9/11 Remembered

It would be inappropriate not to blog about the significance of today's date - the anniversary of what might well prove to be the defining moment of my generation. When hijacked airliners plunged into the World Trade Center in New York City, the world changed and it's never been the same since.

I always feel deeply uncomfortable on this day. I wasn't in New York until a few weeks after 9/11 - so whatever contribution I can make to marking his important anniversary seems rather hollow. Similarly, even though I'm fiercely proud of the United States, I'm not much of a flag-waver either - especially since the significance of this date is being hijacked by opportunistic propagandists like the disgusting Glenn Beck.

All I can do is look back objectively at the legacy of 9/11 - to many people, that means 'the war.'

Many people criticize America's military retaliation in Afghanistan - but even though Operation Enduring Freedom launched an ongoing conflict that has cost the lives of hundreds of servicemen, reports like this one highlight an undiplomatic truth liberal-minded people like myself don't like to admit. It worked.

Al Qaeda went from controlling the foothills of Afghanistan to hiding out in caves and sloping across the border into Pakistan. Instead of emerging as a dominant regional collective, the foot soldiers of Al Qaeda are now estimated to number in the mere hundreds - scattered and impotent in the face of remorseless pressure from US and Allied policing.

The war in Iraq is a murkier subject. It's been proven conclusively that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was in no way linked to Al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks on the United States. In fact, he was one of militant Islam's staunchest enemies - and whatever you say about his despicable regime, it was highly effective in suppressing the influence Al Qaeda.

So by invading and toppling his dictatorship, the United States created a power vacuum that extremists like Al Qaeda rushed to fill - perhaps a serious tactical mistake.

But the extremists have so far failed to fill that gap. Even though it comes at a heavy price (the lives of thousands of US servicemen) America's legacy in 'free' Iraq will hopefully be the foundation of a secure government that rejects extremism. Many Sunni insurgents have already allied with Americans instead of Al Qaeda. Hopefully, that alliance will last.

Whether we made the right decisions after 9/11 is a tricky question - and one very few people agree on. What we should agree on, however, is that we're immensely lucky to have hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform risking their lives to protect us as a result of what happened.

One can criticize the war in Iraq, or the political motivation behind it - but you can't question the motivations of the individual soldiers camped out in the Persian desert. They don't risk their lives for oil rights, or protecting Israel, or empire building (or a hundred other murky motivations detractors have proposed for why Bush went to war.)

The soldiers themselves do it because it's their duty. They do it to protect their families, and friends (and even the ungrateful people waving 'End this War' banners in Washington D.C.) They do it because they believe they're making the world a safer place, to avoid ever seeing another tragedy like when the Twin Towers fell.

And if their sacrifice is the legacy of 9/11 - then it's one we should be very grateful for.

Is the US Army responsible for soldier's 'losing it?'

In World War I, army recruiters faced a problem.

Thousands of soldiers were being drafted to replace those cut down on the battlefields of Ypres and The Somme - but military commanders feared they 'weren't made of the right stuff.'

An astonishing number simply refused to fire their weapons at an enemy soldier - arguing that the Bible explicitly told them 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder.'

This issue of Christian morality was dealt with through psychology. During basic training, roundel-shaped targets were replaced with those resembling a human silhouette - in order to get soldiers used to firing their weapons at something that was 'man-shaped.'

It was this technique which ushered in the uncompromising brutality of modern military training.

In order to ensure that soldiers don't have even a moment's hesitation in pulling the trigger, today's warriors are trained using human-shaped targets and ultra-realistic video games that desensitize them to the moral quandary posed by shooting another person.

Some American soldiers are even forced to listen to loud and aggressive rock music, to get the adrenaline flowing during combat.

It makes their job - kicking ass, suppressing opposition and blowin' shit up - much clearer and easier.

But just what long term effect does psychological conditioning have on our soldiers?

Last week, when Sgt. John Russell turned his gun on his comrades - slaying five of them. It was a shocking and unprecedented act - the 'fraticide' of a soldier's own comrades. However, despite committing five murders, Russell wasn't vilified. In fact, Russell's father wasn't alone in placing the blame firmly on the military:

"They broke him," father Wilburn Russell tearfully explained. "He's not a violent person. For this to have happened, there had to be something going on that the Army's not telling us about."

Since the war in Iraq began, there have been an increasing number of horror stories emerging from Iraq - like the actions of Private Steven D. Green

After drinking heavily, he and four squad-mates murdered an Iraqi family - apparently in order to rape their 14-year-old daughter. After Green was finished defiling her, he shot the girl in the head and set fire to her body.

Stories like this are horrific. What makes them even worse is that they're committed by American soldiers on a supposed mission of 'liberation.'

Certainly, the actions of Green and Russell are atypical of the disciplined behavior of the vast majority of soldiers serving in Iraq - but there are far too many 'shocking' stories emerging from that theater of war for any of us to feel entirely comfortable any more.

The fact that 42% of reservists returning from Iraq now need treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder just goes to show the mental strain an active combat role has on a soldier - but how much of that strain comes from being desensitized into committing atrocities?

The words of disgraced soldier Sabrina Harman are particularly chilling to me.

This 31-year-old soldier was a guard at the notorious Abu Gharib detention facility in Iraq - and later convicted of cruel 'maltreatment' of the prisoners in her care.

Despite the damning photographic evidence proving her involvement in the atrocities, a private letter to her sister - written before she was accused of any wrong doing - reveals that even she knew that the actions she was forced to take part in were wrong:

"These people are going too far. Even I can’t handle whats going on. I can't get it out of my head. Not many people know this shit goes on. I don’t know if I can take it mentally. What if that was me in [the prisoner's] shoes? These people will be our future terrorists. It's awful and you know how fucked I am in the head. Both sides of me think its wrong. I thought I could handle anything. I was wrong."

