The China Taiwan Flirt
by china hand2
lifted from comments
---
Below are a list of links to news articles dealing with some major changes taking place in Taiwan today.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the place, Taiwan recently elected a KMT president, ending the eight year DPP hold on the country's executive.
For those even less aware of the place: The KMT is the party which was "led" by Chiang Kai Shek. Today's group are the mainlanders who fled to Taiwan following Chairman Mao's victory in the CCP revolution.
Chen Shuibian was the DPP president preceding the current one, Ma Yingjeou (pinyin: Ma Yingjiu). Originally getting his start as a lawyer defending a group of opposition party members in a sedition case brought against them in the late '70's, Chen gradually rose to prominence in the party, eventually becoming Mayor of Taipei. His public image was based on a firm anti-corruption platform, and he used it to great advantage when running against the "old guard" KMT pols.
Leaving aside the many questions surrounding his run-up to the presidency, once there he continued to use his anti-graft and anti-organized crime message to attack the KMT, gradually expanding this into a very open pro-independence position.
In 2006, however, much evidence came to light implicating him in a massive embezzlement case that involved the theft of public funds in an "emergency relief fund", bribes taken for major development projects, and insider trading on the stock market. Because he was president, he could not be prosecuted. But with the new president now sworn in, the case is underway -- and as it continues, more and more evidence is emerging that he is guilty as charged.
All of this has also resurrected the many questions regarding the alleged "assassination attempt" of 2004 (which was openly acknowledged by all to have won him his 2d term).
The import of this could not be greater; Chen was a U.S. toady, and solidly backed by the Bush junta, with which his party was in constant and close cooperation. Many of the techniques used in U.S. elections -- astroturfing, the media echo-chamber, "opposition research", etc -- were adapted and implemented by the DPP in its effort to consolidate its hold on the government (sometimes so baldly that it was difficult to believe the media here in Taiwan hadn't picked up on the similarities). Some of this I can attest to from personal experiences, in exchanges I have had with high-ranking officials.
With Chen's decline and fall, the DPP has essentially been left without any sort of substantial leadership. Originally born from left-wing human rights activists, lawyers, and ethnic nationalists (though I'd say "chauvinists" would be more accurate), the DPP today is being led by essentially a group of housewives, its leadership all either in jail or hounded from politics by forced admission of graft or other corruption.
On the other hand Ma Yingjeou, the current KMT leader, is widely perceived as spotless. This was a very difficult thing for the DPP. Their original intent (again, from personal interactions) was to campaign against him on the basis of his mainland Chinese ancestry. However, Ma is a Harvard graduate, an extremely erudite analyst with a solid grounding in practical economics (as opposed to that calculus-based bullshit that created the current global crisis) and an avowedly traditionalist Chinese politician who often goes back to review ancient texts for advice on how to handle modern problems. By the time the election came around, people were far more interested in what the government was going to do to bring back the economy than in ethnic origins. As that fact came to the fore, the imported "slime machine" went into action, trying to find some way to tar the man -- but, surprisingly, it found so little traction in Ma's history that the insinuations, court cases, and attacks simply provoked more people to support him.
With all this as background, I would like to emphasize the really monumental changes that are currently taking place here on this little island: already having secured direct links with China (the first in over fifty years), Ma is now poised to secure a Free Trade Agreement between Taiwan and China. Taiwanese businesses represent the greatest bloc of capital investment in China, but because of historical rivalries and, later, Chen's obstructionism, until now it has been impossible for Taiwan and China to do business directly. That's about to change.
Many Taiwanese are terrified by this; they have been led to believe many things, ranging from a huge influx of cheap mainland laborers to a vast wave of emigration that will take over the entire island and, eventually, subvert its government.
The current process, however, is working hard to assuage these concerns (as I mentioned before: Ma is a smart and capable guy), particularly with regard to emigration, the relative independence of the two political and economic systems, and the number and status of foreign laborers.
Yet once this process begins, its inevitable end-point will be the effective "re-unification" of Taiwan and China -- and there could be nothing worse for the long-term prospects of U.S. political presence in the Asia-pac region.
