http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/03/labour-afghanistan-kim-
howells

Labour splits over Afghanistan war strategy

Former minister Kim Howells calls for pullout and more domestic spying

Kim Howells.

Gordon Brown's defence and security watchdog, Kim Howells. Photograph:
Ali Jarekji/Reuters

A major fissure opens up in Labour's support for the Afghan war with a
call from the former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells for the phased
withdrawal of British troops from Helmand.

Howells, who is now Gordon Brown's intelligence and security watchdog,
said the billions of pounds saved should be redirected to defending the
UK from terrorist attacks by al-Qaida.

Writing in the Guardian, Howells, who had ministerial responsibility for
Afghanistan until 2008, said: "It would be better to bring home the great
majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using
the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on
terrorist activities inside Britain."

Controversially, he accepts that such an approach would result in "more
intrusive surveillance in certain communities" – a tacit acknowledgment
that Britain's Muslims would be subject to greater scrutiny by police and
intelligence services.

He also calls for an expansion of UK intelligence operations abroad,
greater co-operation with foreign intelligence services, and more
spending on propaganda designed to counter those who encourage terrorism.

Howells's call for a "Fortress Britain" security strategy will have added
force because he was a strong supporter of the war during his time as
foreign affairs minister between 2005 and 2008. Until now, backbench
Labour opposition has been largely confined to the left of the party.

His remarks may also provide political cover for one of the two main
opposition parties, probably the Liberal Democrats, to go into the
general election calling for the withdrawal of British troops.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, has so far stopped short of calling for
withdrawal, but said on Monday that British troops were "being asked to
prop up a government in which no one believes".

Howells stresses that his call for a UK troop withdrawal is personal, but
it is thought to reflect growing doubts inside the intelligence services
as to the wisdom of devoting so many counter-terrorism resources to
denying al-Qaida a training base in Afghanistan. His intervention comes
after Hamid Karzai was reappointed president of Afghanistan following the
decision of his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, not to compete in an election
runoff, arguing that Karzai planned to steal the election through fraud.

Deeply embarrassed western governments have been forced to seek
assurances that Karzai will finally end corruption and establish a
government of national unity.

Howells accuses the Kabul government of "largely squandering the
opportunity offered to it by the UN-led occupation".

He argues: "Sooner rather than later a properly planned phased withdrawal
of our forces from Helmand province has to be announced. If it is an
answer that serves, also, to focus the minds of those in the Kabul
government who have shown such a poverty of leadership over the past
seven years, then so much the better.

"Seven years of military involvement and civilian aid in Afghanistan has
succeeded in subduing al-Qaida's activities in that country but it hasn't
destroyed the organisation or its leader, Osama bin Laden. Nor has it
succeeded in eliminating al-Qaida's protectors, the Taliban.

"There can be no guarantee that the next seven years will bring
significantly greater success and, even if they do, it is salutary to
remember that Afghanistan has never been the sole location of terrorist
training camps."

Even the proposed additional 40,000 US troops, he argues, will not
guarantee that the Taliban are contained. "Recent attacks in Kabul and
other centres suggest that the present balance of territorial control is
at best likely to remain, or more likely to shift in favour of the
Taliban."

Securing the remote mountainous borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan
in which the Taliban and al-Qaida thrive is impossible, he contends.

Howells suggests that because al-Qaida can readily change the locations
of its bases and modify its attack plans, it makes sense for Britain to
reprioritise counter-terrorism spending by focusing on defending the
homeland.

He concedes a withdrawal would have momentous consequences for British
relations with Nato, and especially the US.

It would also require much more intrusive surveillance in the UK, more
police patrols, more border officials at harbours and airports, and more
inspectors of vehicles and vessels entering the UK. Britain spent £2.6bn
on its military involvement in Afghanistan last year and is due to
increase its troop numbers to 10,000 in the next few months. So far 224
UK service personnel have died. Brown has promised that as the Afghan
army is trained up it will be possible for the UK forces to be withdrawn,
but has not been able to put a timetable on this.

Howells says that it only takes a small number of Afghans to harbour the
terrorists to undermine a large military. "Stories emerging from
Afghanistan tell of the sense of futility felt by tough, well-trained
troops who witness, firsthand, the death of comrades who have fallen,
protecting an Afghan population that refuses frequently not only to help
their protectors but, sometimes, conspires with the Taliban to kill them."

Howells argues that a fundamental rethink may be forced on the government
as public support for the war rapidly erodes.

--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.

Oh sure, maybe the UK can start with their explanation of gas
pipelines going through the country?  We need socialist or Islamic
propaganda from the UK like we do not need Al Gore.

Putting sensors in your trash cans and going around in unmarked vans
filming people having sex using thermo cameras without permission is
just plain wrong.  Just because there are criminals out there does not
mean we are all criminals.  These people really T me off, they are
just about demanding that we put cameras in our bedrooms so they can
watch us like they are some kind of visiting alien species with
nothing better to do.

Americans demonstrated the stupidity of the British elite once before,
and Americans will be happy to rub their noses in the poop if they
decide to ignore their potty training.

Disclaimer:

a) The views expressed by this website and the author to include all
electronic forms of communication are not representative of
advertisers, or other third parties that may store and or transmit the
messages from this private computer, which you may observe at your own
risk, with no liability to the authors, or any party related to
transmitting, storing, or any other aspect of the material involved,
including email correspondence, which is not necessary to the function
of the website, and may or may not be archived. No personal
information exchanged will be shared without your consent, or provided
to third parties with out the express permission of the parties and,
or, individuals concerned.