Although Harman was convicted and given a 'bad conduct' discharge from the army, it's difficult to view her as the 'bad guy.' Increasingly, it's apparent that the US operation in Iraq is turning into something of a meat-grinder - churning through thousands of soldiers to achieve the arguably unobtainable goal of 'democratizing' the Middle East.

All I can say is that the rarity of these horror stories is a fitting testament to the bravery, professionalism and humanity of the vast majority of soldiers serving overseas. They're clearly facing horrific challenges and yet they keep 'soldierin' on.'

I hope, as the Iraq conflict wraps up, that President Obama will make good on the promises Bush Jnr. failed to live up to - and ensure that returning veterans receive the medical and mental care they need to put their horrific experiences behind them.

Despite the horrors of what Sgt. Russell and Sabrina Harman did - they're as much victims as anybody.

ADDENDUM:

As usual, Tom has chipped in with some excellent facts which go a long way towards disproving the thrust of this article - read his comments below.

One article he links to has this to say:

"The lesson here, if there is one, is this: Treat your soldiers humanely and look out for their welfare. It won’t eliminate the stress of combat, but it will pay dividends."

To a certain extent, that seems that the US Army has done exactly that, if this is anything to go by:

"So far, Pentagon records show, there were 26 homicides in Iraq before Monday. In Vietnam alone, there were at least 450 homicides in the one category of "fragging" — the killing of an officer with a fragmentation grenade."

And in the army's defense, John M. Russell was evaluated the week prior to his shooting spree:

"He was referred to counseling the week before and his commander determined that it was best for him not to have a weapon," Maj. Gen. David Perkins explained.

According to preliminary reports, Russell actually wrestled a gun from his armed escort to commit his slaughter - he wasn't armed himself. Obviously the military had identified a problem and were making moves to deal with it - unfortunately, they weren't successful.

It's entirely possible to blame this incident on the government - for thrusting troops into an overseas combat zone that many Americans feel we have no place in. It's also possible to criticize the army - while they responded to Russell's psychological evaluation, people question why rapist and murderer Stephen Green - evaluated as being 'homicidal' - was allowed to remain armed and in a combat zone - with the opportunity to commit his crimes.

But ultimately, the thing we take away from this is just how difficult, challenging and traumatic active service can be - and in Russell's case, at least, the army has been surprisingly sympathetic to that. Maj. Gen. Daniel Bolger, the commander of Multi-National Division-Baghdad, surmised:

"A tragedy like this points to the challenges troops face. When something like this happens we've got to be careful not to judge too harshly."

Ten Things Bush did right?

Over on CK's blog, he has listed the 'Ten Things Bush Did Right.'

I find myself unable to agree with more than one of them.

CK claims (and I respond):

1. He stood against global warming. Which has proven to be a prudent decision. Standing against a popular theory because of conflicting evidence is heroic. Standing against a popular theory because you're knee deep in shenanigans with the oil industry and Saudi Arabia is merely self serving and crooked. While some have claimed that 2008 is the year 'Global Warming was Disproved', I don't think that had anything to do with Bush's 'stand.'
   
2. He enhanced interrogation of terrorists. He condoned torture. How anybody could possibly claim that this was a 'good' thing is beyond me. Civilized societies don't perform torture. A society that condones torture to 'protect' itself isn't a society worth protecting. At least John McCain (the only Republican who's actually BEEN tortured) had the guts to stand up and attack this absolutely indefensible precedent.
   
3. Rebuilt presidential authority. For a start, the reins of power in the Bush administration were held by Dick Cheney. An incumbent President who defers to his Vice President isn't exactly wielding much authority. But consider other actions Bush condoned - helping cover up the conspiracy to 'out' CIA agent Valerie Plame, dismissing US attorneys for political gain, misleading the public into a costly foreign war and leading the country into the worst economic crisis for a generation. His was a presidency of cronyism, deceit, fraud and disrespect towards the American people and the beliefs outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
   
4. Unswerving support for Israel. I will admit, my sympathies are generally towards Israel - I have Israeli friends and I can understand that they can't exactly sit on their hands when Hamas or Hezbollah are firing rockets at civilians. However, as far as the diplomatic situation in the Middle East goes, this 'unswerving support' for Israel is one of the major sticking points that has left America open to terrorism. Unswerving support isn't what Israel needs. It needs support dependent entirely on responsible behavior.
   
5. No Child Left Behind. While No Child Left Behind has seen test scores improve, Bush let the side down by supporting billions of dollars for totally ineffective abstinence-only sex education, which left many teenagers with children of their own! In addition, he allowed the religious right to force their propaganda into the curriculum across the country, teaching a generation of kids Biblical fairy tales as if they were fact. In addition to vetoing the health care extension for children, Bush actually left many, many kids behind in the interests of courting the religious right.
   
6. Promoted democracy. Bush won his first term through the Supreme Court, rather than the electorate. He promoted unilateral military action in opposition to the democratic principles of the UN. The Patriot Act, amid other legislation, undermined all American's constitutional rights. Bush's presidency was marked with a sharp departure from responsible, transparent government which has made some of America's actions overseas appear deeply hypocritical.
   
7. Medicare prescription drug benefits. Finally, George does something right... Kind of. This expansion actually led to the current situation in the United States, in which Americans pay vastly inflated prices for drugs pharmaceutical companies sell cheaper in neighbouring Canada. It's a cash cow for pharma, and a huge waste of money for taxpayers.
   
8. Supreme court appointments, John Roberts and Sam Alito. Conservatives often accuse liberals of using the Supreme Court as a way of 'legislating from the bench.' They would know. Alito and Roberts were appointed to pad the Supreme Court with conservatives in order to support a right-wing agenda that had little to do with the law or the constitution.
   