Below, I include a set of links from various sources. Most are simply bland commentary to back up my assertions, above, but the two Heritage Foundation links provide some compelling insight into how the PNAC crew view the Taiwan-China relationship, and suggest that the U.S. may be prepared to provoke war to protect their stake in the island. Currently, Taiwan is the center for the U.S.'s regional intelligence gathering operations; Yangming Mountain (Yangmingshan) was, in WWII, the main base for the Japanese Kemputai, and upon the start of the Korean War was inherited by the U.S. military. Today it is run jointly by the Taiwanese, Japanese and U.S. militaries.
I think people here will find this extremely interesting.
U.S.-Taiwan Defense Relations in the Bush Administration
Peter Brookes, Heritage Foundation, November 14, 2003
America's Stake in Taiwan
John J. Tkacik, Jr., Heritage Foundation, January 11, 2007
A political union of Taiwan with China would be contrary to U.S. interests. Taiwan is a crucial element in the geostrategic structure of the Asia- Pacific region as the magnitude of China's military might catches up with its economic and trade power. Taiwan is democratic Asia's third largest trading power. Its population is slightly larger than Australia's. If Taiwan were a member of the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations, it would be ASEAN's biggest economy and largest military spender.
In other words, Taiwan is a significant Asia- Pacific power in its own right. This means that America's stake in Taiwan has far-reaching economic, political, military, and strategic dimensions.
Backups:
Former Taiwan leader Chen's treasurer pleads guilty in graft case
XINHUA, February 19, 2009
Taiwan ex-leader denies taking bribes
AFP, March 4, 2009
Taiwan economics minister Yiin rejects opposition fears over CECA with China
Taiwan News, February 24, 2009
China Seeks ‘Comprehensive’ Economic Pact With Taiwan (Update2)
Bloomberg, March 5, 2009
China says ready to talk to Taiwan, end hostility
AP, March 5 2009
Level of cross-strait tension at record low: President Ma
Taiwan News, March 5 2009
Posted by b on March 5, 2009 at 11:59 UTC | Permalink | Comments (28)
Looking Into A Funhouse Mirror
Chris Floyd linked and quoted my piece on Obama Implements Neocon Startegy Against Iran. Thanks Chris!
He received some comments towards his piece.
The first one must have been a bit weird with comments copied from here included and Chris deleted that one it was down-voted into the nirvana.*
Then another of his commentators by the name blue ox babe refers to that and presents his/her view of the commentators at this site:
the gang at Moon of Alabama are moderately arrogant, and highly partisan. they are the sort to think of "practical" solutions which involve murdering other nations' innocents if the "national security" interests are valuable enough to the MoA commenter in question. what MoA is, essentially, is a bunch of wannabe policy wonks.
Now you know it!
This blog received 123.697 comments as of now. Can someone please show me the one where the author seems 'to think of "practical" solutions which involve murdering other nations' innocents if the "national security" interests are valuable enough' ? I must have missed that one.
Funny that blue ox babe later admits that he/she comments here him/herself under a different moniker. His/her statement above was self referential?
A comment further at Chris' site commentator wal, the one who posted the first - now deleted - comment there, asserts:
... this discussion was the subject of two posts at MoA the first of which was originally titled Obama Attempts to Blackmail Russia.which was renamed Obama Continues Bush's Russia Policy after it was thoroughly discredited by clever commenters who researched and dissected the issue.
Hmm - I admit that I sometimes change the headlines of my posts. Usually within a the first few minutes after publishing and rereading them live. But I never changed a headline because of the comments the post received.
I did not do so with the Russia post. I did not 'rename' it and I can prove that.
The system this blog runs on is Typepad and it has a specific way to assign URL's to a new post. The first part of the URL is always "http://www.moonofalabama.org" followed by "/year/month" and then by "/pagename.html"
When I save a draft post before assigning the headline then the first words of the post are used as the pagename. See this one for an example.
When I assign a headline before saving the post the headline becomes the pagename. For example: The post James Baker On Solving The Crisis has the pagename "/james-baker-on-solving-the-crisis.html". The headline was assigned before saving and publishing the post.
When a headline is later changed and the piece saved and published again the system does not generate a new pagename but the old pagename is kept. I have no way to influence that. For example: The post Britain Will Lose The Afghan Drugwar has the pagename: "/britains-afghan-drugwar-will-be-lost-.html". Obviously I change the headline of that post after saving it first under a different headline.