  1) no Soviet sleeper agents were harmed or tortured by this message
we are just sending them
      new orders to cease and desist.

b) The author(s) of this content and those who may interact with it in
various known or unknown electronic methods do not give permission to
any third parties to share or provide private personal information who
may operate as part of the internet communications system, including
all parties, who may technically intercept communications due to the
nature of network conditions beyond both the author's legal and
physical control, unless those communications represent violations of
the law, upon which the author, and or web site will cooperate to
pursue any legal remedies.

c) The views expressed by the author or website may or may not contain
factual information, due to the use of sarcasm or parody. The views
may or may not be complete, either by design, to pre-empt being called
a liar even if telling the truth, or by error due to typographical,
grammer, or other technical communication problems not realized or
imagined, or the possibility of views based on false or missing
information, or with the intention of being used for entertainment
purposes only, and not as a definitive judgement on the actions,
character, or reputation of an organization, individual, or groups of
individuals, with the intent of communicating with a limited group of
people, and not the general public, however no distribution
restrictions apply for fair use purposes described by the US Copyright
Office, if no other restrictions are present or communicated, with all
commercial proceeds associated with the distribution of the content to
remain the sole possesion of the original author.

d) Any humor if used, is not intended to offend people, and may be
designed to apply the principals of peer pressure through reverse
examination to accomplish the communication of principals or ideas
that consist of traditional or proposed social values that are proven
to advance the common good, and are not meant to discredit, disparage
or demean any person or entities in any professional or personal
manner, by attempting to share through the eyes or opinion of the
author, for which it is expected that you read at your own risk, with
no liability held to the author or any third parties who may store,
transfer, or forward this message to others, in the traditions of free
speech, fair use, and to play a positive role in a society that
believes that graphically depicting male homosexuals having sex, and
other unusual sex acts is considered free speech or that the use of
abortion to limit Negros, Latinos, and other races from "spreading the
wealth around" as a "matter of privacy" (which the author does not
condone).

e)The use of humor is a known ingredient in providing teachable
moments, and to validate and even demonstrate artistic expressions
that are not shared by others, as demonstrated by many valuable
scientific observations that were scoffed at in the past, yet proven
to be quite valid decades later, upon which the humor used in all
electronic communications by the author are based, in the principals
and traditions of free speech and pursuit of happiness, and may not be
a representation of others, including God.

f) Additional use of automated anonymous page use tracking computer
scripts (web page programs) may be licensed by www.google.com, for
bandwidth verification or potential advertisement opportunities or
incorporation of web master tools in the future.

g) Advertisements that may appear are not necessarily endorsed by the
author, either by admission, or by silence, nor are related links,
that may be provided for all or any of the following known or unknown
purposes, but not limited to, informational, educational, and for the
purpose of giving copy right credit referal information under the
terms outlined in the conditions applied to the term "fair use"
regarding conversations and print under US Copy Right Law.

h) It is the opinion of the author that effective 1 December, 2009,
the proposed regulations from the FTC violate the first and fifth
amendments of the United States Constitution, by infringing through
economic affliction the burden without compensation all financial
details concerning the communications of both free enterprise and
opinion, and other civil rights such as "punishment must be fair" and
not at the "discretion" of public officials, or that advertisers are
assumed to be guilty of deception when United States law provides that
you are innocent before being proven guilty, and are in fact
demonstrations that there are current members of Congress that neither
understand the spirit of the law our founding fathers made for the
United States of America, or understand how they work in the opinion
of the author, as of October 10th, 2009, especially in light of
anticipated, and hopefully defeated, legislative taxes relating to
energy use and the burden of publishers and advertisers to comply with
the law and manage the environment, and in light that there are
various consumer protection agencies, including the Better Business
Bureau, which has free consumer information.

i)Although the content provided meets or exceeds those new
requirements to the knowledge of the author, and modifications to
version 1.3 of this disclaimer is a result of the opinion of the
author that blogging is another definition for a potentially infinite
number or forms of electronic communication, as such the author will
retroactively apply this version, 1.4 to all forms of previous
communications, when and wherever possible, as time allows, in order
to properly convey the intention of the author and to demonstrate an
enthusiasm to comply with the law, and not enthusiastically pursue
getting high on cocaine as often as possible as Barack Hussein Obama
has admitted in his book (paraphrase, synopsis), according to (mmm,
mmm, mmm (sonic emphasis)) Rush Hudson Limbaugh, (mmm mmm mmm (sonic
emphasis)).

j) Use of this disclaimer for either personal or professional use is
permitted with no restrictions. These restrictions or disclaimers do
not prohibit the author from pursuing or communicating in a truthful
manner, or guarantee that the audience will understand all things as
intended, and, or result in being called incoherent, or even a Chicken
Chaser!

They monitor your sewage and can tell all kings of things about you from
your effluvium.

On Nov 4, 5:36 am, dave <d...@dave.dave> wrote:

- They monitor your sewage and can tell all kings
- of things about you from your effluvium.

Yeah Dave some people might get
a little 'high' from your excrement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure

dave - you are such a 'honey bucket'
of knowledge ~ RHF
 .