AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS

The French author Jules Verne wrote many books of fiction but with an intriguing possibility that what was written about was actually possible. One of these was "Around the World in 80 days" published in both French and English in 1873. Today it is quite easy to travel around the world in eighty days and media information travels in eighty seconds. So it is with a degree of surprise that we read of the American President Barack Hussein Obama taking 88 days to make his decision regarding the deployment of further American troops for Afghanistan. It might be noted that the previous American President George Bush took just 50 days to raise, deploy troops to Afghanistan and render the Taliban largely ineffective.

The Obama lengthy decision-making does not indicate a Commander-in-Chief that is an effective resolute wartime leader. One is reminded of another politician who returned from Munich waving a piece of white paper which, instead of being "peace in our time" turned into a surrender document. As to the speech at West Point, NY at the United States Military Academy, it was in the style of a Harvard seminar lecture rather than a rousing wartime speech. The explanation of the reason 30,000 troops are being deployed was not presented to the American people and it was only that a former military Senior Officer, now retired, later explained the strategy that one understood.

During the speech Obama mentioned Roosevelt but the reference was largely obscure. Much more applicable would have been the history of Afghanistan itself which one hopes has been studied by the Obama Administration. It is an ancient tribal history, long, involved, violent, complex, and still in a mindset of medieval thinking of fundamentalist Islam. Let us take a look at it to give an indication of this still very primitive land with no infrastructure.

The detailed history of Afghanistan starts in 330 BC with the arrival of Sikandar and his Greek army. Civilisation had existed in the region for thousands of years, however there had been numerous kingdoms and many capitals. While remaining politically divided the various tribal peoples, speaking many different languages united under Islam with the Mongol invasion of the 13th. Century. The following is a summation of Afghanistan conquests and conflicts;

Islamic conquest of Ghaznavids and Ghurids, 642 - 1200

Timurid dynasty, 1370 - 1526

Mughal Empire 1526 - 1709

Hotaki dynasty 1709 - 1738

Durrani Empire 1747 - 1826

European Influence 1826 - 1919

Amanullah Khan 1919 - 1929

Nadir Shah and Zahir Shah 1929 - 1973

It is this euphemism that is important for the 'European Influence' was the attempt by the British Empire to try and control Afghanistan from British India. Concerned over Russian advances in Central Asia - does history repeat itself? - in the 19th. Century in what 'The Raj' referred to as 'The Great Game'. Advancing through the Khyber Pass, were the Regimental Badges can still be seen today, from India - Pakistan did not of course exist in those days - the British Regiments of Foot were supported by the Artillery, Cavalry and Sepoy Regiments of The Raj Army. In the First Afghan War of 1839 - 1842 the Afghan tribal forces annihilated the British Regiments of Foot and The Raj Army. The only survivor being a seriously wounded British Army medical officer who was saved by an Afghan tribesman under the Muslim law of hospitality. The hatred of foreign rule should be remembered by those who enter Afghanistan which is relatively easy to enter but very difficult to leave.

The Second Afghan War of 1878 - 1880 resulted from the Amir Shir Ali's refusal to have a mission from The Raj in his capital Kabul. This resulted in Amir Abdur Rahman coming to the throne and during his reign of 1880 - 1901 the British and the Czar of all the Russias established the boundaries of what we know today as Afghanistan. The country's foreign affairs were under the control of The Raj. During World War 1, 1914 - 1918 and World War 2, 1939 - 1945 Afghanistan remained neutral but with internal dissent.

The logistics of actually deploying 30,00 troops into Afghanistan is as difficult today as it was in the 19th. Century. This deployment is set to commence in early 2010 and these forces will be supplemented by Afghan Forces. However these Afghan's must be trained in modern warfare and at present are in two groups Afghan 'police' and Afghan 'army'.

We would suggest that these groups are combined into an Afghan Gendarmes Force, they can be trained by the Training Command into an effective modern controlling Force. In addition it will be necessary to build an infrastructure in the country. Military engineers and local civilians could be formed into construction battalions. Hired and paid by the Military Command directly this would largely bypass the Afghan Government corruption. It may well encourage the local population, under their own tribal leaders, to at least tolerate the foreign troops and see their country develop under Afghan control with Afghan values. Education is essential and in fact is guaranteed by the Afghan Constitution. With an effective infrastructure the local population would be able to travel to schools, mosques and between towns as they need too. Perhaps in time they would develop a National Entity and a true National Government with a core value of the best of Islam.

