Some lethal fuzzy math

Terry Jones offers up some numbers more grotesque and absurd than any Monty Python routine:

In 2002 the house budget committee and the congressional budget office both guesstimated the cost of invading Iraq at approximately $50bn; $500bn seems a bit wide of the mark. What’s more, with over half a million dead, it means that the world’s greatest military superpower has spent a million dollars for every Iraqi killed. That can’t be value for money!

So how on earth could such a vast overspend occur? After all, the US is the flagship of monetary common sense. Well, for starters, in 2003 the White House refused to allow competitive bidding for contracts in Iraq, which is odd for the champions of free enterprise. Then the White House ensured there would be no overseeing of what was spent. In the original Iraq spending bill, which earmarked the first $87bn to go down the drain, there was a provision for the general accounting office to keep a check on things, but that provision was stripped from the bill – even though the Senate had originally voted for it 97 to 0.

I am not a terrorist

As a follow-up to this post about airport hi-jinx…

If you really want to cause trouble at airport security, you may want to purchase one of these shirts:

After reading about blogger Raed Jarrar’s experience at JFK (he was forced to take off a shirt with Arabic writing on it or miss his flight; new BBC article), I finally stopped being depressed about the war on terror and began being proactively pissed off. I made this shirt, which says “I am not a terrorist” in Arabic. I plan to wear it every time I go to the airport from now on.

I think the wardrobe for my next flight is now decided upon…

Americans in Afghanistan say Canadians and Brits fight like pussies

So, how are things going with that amazingly successful war in Afghanistan?

With NATO unable or unwilling to stem the rising violence, the Taliban are pressing their advantage. Rather than withdrawing to regroup over the winter, intelligence officials and combat commanders here said, the Taliban forces – clad in new cold-weather boots and fleece jackets – are fighting through the bitter cold months.

“It is bleak,” said Col. Chris Haas, commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan.

“The gains we have made over the past few years are mostly gone,” said a bearded Special Operations officer, fresh in from advising Afghan army units in battle with 600 to 700 well-equipped Taliban fighters.

Conway said U.S. commanders understand that the Afghan war is an “economy of force” operation, a military term for a mission that is given minimal resources because it is a secondary priority, in this case behind Iraq.

But surely the coalition of the willing is stepping up, right?

A senior U.S. Special Forces officer said the Canadians, even though they have tanks and light armored vehicles, refuse to dismount on foot patrols, which are considered more risky but more productive in establishing relationships with the local population.

British troops “established a series of strong points and then wouldn’t go out on patrol,” said another American officer. “It got almost comical when the Taliban would do drive-by shootings.”

One Special Forces officer, an adviser with the Afghan army, told of asking the Canadians for help in regaining the initiative in battle. “They refused to cross the river” to help, the officer said in a cold fury. “It is disturbing.”

Conway said he was “surprised” at the reported poor performance of some NATO troops. “I thought the troops in NATO were more aggressive,” he said.

Gee, that sounds nothing like Christie “Blood ‘N Guts” Blatchford’s breathless reports embedded with Canucks from the front. I’m so confused!

Tags: war, afghanistan, quagmire, clusterfuck