

Obama's foreign policy is a strength not a weakness

So Obama's running mate is to be Joe Biden, a choice widely seen as a way of shoring up a weakness on foreign policy. The thing I don't understand is why this area is seen as a chink in Obama's armour. For me, far from being a weakness one of Obama's greatest assets is foreign policy. Not because I like it more than McCain's (I do, but I have a lot of problems with it too) but because if played right Obama's Presidential qualities can really shine through.

Let's compare the candidates for a moment. When Obama tours the world he is greeting by tens of thousands in cheering crowds. Poll after poll show that if the world had a vote they would landslide Obama. The Iraq and Afghan Presidents both favour Obama's policies toward "their" countries.

Who can McCain get to turn out for him in a world he wants to bomb to smithereens? When even the current administration is looking to roll back it's troop deployments McCain's vision of perpetual conflict seems bizarre and out of touch with even his core support. McCain's message to Afghanistan and Iraq is that we'll be there as long as we please and you've got no say in the matter. Even Bush doesn't go that far.

McCain's main message on foreign policy seems to be that he was held as a POW during the American war in Vietnam. In fact, his team areso wedded to that identity of McCain the POW that it gets wheeled out on all sorts of odd occasions - like when he's trying to get out of the gaffe he made when he forgot how many houses he has (and who doesn't occasionally forget which house they've parked their second favourite SUV?). The theme appears to be "How many people has Obama killed?" because that's the only real question when dealing with foreigners isn't it?

Personally I don't think that being kept in a cage is the ideal way to prepare someone for negotiating trade deals or achieving strategic aims with the minimum loss of life. And,as it happens, the US armed forces agree with me on this. When you compare campaign contributions by deployed soldiers, who you might assume would be McCain's natural constituency, they are donating to Obama 6 to 1 in his favour. They understand which side their bread is buttered, as does the majority of the world - but McCain's shtick of belligerence and intolerance could gain the upper hand if the Obama camp is too defensive about it.

Partly that's because the the election isn't about McCain, he's just the other guy, the one who's running against Obama - which is both a strength and a weakness for the Democrats. Whilst Obama has consistently attempted to stay away from mudslinging and focused on a positive vision of the future, McCain's camp behaves like the two old gits up in the balcony on the Muppet show, whinging, griping and demonstrating just how bitter and twisted the Republicans have become after the disastrous Bush administration.

When you compare the general approach you also get a very different flavour of what kind of President will be elected in November. Hillary may have berated Obama for saying he favoured talking to regimes like those in Cuba and Venezuela but US foreign policy in regards these two countries has been completely ineffectual, counter productive even, and certainly not intended to produce a better, more peaceful world. Before Obama's even been elected his campaign has led to the US having its first ever talks with Iran. These are small steps - but they are steps in the right direction for a change.

Take Georgia - I think it's fair to summarise the candidates' positions as McCain giving clear backing to Georgia and Obama said "Woo there, let's find a way to talk this out". To reward Georgia's aggression in South Ossetia and destabilise relations with Russia is complete incompetence. On the conflict itself I agree with Dave Osler that we should not back either side, and it seems to me that US policy in the region has to recognise that a third world war is not simply a jolly good knees up.

The government in Russia is now determined to stop cooperation with NATO and the whole affair has made the world yet more dangerous. The McCain style strategy of Bush was a contributory factor to ratcheting up the damage this affair has caused - whilst an Obama strategy could have softened the worst excesses of the wider implications of the conflict. Obama isn't weak for refusing to take sides and calling for negotiations - he recognised the reality that there was little to be done from the West, after all South Ossetia is not about us - even if some people think everything in the world is directed from Bush's office in the White House.

Let's be clear, McCain is a total dunce when it comes to foreign policy. For instance, he seems to think Iraq and Pakistan have a common border - which seems like an area of the world that any future President should really be quite well acquainted with. When we compare the candidates Obama isn't just head and shoulders above McCain he's a damn giant. Obama's campaign doesn't need Biden to bolster that reputation, they just have to be confident enough to say belligerence and willful ignorance do not work.

We have an opportunity to pull the US back from the hardest, most reactionary elements of its foreign policy and whilst it's easy to criticise Obama for not saying things that he cannot say (and get elected) the Obama Presidency represents a chance to heal the rift that exists between the US and the rest of the world. If we actually want to change the course of US foreign policy one of the things we need to do is engage with this debate and ensure the right guy wins come November.

You might also like to check out Rayyan Mirza's recent post on Obama.