HISTORICAL OR HYSTERICAL

Once again we were looking westward to America this week as time came to make an important decision. After months of much discussion, arguments and debate about health care reform it finally came to a vote in their House of Representatives.

When the American Colonies left the British Empire and declared The United States of America they dropped the Parliamentary system. After some changes in party nomenclature and the Continental Congress, they settled on a two Party system and a two House Congress. Today they have the Republican Party, tending to the Right and the Democratic Party, tending to the Left. On occasions an elected Congressperson will change from one Party to the other Party or declare as an Independent. This of course does not endear them to their Party or often the voters at reelection time.

The Upper House of Congress consists of The Senate of a hundred Senators being two from each of the fifty States. The Lower House of Congress is the House of Representatives. It is formed from a complex system State by State based on the ten year census which by population results in Federal Congressional Districts of which there are four-hundred and thirty-five at present and each has one congressperson. It is these latter that voted on the Health Care Reform Bill on Saturday November 7th., 2009. The result of this vote was 220 yea and 215 nay, thus the Health Care Reform Bill passed by five votes. Thirty-nine Democrats voted nay and only one Republican voted yea.

However this is not as simple as it seems and clearly the difference was very slight. The problem is that with this two Party system many Right-Wing Democrats are to the Right of Left-Wing Republicans. The Right-Wing Democrats are known as 'Blue Dog Democrats' from a remark made some years ago in political debate. In addition there are 'Log Cabin Republicans' which we shall allow our readers to research on for themselves. There will now be a vote in the Senate on the Health Care Reform Bill and it will either then proceed through Congress or stagnate mired in Amendments or Committee. From remarks made by Senators one expects rather the latter as The Senate has its own Health Care Reform Bill in draft.

There is considerable confusion, mis-information and concern amongst voters and this has led to hysterical behaviour in the sense of its definition -"any outbreak of wild uncontrolled feeling". In the afterglow of Democratic Party triumph Madame Pelosi from San Fransisco the Speaker of The House of Representatives stated it was a historical day. Well historical or hysterical we shall watch how it proceeds with interest as it is the cornerstone of the Obama Administration governance programme.

THE RIGHT CHOICE

Our focus was on America this week as Tuesday, being the first Tuesday in November, was their Election Day. Enshrined in the United States Constitution - most things seem to be, as the day when citizens, who have registered to vote, express their opinion. For both America and Europe there was a degree of interest in who would be elected due to the fact it is now a year since Mr. Obama was elected as President of the United States of America. At that time in both America and Europe he had acquired the aura of a messiah, which has now faded somewhat. Three States had elections and these were New York's 23rd. Congressional District which stretches from Canada and covers nearly a quarter of upstate New York. The others were Virginia and New Jersey.

It is interesting that in this Union of States not all actually use the term in their official title. One is Virginia which uses Commonwealth of Virginia, others are the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, & Kentucky. While Rhode Island, the famous hold out on ratifying State, is more fully and correctly The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

The results from both Virginia and New Jersey have set a tone for future elections and express an opinion of the capability of the Obama Administration to date. The Commonwealth of Virginia elected, by clear majority, a Republican Party Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Attorney-General. So indeed did the State of New Jersey elect a Republican Party Governor, this latter being something of a surprise. New York's 23rd. elected a Democratic Party Congressional Representative which was largely expected. The Republican Party candidate had both dropped out and publicly switched her allegiance to the Democratic Party candidate. This was less than honourable behaviour at election time even for a politician.

So one would believe the election results in both Virginia and even more so in New Jersey are a strong critique of the Obama Administration socialist policies all talked about frequently and at too great length, less than stellar leadership, and famous dithering. Clearly the American voter is expressing a move back to its more traditional right of centre position, as has Europe in its most recent elections. Overly socialist policies become a millstone on a government which must generate monies to pay for them, as we have seen in Europe this means increased taxation or an artificial economy of Government employees or some of both.

