We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
As several people actually have e-mailed the Samizdata to ask, “What’s an Antonov?”… the simple answer is a Russian made transport aircraft. The longer answer is that of the many types of Antonov, reports of the strange going on in Konduz have not specified what kind other than to say it was ‘a big Antonov aircraft’.
I take ‘big’ to mean it was multi-engined, which eliminates the smaller single-engined Antonov An-2 light transports. Likewise I think we can assume no pilot is crazy enough to try to land a large multi-engined jet on an unlit cratered dirt strip at night, so we can safely eliminate any of the large multi-engined Antonov jets.
My guess is that the aircraft in question will turn out to be an Antonov An-26. The Pakistani Airforce operates a single An-26 and it would be perfect for a rough strip landing under less than optimal conditions. My money is on that particular one being the specific aircraft involved in ‘The Great Escape’.
The e-mails keep on rolling in. It seems everyone in bloggerland has an opionion on the ‘great escape’. One such view can be found at Fevered Rants (now that is a great name for a blog).
Thanks to those of you who pointed out to me that there was an article about this in the NY Times (free sign-up required) and that it was mentioned in Canada on CBC early on monday morning.
According to David Rennie in today’s Daily Telegraph, Northern Alliance General Daoud Khan is claiming the Antonov belonged to the Pakistani Airforce and the flights were done with US complicity…and he does not seem too happy about that. Mahmud Shah, a Northern Alliance soldier is quoted:
We had decided to kill all of them, and we are not happy with America for letting the plane come in
Well I’m with you on that one, Mahmud.
Perhaps allowing General Musharraf to send in his airforce to rescue some Pakistani citizens from coming to a sticky end was a way of throwing Pakistan a bone for their continuing support and access to their airspace. It will be interesting to hear the truth when it eventually comes out.
Judging from the number of e-mails I have received with theories of what the the hell might have happened, the story of the audacious escape by Al Qaeda terrorists from Konduz via covert airlift was interesting to many who read this blog. Yet what I really find fascinating is that the US media never did pick up on this story. I would be curious to hear from any Samizdata readers in America if this sorry tale was reported anywhere in the USA.
Now call me naive if you will, but I was under the impression the whole reason for the US involvement in Afghanistan was to apprehend or (preferably) kill as many members of Al Qaeda as humanly possible.
So how in the hell is the escape of three Antonov transport aircraft full of Al Qaeda fighters from Konduz not a major story? David Chater of SkyNews claimed in a new report that I saw at about 14:15 GMT today that the facts were corroborated by source after source within now liberated Konduz, so it really does seem to be a legitimate story. David Williams also mentions this incident in passing today in the Daily Mail. He reports speculation in Konduz that the aircraft were sent by Pakistan to evacuate trapped Pakistani Al Qaeda or Taliban supporters as part of some secret deal (with the US? With the Northern Alliance?). This seems to be just one of several conspiracy theories circulating on the mysterious Konduz airlift during the last days before the Northern Alliance took the city.
Granted, it is not the end of the world and hopefully the US military will catch up with these ‘gentlemen’ again sooner or later, but it is certainly not a trivial incident: so why the deafening silence? CNN have reporter Satinder Bindra in Konduz as well, yet all we get in his reports are soggy ‘human interest’ pieces like “I saw three dead Taliban on the streets today…” (cue video of dead Taliban soldiers covered in flies) and “A Pakistani is taken off in a truck, accused of being a Taliban supporter”…(cue video of terrified bearded Pakistani man being heaved into a truck by grim faced Tajik Northern Alliance soldiers). In short, clueless MTV style photo-journalism rather than serious reporting.
What on earth is going on here? How very curious indeed.
I was reading Ian Murray’s blog The Edge of England’s Sword and followed a link to an interesting article he wrote for Britannica regarding the use of statistics in the victim disarmament debate. It is a excellent piece but the bit that stood out to me was:
The level of contention is so high that acceptance of a set of data by one side often means a knee-jerk rejection by the other. The research of U.S. government agencies should be objective enough to be acceptable to both sides, yet some data produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have been criticized for being biased in favour of gun control.