9. Foreign relations with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India. Good Lord, I can hardly contain my excitement! I don't wish to undermine Bush's achievements, but foreign relations weren't exactly terrible with these nations in the first place. Had he made headroads with Iran, Syria, Cuba or Venezuela, then I'd be impressed.
   
10. Troop surge. The surge worked, don't get me wrong. However, it's questionable whether Bush can claim to have 'done right' when the surge itself was in response to something he'd 'done wrong.' The war in Iraq is arguably Bush's most damning legacy. The surge was merely a response to that. When somebody breaks a glass full of milk, do they get to claim credit for merely mopping the mess up?
    

The Neil Clark Story

UPDATE: Score change.

KAMM 1 / CLARK 1

Game is tied - with so much left to play for!

PLEASE SEE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

They say being magnanimous is one of the 'measures of a man.'

I'm not sure I entirely believe that - but I will say one thing. I'm big enough to come clean when I've been wrong about something.

And when it comes to scrappy journalist Neil Clark, I won't admit being wrong about my opinion of him - but a recent discovery has put my opinion of the Guardian contributor into a new perspective and I think it bears repeating here.

I first discovered Neil Clark through the blog of Jenn of the Jungle, who runs rightwing website Screw Liberals Dot Com and manages to combine the outspoken opinions and total babe-like hotness of Ann Coulter with that oh-so-rare quality called sanity. And she loves dogs.

Neil next popped up on my radar during the 2007 Weblog Awards, where I wrote a long piece explaining in excruciating detail why his blog was totally unworthy of winning the prize as best UK blog.

Further proof why democracy is overrated was given when Neil went on to win the award with an overwhelming majority.

Since then, I have continued to wage a guerrilla war against the forces of 'Neildom' by highlighting his most idiotic posts (or why people who wear hats are more civilised) and grudgingly agreeing with some of his more Eurocentric posts. At the end of the day, as much as I dislike his politics, we are both self-publicists with an occasional cute turn of phrase.

In tackling Neil's ridiculous politics, I've occasionally resorted to mentioning a rather nasty incident between him and Times contributor Oliver Kamm. Neil has the dubious distinction of being the first man to attempt to sue a 'blogger' for slander and defamation of character on the Internet.

The court case itself was thrown out and a good job too - free speech must be protected when courts often accomplish what legislators can't. But the fact that Neil handled the matter with spectacular incompetence doesn't detract from the reality that he has a legitimate reason to consider himself a victim.

So since new evidence has come to my attention - and I've grudgingly shifted my position in Neil's favor - I think it's worth doing what I can't do anywhere else and set the record straight.

Clark Vs. Kamm

I should warn you that this is a post-modernist tale and there's no clearly defined 'good guy' or 'bad guy.' In fact, both our leads act like unrepentant dicks during various stages of this story, but that's the stuff the best French cinema is made of.

Back in 2005, Oliver Kamm published a book called "Anti -Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy."

By all accounts, it's an excellently written book - even better when you see through Oliver Kamm's facade of being 'left wing' and realise he's a moderate/conservative like the rest of us. No true self respecting British 'left winger' would have left the socialist Labour Party in disgust, as Kamm did in 1988, only to rejoin it when Tony Blair arrived with his suitcase full of hijacked Tory policies in 1997. You're a shameless Tory, Kamm. Own up to it!

Oliver Kamm's book was reviewed by Neil Clark in the Telegraph in December of 2005.

Apparently.

Both Oliver Kamm and Neil Clark link to this review despite that fact that UNLIKE ANY OTHER BOOK REVIEW IN RECORDED HISTORY it fails to actually mention any of the books it's meant to be reviewing.

Hey, I warned you this story wasn't pretty. It involves self publicists with political delusions wallowing in their own self impotence [I think you mean 'importance' - Editorial Bear].

Now Neil Clark managed to achieve wonders. Not only did he 'review' a book without mentioning it's title or contents in any way - he also managed to piss Oliver Kamm off in the process. Not by calling him unconvincing or dishonest - which he did in his article - but by apparently not reading his book.

That's what Oliver Kamm alleged in his blog. After reading Neil's article in the Telegraph, Oliver suggested that the reason Neil hadn't mentioned many specific details of his book (like, ummm, the title) was because he'd never got further than reading the blurb on the back before scribbling his article.

Which is a LIE and SLANDER. Because The Telegraph would never publish such a dishonest and fraudulent contributor (for example, they don't publish my articles.) We hope.

In any event, Oliver Kamm also alleged that Neil's review features a misrepresented quote in it. Specifically that Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic used to recruit for the SS during World War II - long before he battled against genocidal Serbs in war torn Yugoslavia.

[Note to Oliver Kamm. You call that misrepresentation? Have you actually read any of the articles in newspapers? Militant Ginger gave an exclusive interview to The Sun once and they still managed to get his name and age wrong on the front cover. - Editorial Bear.]

The claim that Izetbegovic was an SS recruiter is clearly fictional - as Kamm points out, the late Bosnian president was only a teenager when World War II ended. However, whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant to the journalistic bickering that occurred regarding it.

Neil Clark quoted his sources for the Izetbegovic allegations as being the "Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation." Oliver Kamm, in researching Neil's sources (geeze, doesn't this guy have a life?) discovered that this organisation didn't exist.

If you google it, through, you come up with the International Institute of Strategic Studies - a world renowned strategic studies group with a reputation for honesty in what is basically seen as a ridiculously dishonest business (please see Thank You For Smoking to explain what Strategic Studies are - basically official studies designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.)

Kamm's further research (for God's sake, this guy needs a hobby) revealed the truth. Neil Clark's source for the Izetbegovic allegations came from a similarly named International Strategic Studies Association. Their impartiality on the whole Yugoslavia situation can be called into question by a 2003 report which suggested that the Bosnians had made up the whole Srebrenica massacre thing.