CHERCHEZ LA FEMME

Elegant as diplomacy is required to be it is sometimes necessary to be quite direct and clear when Nations address each other. In these modern times political correctness is so much in vogue as to be carried to extreme. When this happens it becomes practically impossible for Nations to conduct negotiations in any meaningful manner. So it is that there is in actual fact no diplomacy whatsoever - thus an impasse prevails.

Such was becoming the case, until this week, between the Western World and Pakistan over Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Queda, and military-political situations in general. It is clear to all concerned that Osama bin Laden, a persona wanted by the United States of America and other Nations, resides in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan. A status one might describe as 'open hiding' wherein it is known to many, ignored by all.

This week the Secretary of State of the United States of America spoke courteously, clearly and directly to the Government of Pakistan. Such Government does not like to address issues in this manner preferring to deal with them in, shall we say to use a current phrase, a dithering approach. Now that Pakistan has been told clearly and directly what is expected from that Government and how it must deal with these issues immediately. While it is unlikely to react with quite the Western approach stated by the United States of America, Pakistan does indeed realize it must address the diplomatic concerns stated by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

One does wonder if this is an Obama Administration approach or the Secretary of State, concerned with the dithering approach of her own Government, decided to move things forward by direct action. It would appear to DIOGENES REMARKS that it was a calculated approach by an intelligent women very much in command of her own Department.

THE EFFECT OF DITHERING CONTINUES

We learned today that dithering by the Obama Administration has had a further distressing effect and brought harm. In action in Afghanistan eight US Marines have been killed today. We now have a total of twenty-two service personnel killed this week and twenty-two families who have lost loved ones.

In addition an honourable man has resigned in protest to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. He is CAPT. Matthew Hoh USMC who served in Japan, Iraq, The Pentagon while a military officer and after joining The State Department, was posted to Afghanistan. His four page letter of resignation is a model of well thought out reasoning by a highly intelligent and experienced officer.

If we are going to lose people of this calibre - it appears we will - then we are clearly in the throes of the results of evil dithering. Efforts by the highest ranking US State Department Officers failed to change CAPT. Hoh's mind.

We express our admiration to CAPT. Hoh USMC and wish him every success in his future. Also we express our sincere condolences to the twenty-two families of those lost in service.

EVIL DITHERING

The inability of the current US Administration continues to appall, irritate and disillusion the US voters, public and no doubt the US Military commands. Each day there are further indications of administrative inexperience, and poor decision-making ability. The lack of leadership by the Commander-in-Chief in response to the Field Command in Afghanistan requests, to execute the strategy assigned that Command, is deplorable. It further illustrates the unwise system of a President being both Civil and Military head of a country. With no military training whatsoever himself, he must completely depend on input from multiple sources with very different and often conflicting agendas. By Mr. Obama continuing to remain in the 'campaign mode', after ten months in Office, Mr. Cheney was correct to describe the effort, or lack thereof, as 'dithering' - his criticism was mild.

One could describe it as 'evil dithering' that is evil in the sense of Webster's New Dictionary definition, "causing or threatening distress or harm".

Each day more lives are lost in the Afghanistan conflict, fourteen just this weekend, which might have been saved by answering the Field Command request. This request was assessed by highly experienced military personnel knowing what is needed to prevent or at least reduce deaths and make the assigned strategy effective.

Meanwhile families are wondering when or if ever they are going to see again those who serve. We honour all of you, thank you for your service and hope the evil dithering will stop, - whatever decision is finally made.

UNANIMOUS DECISION

The Norwegian Nobel Committee consists of five members and according to Thorbjoern Jagland the decision to award U.S. President Obama the Peace Prize was unanimous. Really - the five seat panel was asked if they had expected their decision to generate both surprise and criticism. Three of them responded, the fourth declined to answer, and the fifth did not even answer calls seeking comment. Now in all truthfulness does this sound like a unanimous decision committee unwaveringly proud of its selection.