Now whilst I realise I am a wild-eyed libertarian, it never ceases to amaze me how many people do indeed seem to think that government agencies are somehow less likely to have an axe to grind when they make some pronouncement. States are in no sense a disinterested third party standing apart from sectarian concerns of society. What they are is a group of people defending their own narrow institutional objectives and with a vested interest in finding ‘reasons’ to expand the remit of their authority. To think otherwise is almost hilarious.
Only it is not really funny at all.
20:00 GMT. SkyNews reporters in Konduz are sticking to the story and have uncovered additional details. It is amazing to me how slow the other major media outlets have been at picking up this story! I was just watching CNN and not so much as a whiff of it. For sure, it is the blogs such as this that have run it first on the Internet.
For three nights the Antonov transport aircraft landed at Konduz between US airstrikes (which were said to have been occurring at night at predictable intervals), at around 02:00 am each night. This was attempted again last night but as Northern Alliance forward combat elements had worked their way to the very edge of the airstrip, it was driven off by ground fire and did not land.
It would seem that some Al Qaeda fighters have indeed pulled off a ‘great escape’. A small comfort may be gained from the knowledge that if the Antonov came back again last night unsuccessfully then there still must be Al Qaeda people on the ground who did not make it out on the last flight.
Clearly someone on our side has well and truly dropped the ball for this to have happened. Whilst Al Qaeda may be our loathsome enemies, one can still be struck by the sheer audacity of what they seem to have pulled off. We underestimate these guys at our peril.
Whilst I am only speculating now, my guess is that it was the same aircraft each night (I mean, just how many large Antonov transport aircraft can Al Qaeda have access to?). The fact it came back four times suggests that not only were we not shooting their airlift down but the pilot must have ice water for blood. Landing on an unlit crater pocked airstrip at night, within range of Northern Alliance guns, through a sky ‘owned’ by USN F-18 Hornets? Not a job I would have cared to apply for.
16:15 GMT. A SkyNews reporter was told by one of Northern Alliance General Doud’s forward battlegroup commanders that as his forces rolled into Konduz this morning, they were surprised by the lack of hardcore Al Qaeda fighters. They then discovered from locals that for the last two nights, large Antonov transport aircraft have been landing at the airstrip in the isolated Taliban pocket and airlifting out the trapped foreign Al Qaeda fighters, along with their weapons, flying them to safety under the very noses of the Northern Alliance and Americans.
If this report is true,and the hardcore of Al Qaeda personnel in Konduz have slipped away to points unknown, it is a major setback for the ‘war against terrorism’.
The new developments in the war against Taliban/Al Qaeda could well be the end game, not of the war against global terrorism, but of the first stage of that war. In some ways, the ‘Afghan Interlude’ might actually be the easiest part (a few weeks ago I never thought I would be writing that remark). At least we have a relatively clearly defined enemy in Al Qaeda and their Taliban patrons.
There is still some hard fighting and dirty politicking to be done before Afghanistan is ‘finished’ but I suspect that once the appetizer is well and truly digested, it will be time for the main course: Iraq
Hi Saddam, Condaleeza here. Did you think we had forgotten that Mohammed Atta met with the station chief of Iraqi Intelligence in Prague right before heading off to the USA?
03:15 in the morning GMT. First reports are coming in on satellite and cable channels of a major airmobile helicopter insertion at an airfield near Kandahar by over 1000 US Marines, followed by artillery and other heavy equipment being brought by C-130 Hercules transports. This is clearly not just a raid.
Semper Fi. Godspeed to you all, gentlemen.
Whilst I understand what Dale Amon is saying and largely agree that the American public will be far more resolute now than has been the case since the Vietnam War, I think you should not underestimate the capacity of George Bush’s political enemies to make mischief.
If you think the likes of Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Edward Kennedy, Charles Schumer et al. are going to stand resolutely by the President if large numbers of body-bags start coming home, then I think you vastly overestimate their attachment to the interest of American society as opposed to their own narrow political interests. What is more, there are large sections of the US media who will do their damnedest to undermine the Republican Party the moment they no longer think it will be commercial suicide to be seen as ‘unpatriotic’.