Yes, this situation IS as retarded as it sounds. Neil wrote this. Oliver wrote that. Basically it ended up as a pissing contest [Ohmygod that sounds disgusting - Editorial Bear] between two self important journalists who thought somebody out there actually gave a toss.

By that point, the higher moral ground was somewhere lower than the Mariana Trench, but somehow Oliver Kamm actually managed to sink even further.

Soon after this incident flared up, the editors who commissioned Neil Clark's articles started to get emails from a mysterious fellow called George Courtenay. They were sent (with minor variations) to the Guardian, Australian, First Post, Morning Star, New Statesman, Spectator and Daily Express - all the papers Neil contributes to.

To: The Editor
Subject: Neil Clark sources

Dear Sir,

I see you have published an opinion article by Neil Clark today. That's all good to print a range of views but you may be interested that Oliver Kamm of the London Times has been investigating Mr. Clark's use of sources.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/more_on_balkan_.html
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/balkan_claims_r.html

Mr.Clark doesn't say the same thing in his new article but as he's lied to other editors I'm bringing it to your attention.

G. Courtenay

Research into a couple of other disputes involving Oliver Kamm revealed a rather worrying trend - George Courtenay was a name that cropped up again and again! Much like The Saint's pseudonym Sebastian Tombs or Adventure Eddy's adopted alter-ego of Nedwood Dewbolt, the self-publicist in Kamm clearly extended to his AKA as well!

NB: Please see discussion below, where the allegation that Oliver Kamm wrote the 'George Courtney' emails is disscussed in further detail.

Oliver Kamm was pissed off with Neil Clark and apparently out on a single minded and mean spirited crusade to cause his rival journalist as much professional mayhem as possible.

Things don't get pretty [They were pretty before? - Editorial Bear]

There was no way to respond to these supposedly 'anonymous' emails, but Neil Clark decided to respond to Oliver Kamm's blog allegations.

There were various options. 'Turning the other cheek' as Jesus did. Writing a brutal response to show up and humiliate his rival - or turn to the age-old American classic and 'sue his ass.'

Which is just what Neil Clark did.

In April 2006, he filed legal proceedings with his local county court, claiming the maximum damages of £5,000 for slander and defamation. He made Internet history as the first person to sue a blogger for libel.

Unsurprisingly, his case was laughed (not thrown, laughed) out of the court by the judge - but not because his allegations were invalid. More because only somebody of supreme legal ignorance would think of filing a libel case with a small claims court.

Even worse, Neil had marked his letters to Kamm's solicitors 'Without Prejudice' which sounds all good 'n legal, but actually means that a party's legal rights have, in fact, been determined and lost. Had the case gone to trial, Neil would have lost on the grounds that he'd dismissed his own case in his allegation letters.

Trial and Error

But the point is not Neil Clark's spectacular legal incompetence! In fact, if anything, his astounding courtroom cock-ups are a message of hope to greedy lawyers everywhere.

And despite going to court and railing against free speech, Internet autonomy and the basis of everything he (as a journalist) stands for, Neil Clark still manages to come out of this as the 'good guy.' [There's a good guy? Editorial Bear]

Because Oliver Kamm is a shit.

Disagreeing with Neil Clark is one thing - in fact, it's mandatory. Reading his 'review' of Kamm's book, I think it's perfectly valid to wonder if he'd even actually OPENED the book before he opinionated about the contents.

Giving Neil a hard time about his opinions or articles is also to be expected (yet he still manages to get things published, so give Clark his due.)

However, writing under an assumed name to all his editors in order to kill his journalistic career is both cowardly and despicable.

So for the record LET ME STATE THE CASE CLEARLY.

Oliver Kamm and 'George Courtney's' allegations are false. Fake. Fabricated.

Neil Clark did not misrepresent his 'source material' in his articles or blog. He didn't claim his quote about Alija Izetbegovic's alleged SS connection came from the International Institute of Strategic Studies when they actually came from the International Strategic Studies Association.

As it happened, he was apparently incapable of identifying his own sources and claimed they were the Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation - which doesn't exist. But being such an poor researcher is A LONG way from fraudulently presenting one source as another.

And even if it wasn't - writing anonymous emails to try and wreck somebody's career is just really shitty behavior. Whatever the allegations thrown at Neil Clark, they tend to pale in comparison to that.

So, what now?

For the sake of Internet prosperity, I've set the record straight.

Both Neil and Kamm have written their sides of the story - but only in a neatly controlled format. Oliver Kamm is too cowardly to allow any comments on his blog while Neil Clark rigorously edits or censors any which mention the scandal.

Personally, I think Neil's doing himself a disservice here. Instead of buggering about with the legal system (and ending up looking like a knob) he should have ranted and raved to his heart's content and shot down every criticism with the one weapon he has and Oliver Kamm doesn't - The Higher Ground.

In any event, I hope any interested parties will finally be able to look through the censored versions on their sites and find something approaching the truth here - from an unbiased source unswayed by bribery [Neil, Oliver - the bribery window is still open - Editorial Bear]

In Conclusion

So Neil Clark's clearly in the right here. But I don't have to like it - and I still stand by everything I've written about him.

In the last few months, I've gained a grudging respect for Neil. In general, he's been patient and gentlemanly with my robust interference with his blog. I might disagree with the opinions in his writing, but the guy can spin a yarn pretty well and we both agree the smoking ban was a bit fascist.

But just because I've gained a respect for him as a person doesn't mean I have to soften my opinion about his blog. I still say it's ugly. I still say he writes pompously and throws in ridiculous socialist propaganda - coining phrases like 'turbo-globalism™.' *

I think he's cruel for betraying the Iraqi translators. I think he's a fool for defending Milosevic for his genocidal imperialism. I think his socialist ideology is hopelessly outdated (although it's pretty cute and old fashioned.)