Now onto the Russia post. Did I change the headline because the comments were going in this or that direction?
The headline is Obama Continues Bush's Russia Policy and the pagename is "/obama-continues-bushs-russia-policy.html". Hmm - seems to me the post still has its original headline.
What does that tell us about wal's accuracy in commenting?
---
*Changed after Chris rightly corrected me.
Posted by b on March 5, 2009 at 10:54 UTC | Permalink | Comments (54)
OT 09-08
News, views, rants, whatever ... open thread
Posted by b on March 4, 2009 at 18:44 UTC | Permalink | Comments (98)
The ICC's Sudan Warrant
The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against the Sudan's president Omar al-Beshir for alleged war-crimes in Darfur.
I have not followed the process towards, but my impression is that it was manipulated by several interested groups and nations and not driven by clean judicial reasoning.
As Sudan will reject the courts demand the issue will go to the UN security council. Several of UNNSC's members do not recognize the ICC's powers for the crimes their chief of states initiated and initiate. But they will likely have the hypocrisy to pressure Sudan and to eventually interfere with violent measures.
The conflict in Darfur is between pastoral nomads and resident farmers in an area with increasing desertification. Such conflicts are natural and very hard to solve. Usually the less strong party will have to move away.
That there are significant yet unexplored oil-fields below Darfur's desert seems to be the main reason why there is an international interest in this case at all. Similar conflicts, partly with higher casualties, in Africa and elsewhere simply get ignored.
That may well be the better alternative for all people involved.
Posted by b on March 4, 2009 at 15:00 UTC | Permalink | Comments (35)
Obama Implements Neocon Strategy Against Iran
There are various signs in today's news that the Obama administration policy is pressed to and is actually following a neocon policy towards Iran that is designed to end in a U.S. attack on Iran for the benefit of Israel.
Several political actions reported in recent days seem to follow the recommendations of 2008 study that was written by neocon's hosted at the American Enterprise Institute.
Dennis Ross seems to be a main actor in this effort.
Today's Israeli demands towards the U.S. and the Obama administration with regards to Iran were published as:
- More and harsher sanctions before any talk with Iran
- An international action plan for the case that such talks fail
- A time limit for eventual talks and to define them as "one-time opportunity"
Israel threatens that in case the U.S. does not concede these points, it will attack Iran. An event that would have harsh consequences for the U.S. position in the Middle East.
I called this an Israeli dictate. Steve Clemons writes:
Israel is crossing the line by instructing the American Secretary of State and President where there lines "should be".
The "Israeli demands" listed above, especially the time limit, is construed to let any talks with Iran fail. The plan is to press the U.S. into a pre-committed chain of events that, in the end, means pursuing Israeli interests by blockading and thereby waging war against Iran.
The points above, published in Haaretz, are said to come from the Israeli government. But to me it seems that these were rather created in Washington.
The "Bipartisan Policy Institute" issued a study developed by a task force last year titled Meeting the Challenge - U.S. policy toward Iranian nuclear development. The actual authors of that study were two neocons, AEI’s Michael Rubin and Michael Makovsky. The task force members included various other rightwing and neocon faces and especially Dennis Ross, now Middle East adviser to Sec State Clinton.
Jim Lobe characterized the report as a Roadmap to War with Iran.
The recommendations in the executive summary of the report include:
The United States must prioritize its effort to motivate Russia to step up its support for international efforts to pressure Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. One point of friction between the United States and Russia is the U.S. initiative to install missile defenses in Eastern Europe. Th e United States insists that these defenses are directed against the emerging nuclear and missile threat from Iran. Moscow, however, has strongly objected to U.S. missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland on grounds that they pose a threat to Russia. The United States should make clear to Moscow that operationalization of the initial missile defense capability, as well as any future expansion of it, will depend on the evolution of the nuclear and missile threat from Iran. Should Russia contribute to successful international efforts to restrain the Iranian threat, it will lessen the need to further develop and expand missile defenses in Europe.
This fits point 2 of the Israeli demand above - the preparation of an international action plan. This also fits today's administration leak to the NYT on the implementation of exactly that Missile Defense/Iran pressure point on Russia discussed in an earlier piece here.
Another point in the recommendations:
U.S. policymakers must recognize the grave and existential danger that the Islamic Republic poses to Israel.