DIOGENES REMARKS considers it a left-wing influenced decision that at least two members just went along with. This year there was a new Nobel panel member, Aagot Valle a Norwegian left-wing politician. He dismissed the idea that Obama was without merit but did not state what was meritorious. One Nobel committee member Inger-Marie Ytterhorn thought that Obama did not greet the announcement of the award with joy. Indeed the President did not look particularly happy and that was his opportunity to be a gentleman and graciously decline the award - he did not do so. The long time committee member Kaci Kullman Five commented briefly stating only that a discussion had been expected.

More and more one feels a left-wing pressure that others went along with for the award of this clearly Political Prize.

POLITICAL IMPROPRIETY

As a result of the explosive discoveries of Alfred Nobel numerous deaths in the workplace and war occurred. In turn this resulted in the creation of the Nobel Prizes awarded in various disciplines. DIOGENES thinks it interesting that none of those involved in the development of the atom endowed similar Prizes. This knowledge which in turn resulted in Atomic and Nuclear explosions with thousands of resulting deaths appears acceptable.

In their wisdom the Nobel Committee of Sweden awards the Prizes with one exception. The Nobel Committee of Norway awards the Nobel Peace Prize. One would think that this would be the most thoughtful and coveted Nobel of all. Sadly it does not seem so. The Nobel Peace Prize from Norway has descended into the sordid morass of International Politics. One would suggest that this is acknowledged and the Prize renamed the 'Nobel Political Prize' and so award it.

Over the years the Norwegian Prize has been used to make political statements by being awarded to mainly leftists and left-of-centre candidates. This year the candidate chosen is perhaps the most puzzling of all. Recently elected President of the United States of America he has accomplished - well therein lies the puzzle.

During a very brief time in the U.S. Senate he neither wrote or presented any Bill and Chaired no principal Committee. With really no Federal Government administrative experience, position or accomplishments he was elected by the 'vox populi' only. One might want to consider that such voting lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire. This in turn led to five hundred years of stagnation known as the Dark Ages - which even Diogenes lamp failed to illuminate. The weakness of this background is now beginning to show, after just nine months in office, with poor leadership in the Civil Government and confused lack of leadership as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.

This in and of itself is one of the weaknesses in the U.S. Constitution which, in spite of the desire for checks and balances, gives both the Chief Civil Position and the Chief Military Position to the same person. Resulting this time in a decision maker with absolutely no military training whatsoever - beyond being able to execute a really excellent crisp Marine Corps salute.

It is clear that Norway has awarded its Nobel to a person who has not published on international affairs, never worked in a peace non-governmental organisation. By accepting this award from Norway the U.S. President has now placed himself in the most impossible position. He must now reach decisions about how to proceed in Afghanistan, with North Korea which launches missiles every U.S. Holiday, and negotiate with Persia, now called the Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime which denies the Shoah. This tragedy, so well documented by those who conducted it, that it is factual beyond any slightest doubt.

The Norwegian award of the Nobel Peace Prize is the height of Political Impropriety and the Candidate is most ill advised to accept it.

YOU LIE

During the State of the Union speech there were many remarks by the President which tended to 'stretch the truth'. This is nothing new, in his many speech's on multiple subjects the approach taken with the facts of the case is that of a defence counsel.

When summarising to a Jury on the behalf of ones client it is considered admissible to be one-sided. However when representing ones country before the Nation and both Houses of Congress the absolute truth only is acceptable.

This habit of adjusting the facts in accordance with the occasion is a very bad habit. It is a habit which will come back to haunt any person involved using it when making a point. Eventually it will develop into a lack of trust with the national population.

The mid-term elections may well reflect that feeling by electing those considered more trustworthy. It should be interesting to see how the voters now feel towards the Obama Administration.

It was indeed discourteous and improper of Representative Joseph Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, to shout out "You lie" but of itself it was not untruthful. You see of the Parties involved Mr. Wilson was not the one who lied.

THE LAMP IS LIT

To those of you familiar with Diogenes no more need be said. Those others of you will need to do some research.

From time to time events occur in our lives that need remarking on. DIOGENES REMARKS will give such a forum to share our opinions. We would encourage you to respond in kind and engage in civilised discussion. We look forward to your comments.