But I kind of like the guy now I've got to know him - and I think it's about time somebody stood up and said 'straight up' that he's 'in the right' in the Neil Clark/Oliver Kamm debacle

* Turbo-globalism is copyright Neil Clark 2006. Used without Permission

FURTHER DISCUSSION

In response to this post, commentor William McB raised some issues that I feel need addressing.

William McB: You have adduced no evidence to support the proposition that Kamm was directly responsible for the e-mails to Clark's commissioning editors. Neither, to my knowledge, has Clark adduced any such evidence. Yet you both write articles which leave the reader inevitbly to infer that that was the case. It is not remotely unbelievable to suggest that it was supporters of Kamm's who, unknown to Kamm, e-mailed editors of their own accord. I have contacted editors when I feel they have employed innapropriate journalists for certain tasks and have received thoughtful replies.

I think this is a very valid point. I merely repeated the allegation that Neil Clark had made suggesting the George Courtney was none other than Oliver Kamm himself.

The evidence supporting these allegations was an internet link on Neil's page - a link which has since become defunct. It claimed that in several other Internet arguements, the name of George Courtney has cropped up with disturbing regularity to support Oliver Kamm's position.

However, coincidence is very far from certainty. I think your suggestion that it was one of Kamm's supporters who actually wrote those emails is perfectly valid.

In either event, the emails themselves cast a grave shadow on Oliver Kamm's journalistic credibility. He was entirely justified in being unhappy with Neil Clark's terribly written 'review' of his book. However, there is a marked difference between writing a letter of complaint to the editor of The Telegraph and launching a systematic campaign trying to wreck somebody's journalistic career.

Whoever set out to contact each and every one of Neil Clark's commissioning editors was acting very maliciously. It's fair to suspect it was Kamm itself. It's just as or more likely that it was one of his 'supporters.' In either event, it's very unprofessional conduct and Oliver should be deeply ashamed to have links to his blog in an email set out to destroy a fellow journalist's career.

Clark was directly questioned by his editor on the Telegraph about the factual basis for some of his assertions in his review. He led the editor to believe, whether inadvertently or not, that the basis for the allegations was firstly an international body of some repute or, failing that, some international organisation. It was neither. The source for this scurrulous lie is the work of racist, fraudulent cranks.

As far as I can see - encompasing both Neil and Oliver's recollection of events - the quote in question Neil claims came from the Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation.

In actual fact, the quote was sourced to the International Strategic Studies Association - which is not a company of 'racist fraudulent cranks.' It's a company of thoroughly ruthless, manipulative and amoral fraudulent businessmen, producing cynical 'studies' reaching predetirmined conclusions despite overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary.

For example, 'reporting' that Bosnians lied about and invented the genocide they suffered at the hands of Milosevic's ruthless Serbs.

I'm not sure what boggles the mind more. That Neil didn't even have the journalistic competence to accuratly copy the name of his source - or that he bothered including the ridiculous allegation that Alija Izetbegovic was an World War II SS/Nazi recruiter in his review at all. The kid was only 19 when the war ended!

The utterly ridiculous claims are not the issue. What is regards Oliver Kamm's very specific allegation that Neil misrepresented his source as being the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

Kamm has no track record of obfuscating his identity on the internet. On the other hand, Clark has a recorded history of doing so under a number of different names. Kamm has always published under his own name, has made no attempt to hide his views, and in his writings properly attributes sources. In these and many other respects he is the moral opposite of Clark.

Now this is an interesting topic.

It is a clear and documented fact that Neil Clark has been busy on the Internet behind invented personas such as City Lights Girl and Green Goddess. Stephen Pollard caught him bang to rights in an article here.

However, Neil alleges that Oliver Kamm has specifically set out to manipulate Wikipedia and comment on blogs under the assumed identities of Elena Zamm and Slim Virgin.

I will admit, I can't prove Neil's allegations. However, it is very interesting that these two identities seem to crop up ONLY in relation to Neil Clark or Oliver Kamm. Visit Oliver Kamm's Wikipedia Page and you'll see them both making positive changes.

Visit Neil's Wikipedia page and you'll see Slim Virgin and Elena Zamm in action attacking him as well.

And, just for a giggle, you'll see Neil editing his own page under the name of City Lights Girl!

Now I have no proof of this, but I peronally think it's fairly clear. The circumstantial evidence points to Oliver Kamm doing exactly what Neil does and hiding behind (of obfuscating - good word that) a fake Internet identity.

It's amusing since the word 'Virgin' is often linked to Oliver Kamm via The Exile's slightly obsessive quest to spread his baseless accusation that Oliver Kamm was a virgin all through university.

I think The Exile's obsession with Oliver's virginity says a lot more about The Exile than in does against Kamm!

In any event, I strongly suspect that Oliver Kamm does exist under several anonymous Internet identities, but I can't prove it. I will say this, however. The harder you defend him and deny such accusations, the more egg you'll have on your face if (or when) he gets caught with his hand in the virtual cookie jar (like Neil did with Green Goddess.)

Remember - I could well believe that Oliver Kamm is the moral opposite of Neil Clark. However, morality is a circle and the fast they fly away from each other in one direction, the sooner they come together on the opposite side.

This is a serious accusation and one I would not throw about lightly. Kamm has a number of supporters willing to come to his defense.

Now, I could be wrong, but I reckon I detect a certain threatening undertone in that message. I'm not very impressed by that at all. Remember what I said about 'friends like these...' I'm sure Oliver Kamm wouldn't like to think people are trying to intimidate others in his name.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you meant.

To appear to take Clark's side in any dispute between him and Kamm speaks volumes about your character.

No, but the very fact we're having a dicussion about it does illustrate that I'm open minded, interested in other opinions have haven't decided my loyalty based on gut feeling.

Kamm has never posed as anyone else online.

As we have discussed above, I suspect that he might have done exactly that. I can't prove it, but there is a growing pile of circumstantial evidence and that swings my opinion.