...
It will be up to the President to consult with Israel and provide sufficient assurance so that they do not feel compelled to undertake unilateral action.
The Israeli threat today to act alone unless the U.S. does XYZ is issued to generate that sufficient assurance.
To build additional leverage, states and international organizations should apply both unilateral and multilateral sanctions before and during any diplomatic rapprochement.
...
[I]t must be clear that any U.S.-Iranian talks will not be open-ended, but will be limited to a predetermined time period so that Tehran does not try to ‘run out the clock.’
See the time limit demand in point 3 above.
The study recommends a sea blockade of Iran as a the endpoint of negotiations designed to fail. In international law a blockade is an act of war.
So lets piece this together.
We have administration officials leaking about pressure on Russia with the real target being Iran as recommended in the AEI authored study.
We have Israeli officials demanding U.S. concern by threatening independent action (with harsh negative consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East) as recommended in the AEI authored study.
We have Israeli officials demanding several points which are take right out of the recommendations of the AEI authored study.
In the late 1990s the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), with many neocon members from the AEI, published lots of letters and recommendations that urged to attack Iraq for the hidden benefit of Israel. Several of the authors and signers of those papers joined the Bush administration and implemented that policy.
We have now another think tank that published a study and op-eds primarily written by neocon AEI members with recommendations for a new administration. They now urge to attack Iran, again for the benefit of Israel.
Dennis Ross, a signer of the various PNAC papers as well as the study discussed above and similar efforts pressing in the same direction has joined the Obama administration in a quite important position. The Financial Times wrote yesterday that a another new document pressing for more Iran sanctions will be released this week:
The document, due to be released this week by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the result of a bipartisan working group of Washington-based analysts including Dennis Ross, the administration's point-man on Iran and the Gulf, and Gary Samore and Robert Einhorn, whom Mr Obama is set to name as his top officials on nonproliferation at the White House and the State Department, respectively.
We are now quite obviously seeing the implementation of exactly the recommendations those various neocon authored studies give.
Anybody who wants to understand the Obama administration's policies with regards to Iran should read these neocon and AEI influenced studies. Their recommendations are now in the process of being implemented point by point by the Obama administration under the guiding hands of Dennis Ross.
There are several other recent items in the news that support the above thesis (and need follow ups) that the neocon advised policies versus Iran are in the implementation phase.
- The Obama administration kept the main actor in implementing financial sanctions against Iran by pressuring foreign banks in his place. What are his connections?
- There was leak by someone that allegedly Sec State Clinton thinks negotiations with Iran are futile.
- ...
Colonel Pat Lang thinks that maybe Dennis Ross is behind the "Clinton said.." and should register as the "Foreign Agent" he obviously is. I agree.
Posted by b on March 3, 2009 at 20:23 UTC | Permalink | Comments (70)
Obama Continues Bush's Russia Policy
So Obama offered Russia a deal. Except that thist is no deal anyone would take:
President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.
Let's recap:
The Bush administration unilaterally declared to install a missile "defense" system in Czechia and Poland, allegedly against Iranian missiles which Iran does not have and is unlikely have within the next decade if ever.Even the U.S. NATO partners were surprised by this.
The Russian's assume, correctly in my view, that these missiles are intended to enable a U.S. nuclear first strike capacity. All missiles defense systems have an inherent attack capability. It would only need a few minutes from launch the of such missiles to reach Moscow and other Russian decision centers.
They could either decapitate Russia or could be used as a defense against a Russian response strike should the U.S. launch a major nuclear first strike. The Mutual Assured Destruction policy that for long assured the non-use of nuclear weapons would be weakened or even ended by those installations.
The Russian's tried to negotiate and offered a bilateral common missile defense against the alleged Iran threat. The U.S. declined.
In response the Russians threatened to install short range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad to be able to hit the missile defense in Polen an Czechia.
When the Obama administration came into power, Russia made noise that it would refrain from that move if the U.S. would pull back on missile defense. It also offered cooperation on several other issues including Afghanistan.
Obama could have used that to let the missile defense issue just die away. Instead, The Obama administration now wants to blackmail Russia in a rather unrelated (from the Russian standpoint) issue.