For all its many and varied flaws, the British media and the elements of the body politic that actually matter are wired rather differently. That is the reason I made those remarks in my earlier article.
Unlike many of the more inbred nitwits in the British media (i.e. the Daily Mail), I do not subscribe to the idea that all the US military’s special forces all have two left feet and that the United States will immediately recoil with horror at the first sight of American blood. I have lived in the USA on many ocassions and have met enough people in the SpecOps community that I know otherwise. I agree with you that Al Qaeda did a very good job of delivering aversion therapy to the US public regarding casualties. But do not underestimate the vipers within when things start to get messy. They will play the ‘bring the boys back home card’ the instant they they think can safely do so. Perhaps I am wrong about them, but I suspect otherwise.
For those who have been following the ghastly career of Bert as he spreads evil, fear, despair and bizarre haircuts across the face of the globe, here is proof that there is no blow too low for this once loved character gone bad.
Read the full horror of Bert’s treason for yourself.
An article in the Sunday Times today suggests that Tony Blair is exasperated that his wish to see a major deployment of ground troops to Afghanistan is being ignored by George Bush.
Meanwhile, Blair has had no support from America in his efforts to increase the coalition forces on the ground. He is said by military sources to have become “utterly frustrated” that the US “cannot see that it can achieve its tactical goals more quickly is the military, humanitarian and diplomatic strands of this operation run in tandem”. Washington is “myopically focused on Bin Laden and the Taliban”, the sources said.
Sorry Tony, but whilst you and your new best friend George make a fine couple at photo opportunities, there is no disguising that there are two fundamentally different world views at work here.
Tony Blair is the leader of a reformed socialist party who regards it as axiomatic that the role of the state is being ‘my brother’s keeper’. By extension Blair wants to take up ‘The White Man’s burden’ in Afghanistan. He wants stout and resolute British soldiers to prevent those messy Afghans from sliding into barbarism in the post-Taliban order. He presides over a nation which has a realistic view of the realities of war and has fought its last few rather well. As a result, the general British public has quite a high tolerance of combat casualties.
George Bush is the leader of a corporatist capitalist party with a significant anti-corporatist and anti-interventionist wing. He has support for a war of retaliation and the destruction of Al Qaeda and anyone who stands between the USA and Al Qaeda. Bush presides over a nation which has a rather squeamish view of war, at least with regard to American casualties, and very little interest in open ended military commitments. Whilst images of women in Kabul walking unmolested without burqas causes Americans entirely justified satisfaction, few seriously think that is why their airforces and special ops teams are killing people in their names.
Blair is not just wrong, he is dangerously wrong. An absolute prerequisite for coherent military operations is having clear and unambiguous goals. The Americans have set themselves exactly that: the destruction of Al Qaeda and any who give them succour. What Tony Blair is doing is applying his fuzzy socialist logic to a very simple strategic question and attempting to turn clarity into ambiguity. This is not a peacekeeping operation, it is not a nation building operation, it is not a humanitarian operation, it is a war against Taliban/Al Qaeda in reprisal for the mass murder of civilians in America: to think anything else is just a dangerous distraction. As I have been saying, we simply have no business trying to civilize Afghanistan at bayonet point, not only it is wrong, it simply will not work. Fortunately it seems that Bush and his advisors are able to see that too.
News can be a remote, impersonal thing. We see stories about outrages in some far off land and we are duly outraged… and then we move on to the the next thing. Although I live in London at the moment, I used to work in the World Trade Centre and I was there briefly last June, so I must say I took the events of 11 September rather hard, but for others who actually witnessed it, the experience must have been altogether more appalling. My ex-girlfriend lives in New Jersey and watched the entire horror unfold from her bedroom window. But even so, eventually life moves on. Jay Zilber on Mind over what matters writes a thoughtful little personal reflection on this subject along with a dramatic photograph that does indeed put it all into perspective.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