Kamm has never lied about sources to hide a historical untruth.

That's true, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, Oliver Kamm is a terrific writer and I enjoy many of his articles - especially the one about Huckabee (which agrees largely with what I say, except with more long words in it.)

When I first 'met' the writing of Clark and Kamm, I instantly jumped into the Kamm camp because I agree more with his politics and I think he's clearly a better writer.

However, in this specific skirmish in the long-standing internet feud between Clark and Kamm, I was willing to be open minded based on the evidence.

Kamm has never had his personal friends appear in order to defend him on websites without revealing their true identity.

You're contradicting yourself here. You said yourself the emails to Neil's commissioning editors could have been written by a 'supporter' of Kamm's.

And assuming that Oliver Kamm isn't a rockstar with coke-fueled groupies stalking people because 'my poster of Oliver Kamm told me to,' whichever 'supporter' of Oliver Kamm wrote those emails to Neil Clark's commissioning editors (assuming it wasn't Kamm himself) was at least an aquiantence of his.

Listen, I'll be open minded. I'll mention the possibility that he was entirely gleefully innocent, but the weight of circumstansial evidence (and those links to his blog in the email itself) are pretty damning indications that he's involved somehow.

Throw in the likes of Slim Virgin, who apparently only visit the internet to damn Clark and praise Kamm, and you've got a pretty strong case for thinking something's screwy.

And, most importantly of all, Kamm has never made excuses for a would-be genocidal, anti-democratic racist.

I agree with you 100% here. As you've see from my various posts about him, I'm very far from a supporter of Neil's politics. At best, he lives in a delirious fantasy world in which socialism was a viable system and didn't make everybody poor and miserable. At worst, he's advocating the betrayl of our Iraqi allies and trying to dismiss the allegations of genocide and corruption aimed at Milosevic as 'pro-western propoganda.'

Funny how it's always 'pro-western propoganda' when it's attacking his cause, but he's more than happy to link to it when it's supporting him.

However, disliking Neil's politics doesn't detract from the fact that Oliver Kamm made allegations against him that are worthy of slightly deeper examination.

Your article above constitutes a smear against Kamm and one I suggest you reconsider.

Again, I'll assume that's not a threat! But I am open to reconsidering things.

You make one very valid point that I think it's worth including in this article. I don't have any proof that Oliver Kamm wrote the letters to Neil's commissioning editors. I have changed my post to reflect that (and sent them down here to read further discussion on the matter.)

It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think Kamm is guilty of writing those emails, but since I can't prove it and the circumstantial evidence certainly isn't conclusive, I'm willing to notch one up to the Kammster.

In many respects, he and Neil are each as bad as each other, constantly bickering and referencing each other in their blogs like an old married couple.

But despite incessently mentioning it, niether of them have really opened up the floor to 'set the record straight.' Oliver Kamm refuses to allow any comments on his blog, while Neil Clark has an agressive Stalinist policy of censoring and editing any mention of the scandal.

There are interested parties out there, so I'm hoping to use this as a forum to consolidate all the evidence in one place and let people make up their own minds.

Your opinion about the 'Courtney' letters is very valid. Therefore, I think it's time to change to scoreboard and admit that Kamm's got one firmly between the goalposts.

SCORE
Kamm 1 / Clark 1

The game is tyed, with everything to play for.

British Betrayal

"Let's not overlook a practical military issue here: Who will ever work for the British army in a war zone if they know that later they will be tossed aside like a spent cartridge?" Adam LeBor, The Times 9th August 2007.

Do you remember Goldeneye? It was the 1995 Bond movie, in which Pierce Brosnan tackled international terrorism in the first of the 'post Cold War' Bond films.

Thrilling stuff - and interesting too.

The bad guy in that movie, Alec Trevelyan, was revealed to be a Lienz Cossack. His plot was intended to wreck vengeance against the British for their betrayal of his people back in 1945.

Lienz Cossacks

Not familiar with that particular bit of history? I'm not surprised. It's hardly Britain's finest hour and so it doesn't make it into the history books that often.

The Lienz Cossacks were 'white Russians' who'd fought bitterly against communism and the rise of the Soviet Union following the Russian Revolution. During the Second World War, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Lienz Cossacks sided with the Nazis in order to try the topple the communist regime and bring 'freedom' to their country.

Which didn't happen.

First off, the Russians defeated Germany and communism reigned in Russia for another half a century. Secondly, the Lienz Cossacks made no friends by siding with the brutal Nazi regime and committed countless atrocities during the battles on the Eastern Front.

So when the war ended, things got messy.

The Lienz Cossacks who'd fought with the Germans were rounded up by the British. It was up to the United Kingdom to decide what to do with them.

The Cossacks hoped that Britain would protect them. Even though they'd fought on the side of the Germans during WWII, the Cossacks were not Nazis themselves - merely enemies of communism who figured that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'

Britain and America were staunchly anti-communist and the Lienz Cossacks hoped that they'd be considered allies in any upcoming conflict against communism (what would later be called 'the Cold War.')

But it was not to be.

Because of the brutality of the Cossack soldiers, who had murdered and raped their way along with the SS and the German army, the British wanted nothing to do with them and 'repatriated' these 'Russians' to the Soviet Union, where they 'belonged.'

Trains and trucks were pulled up and Cossack soldiers were forced into them. As were their wives, families and children - many of whom were not even Russian, having been born in the years after the Lienz Cossacks had left Russia.

The Cossacks didn't go willingly. British troops had to beat them into submission with billy clubs and rifle-butts. Eventually, almost 35,000 Cossacks were transported to their 'mother country' where the Soviets 'welcomed' them.

The vast majority of them were sent immediately to labor camps in Siberia, which were little better than the death camps the Nazis had built. Almost all of the Lienz Cossacks 'repatriated' back to Russia died in brutal suffering.