Of course it can not agree to that. Once giving in to such blackmail would put Russia in a cycle where the U.S. would press for more concessions, and more, and more ...
The New York Times piece linked above puts a lot of official U.S. spin into its story:
Mr. Bush also emphasized the linkage between the Iranian threat and missile defense, but Mr. Obama’s overture reformulates it in a way intended to appeal to the Russians, who long ago soured on the Bush administration.
I do not see anything in reformulated in that proposed deal that could appeal to Russia. There is absolutely no difference between the Bush and Obama administration on this issue.
The U.S. obviously follows Israel's dictate and presses for more sanction to be put on Iran and for eventually attacking it. Iran weakened by further sanctions, and in the end taken over by the U.S. just like Iraq, would be bad for Russia's strategic position.
I expect Moscow will on one side negotiate about this offer and on another side make some surprise move against U.S. 'interests' of its own. If Obama wants to play hardball, I am sure Russia is capable to deliver a decent team and play of its own.
Posted by b on March 3, 2009 at 11:40 UTC | Permalink | Comments (30)
James Baker On Solving The Crisis
When Ronald Raegan's secretary of the Treasury, attacks the Obama administration from the left, there is something out of whack. James Baker in the FT:
We should act decisively. First, we need to understand the scope of the problem. The Treasury department – working with the Federal Reserve – must swiftly analyse the solvency of big US banks. Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner’s proposed “stress tests” may work. Any analyses, however, should include worst-case scenarios. We can hope for the best but should be prepared for the worst.
Next, we should divide the banks into three groups: the healthy, the hopeless and the needy. Leave the healthy alone and quickly close the hopeless. The needy should be reorganised and recapitalised, preferably through private investment or debt-to-equity swaps but, if necessary, through public funds. It is time for triage.
...
To avoid bank runs and contain market disruption, the Treasury should announce its decisions at one time. Washington will also need to co-ordinate its actions with other major capitals, especially in western Europe and east Asia. At best, this will encourage other countries to take similar steps with their own banking systems. At a minimum, other governments can prepare for the financial turmoil associated with the announcement.
...
During the 1990s, American officials routinely urged their Japanese counterparts to kill their zombie banks before they could do more damage to Japan’s economy. Today, it would be irresponsible if we did not heed our own advice.
Baker neglects the derivative and CDS mess that needs to be eliminated. But the plan is the right one. I offered something similar back in October and wrote:
Those steps can be taken now, or in six month. Now they could help. Six month from now there will be so much damage done to the real economy, that a very deep and multi-year long recession will be needed to recover.
Unfortunately it looks like I was right on that.
Posted by b on March 2, 2009 at 17:19 UTC | Permalink | Comments (25)
Think Global And Buy Local
There have been several such reports over the years - two recent ones:
LSA Anaconda, Iraq - Here's what KBR made available for an ordinary breakfast: baked bacon, creamed beef, pork sausage patties, turkey sausage links, plain omelets, scrambled eggs, hash browns, grits/oatmeal, buttermilk biscuits, French toast, waffles, assorted yogurts, muffins, doughnuts, and coffee cake.
and
FOB Altimur, Afghanistan - One tent away is the DFAC, or dining facility, where a crew of cheerful civilian cooks from India stays up all night preparing a smorgasbord of goodies. There is a mountain of fresh strawberries and grapes, replenished daily. There are six kinds of ice cream and pie. There is surf and turf every Friday night, with lobster tails flown from Maine via Dubai. After a late patrol, the men can still get grilled cheeseburgers at 2 a.m.
As Napoleon said, an army marches on its stomach. Good food is good motivation. But what those reports describe is the luxury of a five star hotel. Meanwhile how many people in the U.S. have to live on food stamps? Over 30 million.
From a more strategic standpoint: Isn't one of the main problems in Afghanistan economic development? Or the growing of opium? Or unemployment?
So why not buy local food? Why no have local farmers provide what those bases need? Pay well at the local farmers market and it will be much cheaper than to fly in vegetables from California.
Joshua Foust is currently on a forward operation base in Afghanistan. He has a nice little story how he and a colleague solved a problem by hiring some locals for $60 when the French troops had planned to make that a project and hire some foreign contractor for thousands of Euros.
