north korea

ON TARGET: Real Life Not Imitating Art

Brad Pitt in the movie War Machine

Brad Pitt in the movie War Machine

By Scott Taylor

I recently had the opportunity to watch the new, made for Netflix movie War Machine, starring Brad Pitt. The subject of the film is the U.S. led war in Afghanistan with Pitt playing the fictitiously named Lieutenant-General Glenn McMahon. While the name is changed to provide some Hollywood artistic licence, the movie closely depicts the real life Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal and the events that transpired during his command of the Afghan mission in 2009.

The opening scene has Pitt as McMahon strutting through the airport in Dubai along with his attendant staff officers. The narrator sets the scene, telling us that the war in Afghanistan is going poorly and therefore a new General – McMahon is being brought in to jump start the whole allied campaign. The plotline follows McMahon’s attempts to do just that, up until he is fired and the final scene is his successor and a fresh set of staff officers striding through an airport, full of confidence en route to Kabul to turn things around.

War Machine is a brave diversion from the usual rah-rah, war movie genre, propaganda in that it portrays former Afghan President Hamid Karzai as a powerless puppet of the U.S. . In one dramatic scene McMahon pursuesKarzai right into his private Presidential bedroom in order to get the Afghan leader’s permission to launch a large offensive. Karzai replies that both men know such permission is not his to grant – “but thanks for asking” he tells McMahon.

There is also a poignant moment after the big offensive begins and naturally enough, innocent civilians are killed. True to his beliefs, McMahon flies to the front lines to explain to Afghan villagers – through his translator – that the U.S. is intent on bringing Afghans security, democracy and freedom.

The bewildered Afghan elder replies concisely “Just leave.”

It was refreshing to see that a U.S. moviemaker understands that despite all of our good intentions and ideals, since 2001 the West has delivered nothing but violence, corruption and insecurity to the Afghan people.

Then of course came the real life news last week that the U.S. is committing more troops to Afghanistan, and urging NATO allies such as Canada to do the same. There will be a new commander and a new strategy and this time, by golly, we are going to get it right. U.S. Secretary of Defence Jim ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis admitted to a Senate Committee “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this as soon as possible.”

Of course, Mad Dog neglected to say how the U.S. will do things differently after sixteen years of futile intervention. The only response seems to always be more troops.

Then we had former U.S. General David Petraeus – famous for his briefly successful, but ultimately failed surge strategy in Iraq – telling the media that we should brace ourselves for a “long-haul, generational war” in Afghanistan.

As if sixteen years isn’t already of generational length, Petraeus went on to point out that the U.S. has had a ‘long haul’ military presence in Korea for more than 65 years. Not mentioned by Petraeus was the fact that Korea and Afghanistan are as different as soap and beans. In Korea, the U.S. fought alongside Korean allies to prevent them being overrun by the North Korean Communist forces. This was successfully achieved in 1953 with the ceasefire agreement establishing a clearly defined boundary between North and South Korea. In Afghanistan the U.S. led intervention never eliminated the Afghan insurgency, and the U.S. trained and equipped Afghan forces are woefully inadequate to fight the war on the their own.

A better analogy would be that of the U.S. failure in Vietnam. If the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan now, the corrupt cabal that they installed in Kabul will collapse just like the South Vietnamese, U.S. backed government did in 1975.

It is for certain that the U.S. would not have spent 65 years in Korea if every day their soldiers were being attacked and killed by fanatical Koreans.

The War Machine Afghan elder had the right answer “just leave”. The Afghan people are hardy survivors who will eventually sort out their own future – even if it does not resemble a western democracy.

ON TARGET: Trump vs. Kim Jong-Un: Who Is More Dangerous?

By Scott Taylor

To follow the course of recent Western political and media rhetoric, North Korean President Kim Jong-un is a reckless megalomaniac with a goofy haircut who is bent on a nuclear war with the U.S.

All eyes were on the Kim Jong-un regime as they prepared to celebrate the country’s national holiday on April 15. Tradition has it that every year on this date, North Korea flexes its military might with massive parades and displays of firepower in celebration of the birth of the country’s founder. This year was no different as a defiant President Kim Jong-un was expected to conduct yet another nuclear test as well as launch a medium-range missile.

However, the game changer on this side of the Pacific Ocean is that Donald Trump is now in the White House. Facing the lowest domestic approval rating for a president’s first quarter in office, Trump is eagerly seeking foreign distractions.

To counter North Korea’s bluster, Trump dispatched the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group — described by White House spokesman Sean Spicer as “an armada” — to patrol off the Korean peninsula.

U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence was also sent to South Korea to issue a stern warning to the Pyongyang regime that America will no longer tolerate North Korea’s actions. “The era of strategic patience is over,” stated Pence to bring home that point and to illustrate the resolve of Trump to act decisively.

Pence reminded everyone that only hours earlier the U.S. military had launched what is known as the “mother of all bombs” against Daesh fighters in Afghanistan.

The 11-ton MOAB (Massive Ordinance Air Blast) is considered to be the largest non-nuclear explosive device on the planet. It was developed in time for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, but Saddam’s army melted away before they could test the MOAB. With a three-kilometre destructive diameter, the MOAB was considered too lethal and too indiscriminate to be used in counterinsurgency operations such as Iraq or Afghanistan. That was until Trump needed to send a tough message to North Korea.

The target of the MOAB, we are told by U.S. military officials, was a Daesh (aka ISIS and ISIL) military base. For some reason, these Daesh fighters were in the remote eastern Afghanistan province of Nangarhar, digging a tunnel complex. Given that these tunnels were nowhere near any Afghan villages, there was no risk of any civilian casualties.

In other words, Daesh had inadvertently handed the U.S. Air Force the perfect target to test the world’s biggest non-nuclear bomb: A large group of evildoers huddled together in the middle of nowhere.

With the bombsite still on U.S. military lockdown, we have no way of verifying their claim that 94 Daesh fighters were killed without a single civilian casualty.

The truth of the matter is that the use of the MOAB had nothing to do with eliminating a small band of Daesh fighters in Afghanistan and everything to do with showing North Korea that Trump will drop massive bombs on real targets.

Trump also violated international law on April 6 when he fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria as a punitive measure against President Bashar al-Assad for his alleged involvement in a chemical weapons attack. No independent agency has yet proven who launched that chemical weapon in Syria, yet Trump has already delivered a lethal punishment.

For Kim Jong-un, April 15 turned out to be a bit of a bust. The KN-17 missile that was test fired embarrassingly blew up shortly after take-off, and the satellite imagery of his nuclear test site revealed the workers to be playing a tournament of volleyball at the suspected ground zero.

There are two reckless megalomaniacs with goofy haircuts playing in a game of brinkmanship on the Korean peninsula. It is not yet clear which of the two is more dangerous.