The 'lucky' ones didn't even make it that far. Because many of the Cossacks weren't born in Russia (their parents had left following the Russian Revolution) they were unable to be tried for treason as Soviet Citizens. Therefore the Red Army saved themselves the hassle of a military trial and executed them on the spot, with a bullet through the brains.

In the end, the British decision not to protect the Lienz Cossacks led to the deaths of over 30,000 men, women and children. Their blood is directly on British hands.

Although, as Valentin Dmitrovitch Zukovsky said in Goldeneye: "A brutal people. They got what they deserved."

The History Lesson

The reason I'm dredging all this up is because Britain and America are facing a similar problem at the moment. Hundreds of Iraqis who work for the British and American forces in Iraq - as drivers, translators and the like - are requesting asylum in the West to protect them from the bloody retribution they'll face from Iraqi insurgents.

And Britain's giving them the same answer as they gave the Lienz Cossacks.

'Nyet.'

The difference is, of course, that the asylum-seeking Iraqis begging for protection aren't brutal Cossacks. They're average men and women, trying to make a living for themselves. And the reason they're facing a death sentence from brutal Iraqi terrorists is because they deigned to work for the British.

We Brits placed a death sentence on them and now we're turning our backs.

The true horror of this is pretty hard to stomach. Take Mayada Salihi, for instance. She was a red-headed, divorced mother of two who had grown up in Baghdad and taught herself English by listening to American music growing up.

When the American and British soldiers arrived, she took work translating for the foreign servicemen, helping to communicate between the 'invading' forces and the people of Baghdad. All part of winning the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people.

Doing so earned her a death sentence. In May of 2006, a terrorist cell called Ansar Al Sunna kidnapped Mayada off the streets of Baghdad and drove her to a remote location. There, she was brutally beaten, raped and horribly tortured with an electric power drill (the calling card of Ansar Al Sunna.) Eventually, many hours later, the insurgents 'put her out of her misery' by drilling directly into her skull.

Her broken body was dumped on the streets of Baghdad - a 'warning' to any who dared work with the American or British troops.

Is that the fate faced by hundreds of 'collaborating' Iraqis forces?

Betrayal

Although peace seems to be coming to Iraq (deaths of both servicemen and civilians are at some of their lowest levels at the moment) the 'war' is not won and terrorists and insurgents are still a constant danger.

Once the British and American soldiers leave, those Iraqis who assisted the soldiers and diplomats face the same fate as Mayada Salihi. Death, if they're lucky. Torture if they're not.

Unless Britain offers them asylum or protection of some description, many of them - if not the majority - will die. It's as simple as that.

And it's funny (although not 'ha ha' funny) that so many people are ranting about these asylum seekers - talking about all sorts of issues except the single most important one. The decision to let them live or die.

The Issue

Scrubby journalist Neil Clark, for example, wrote a heated piece in which he declared: "let's do all we can to keep self-centred mercenaries who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women for financial gain out of Britain."

The Exile is deliciously blunt: "Keep the buggers out!"

It's funny how two bloggers who bleat about liberalism and the evils of capitalism turn out to be so quick to condemn hundreds of people to death!

Comparison

If we'd been blogging sixty years ago, I'm sure Neil and The Exile would have been very vocal about rejecting the Lienz Cossack's pleas for protection, too. After all, the Cossacks were a brutal people, who murdered and raped alongside our country's most hated enemy.

But the Iraqis requesting asylum in Great Britain are not Lienz Cossacks.

They are not soldiers or revolutionaries. They are drivers and translators. Folks who want to provide for their families. They're people who put themselves at risk to work for the British forces in Iraq because we asked them to.

Just look at Mayada Salihi. Not a brutal criminal or a bloodthirsty Cossack. She was just a divorced mother of two. I can't imagine any of the rest of the asylum seekers are any different.

And that's really the issue, isn't it? While Neil Clark calls the Iraqis who assist British troops 'quislings' and compares them to collaborators from World War II, he's really just trying to justify why he doesn't want a bunch of brown skinned people getting asylum in England.

The Exile is much more honest about things. He demands to know why hundreds of Iraqis are going to get first dibs on council houses and benefits when there's a long line of working class British people who've been waiting ages for them.

But in their anger over keeping the Iraqis out of Britain they ignore the truth - that turning them away is akin to a death sentence. Level that charge and both The Exile and Neil Clark leap behind the flimsy defence of 'I didn't support this war!" and "Their blood's not on my hands!"

But it is. Because whether you consider the Iraqi asylum seekers regular folk trying to make the best of their lives in war torn Baghdad - or back-stabbing quislings collaborating with an invading army - the end result is the same. If you campaign to keep them out of Britain, many of them may die.

I'm not arguing with their right to protest the asylum. I'm just wishing they'd avoid the hypocrisy and bite the bullet. You want them kept out of Britain? Fine. But they'll die - and you'll have tortured and killed them as sure as an insurgent with a power drill.

You are complicit in the betrayal.

If you can live with that - just like the British officers who who had to live with their decision to turn over the Lienz Cossacks to the Soviets - then more power to you. But I think you're a pair of heartless bastards.

Fighting a War with Pennies

Bob Parkhurst: I want to see how a war is fought... So badly!

Captain Blackadder: Well, you've come to the right place, Bob. A war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy - high chief of all the Vikings - accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.

Blackadder Goes Forth, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton.

American politics boggles the mind. Take what's going on in Congress at the moment.

George Bush, realising his final term as President is coming to an end, has decided to try to create a reputation for himself as a fiscal conservative. He's already slashed down an annual $7 billion program to increase the State Children's Health Insurance (extending medical cover to 4 million children who are currently going without) and is now threatening to wield his veto pen if the Democrats insist on another $9 billion to be invested in cancer research and early childhood education.