The net result of this very tiny amount of effort and money is that five Afghans were given work for two days, a health and equipment problem at the base was resolved, and the ANA’s relationship with the Westerners at the base was vastly improved.
I am against the foreign operations in Afghanistan. But if they are done at all, why not do them in a way that costs us less money AND helps the Afghan economy AND increases the chance of the mission to succeed.
People tend to care for stuff they made themselves and were paid to made much more then for stuff that is just given to them. Why then are Chinese contractors building roads in Afghanistan instead of local Afghans?
Posted by b on March 2, 2009 at 16:38 UTC | Permalink | Comments (24)
AIG and New Banks
A well written piece on AIG. The exposes the core of a nuclear economy whose meltdown we observe.
AIG wrote unhedged Credit Default Swaps, insurance against credit defaults of packaged debt obligations like mortgages, in a notional value of $450 billion. That stack is now down to $300 billion. The U.S. people have so far pumped $150 billion into AIG. That this is exactly the amount AIG has now less in CDS exposure is certainly not pure coincidence.
We can expect that all CDS's AIG has written will be called on as all classes of debt will have very high default rates over the next years. There were several other fields of faulty financial engineering AIG 'invested' in that will result in additional tens of billions of losses.
Tomorrow AIG will post a new quarterly loss of $60 billion ($460,000 per minute). Also tomorrow the U.S. government will put another $30 billion of fresh capital into AIG. We can be sure that more will follow each quarter for many years to come.
Why does the U.S. government do this?
If we let A.I.G. fail, said Seamus P. McMahon, a banking expert at Booz & Company, other institutions, including pension funds and American and European banks “will face their own capital and liquidity crisis, and we could have a domino effect.” A bailout of A.I.G. is really a bailout of its trading partners — which essentially constitutes the entire Western banking system.
There is certainly no lack of people who think it would be a good idea to let the entire 'western' banking system fail.
But unfortunately we do need banks to 1. aggregate savings, 2. allocate the aggregated savings as credit to productive investments and 3. administrate the general public payment systems.
So either the U.S. bails out AIG or the sky falls down.
But there may be a way out. Why not instantiate a new banking system?
Set up clean New Banks in all countries under very strict regulatory rules and give them some basic capital. Then declare all credit default swaps null and void and let the dice fall where they may. When the old banks default, the new banks will pick up their good assets and business.
The advantage of such a 'shock and awe' solution is that the drag on the real economy will be over much faster than in any other solution. The current slow pace of backing up the system again and again does not generated trust. It is devastating for real production, trade and the livelihood of billions of people.
Posted by b on March 1, 2009 at 15:55 UTC | Permalink | Comments (19)
A Crazy Idea
The land supply route to Afghanistan through Pakistan is endangered and the political situation there will get worse. The new route through Russia Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is, at least officially, only for non-military goods. The possible route through Iran is blocked due to Israel's interests. The supply by air will be less effective when, in five month, the Manas airbase 'hub' in Kyrgyzstan is closes down.
The U.S. military understands that it is impossible to wage a bigger war in Afghanistan without better routes. Swoop:
[D]eep concern has arisen at the Pentagon about supply lines, reflected in the following private comment to us from an official at the policymaking level in the Defense Department: “The idea that we can wage an effective military campaign in this landlocked country without safe and dependable logistical support is crazy."
I assume that the Pentagon policymaker will let Obama know of these concerns. The only realistic strategy then is to end the war. But U.S. public opinion currently still prevents that.
Maybe the carcass of a dead tall Arab man can be found somewhere in east Afghanistan to soothe the U.S. public urge to forever go after one Osama Bin Laden.
A crazy idea?
---
earlier coverage of Afghanistan logistics at MoA:
Iran Should Offer Fuel To DESC, Feb 21, 2009
The New Route Plus Iranian Jet Fuel Supply To Afghanistan, Feb 20, 2009
The Pink Route To Afghanistan, Feb 3, 2009
The Costly New Supply Route To Afghanistan, Jan 26, 2009
New Supply Routes To Afghanistan, Nov 19, 2008
Fuel for War in Afghanistan Aug 20, 2008
The Road War in Afghanistan Aug 16, 2008
Fuel Tanker Attacks in Afghanistan Mar 24, 2008
Posted by b on March 1, 2009 at 14:21 UTC | Permalink | Comments (36)