It's all entirely laughable, however, considering this is the same man who's spent the past six years accumulating massive debt and increasing the American budget deficit to astonishing proportions.

What's worse is Bush lambasting the Democrats for being irresponsible spenders one moment, while then turning around to hold out his hat for $196 billion to pay for the war in Iraq.

Irresponsible Spending

Two things annoy me about President Bush's spending behaviour and the entire attitude of Congress towards the war.

The first is that President Bush is running the country like a irresponsible housewife with a new credit card. He harasses the congress for only seeing problems they "could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it." Then he whacks the $196 billion he wants to spend on foreign loan accounts, increasing America's international debt.

The fact that taxpayers might not see an immediate tax-hike doesn't make it free money. The nation still has to pay for it in the long run... Somehow!

But then there's the entire attitude of congress - Democrats and Republicans - towards the war in Iraq. They're battling for the reins by arguing over budgets. That's no way to run a war!

A War of Two Directions

I should lay my cards on the table.

I was all for the war at first. I didn't buy that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but there was no debating the fact that Saddam Hussein was a sleazy bastard.

I was behind the war in Iraq because I saw the opportunities were there for America and Britain to free people from tyranny and perhaps help the Middle East realise that democracy, peace and Western values were something to aspire to, not detest.

However, when President Bush wheeled the war-machine into Baghdad, nobody (least of all me) seemed to ask him what the long term strategy was. We wound up four years later with a bloody great mess on our hands.

Now we're stuck with the dilemma - do we stay or do we go?

If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, all we will have done is stormed into the country, destroyed the infrastructure and left it a smouldering vacuum to be taken over by the first fundamentalist nutcases who come around - and they're far worse (and more dangerous) than Saddam Hussein ever could have been.

However, if we stay, we need to make a plan, commit to it and then get the job done. I believe Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, when he says that it'll take a 'surge' of allied troops to wipe out the insurgents and make Iraq safe again. That will involve more troops, not less.

Iraq was never a wham-bam-thank-you-Mr-President affair. It was a long term project - and if we leave now, we're leaving the job incomplete and the people of Iraq are likely to hate us for it.

If the opposite of Pro is Con, does that means the opposite of Progress is...?

Instead of gunning one way or another, however, the American political process is forcing a horrifically mangled compromise. Bush's $196 billion has been held off until 2008, to force the President to come up with some new direction and plan for Iraq that will at least show some signs of progress.

In the mean time, the war is going to be won or lost on the floor of congress. A bridge fund, to maintain the troops in Iraq (feed them, water them, pay them) has been requested to fill the months until the $196 billion cash injection can be decided.

Canny Democrats, eager to the get the troops out of Iraq, are trying to hand over as little money as possible to force the generals into retreat.

Republicans, who argue that this bridge fund could pay for improved armour and vehicles for our vulnerable troops, aim to win enough money to keep the troops over in Iraq until next year's payday.

The inevitable compromise will leave the generals with enough money to secure their presence in Iraq, but not enough to invest in the improved vehicles and equipment that might prevent soldiers being killed by Improvised Explosive Devices (the homemade roadside bombs that are currently the biggest cause of fatally for soldiers in Iraq.)

There will be enough money for the troops to stay, so the Democrats will have lost. There won't be enough money for a 'surge' that might settle Iraq, so the Republicans will have lost. And, worst of all, the American troops will be stuck in the middle.

This is why this war is being fought 'so badly,' because the two bickering sides always end up in a compromise, instead of having the bravery to go one way or another and accept defeat or victory.

From this point on, it's possible that every single American troop who dies in Iraq might have been saved if congress and President Bush had been more decisive. The soldiers would have either been taken out of the line of fire or might have been given enough support to survive whatever attack killed them.

We're involved in a WAR here. Wars were never won by careful financial planning. They were won through decisive action and purity of purpose. Either we're in Iraq to win, or we should pack our bags and get the hell out of there.

Right now, I'd happily accept either solution - anything other than letting the bureaucrats fumble through another few months watching troops die purposelessly.

Osama Bin Laden

I am trying to avoid getting political in my blog, since there are many people, equally as unqualified as me, who think that their opinion is more worth listening to. I ought to give them space to rant. I don't know anything either. Opinions are like noses - we all have them.

However, who can ignore Osama Bin Laden's sixth anniversary present to America? A video in which he suggests the only solution to the war in Iraq is that America embrace Islam.

An entire nation convert. And not just to 'Islam.' To an approved TYPE of Islam. After all, the only thing the Shi'a hate more than Americans are the Sunni.

Osama Bin Laden (if it really is him and not some stooge in a fake beard and a wig) is a dick.

He's been given so much ammunition. A quagmire in Iraq. A nation split between support for it's cowboy president and unmitigated hatred. If ever there was a time for Osama Bin Laden, the most hated man in America (closely followed by George Bush, if you follow certain news channels) to make a statement that the American people would listen to, this was it.

And what happens?

The bastard makes a clearly impossible demand that firmly reestablishes al-Qaida's commitment to chaos. He has no aims apart from continuing the Jihad against America. As far as Osama Bin Laden is concerned, there can be no peace while a sovereign American nation continues to exist.

His demands are deliberately unobtainable. He doesn't want to win. He only wants to fight and kill and lead thousands of martyred sheep to their doom.

It's a pretty depressing thought, but also a sobering one. America can't find a diplomatic solution to this crisis no matter what it does, short of ceasing to exist.

Many Americans consider themselves divided. In actual fact, they're more united than ever. Whether liberal or Conservative - red or blue - they're all equally despised in the eyes of al-Qiada.

Nothing any of us can do will ever 'win over' the enemy. Whether we stay in Iraq or flee, the war against democracy and freedom will continue.

The jihad is here. It's now. And it's not going away in a hurry no matter who you vote for, which radio station you listen to or what political pundit you support.