Real Housewives of Iran

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil, has made an official request to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to allow Sakineh Mohamaddi Ashtiani, a woman who has been sentenced to death by stoning, to receive asylum in Brazil.

Ashtiani was sentenced after being convicted of adultery, an Iranian crime she denies ever having committed. In 2006, Ashtiani was found guilty of having an “illicit relationship” with two men. After being inflicted with ninety-nine lashes, Ashtiani confessed to the crime, which her layer has declared a product of painful coercion. Ashtiani recanted the confession in 2007, but the Iran Supreme Court remains steadfast in its decision for execution.

However, after publicized protest among international human rights groups such as Amnesty International gave increased exposure to the sadistic execution earlier this month, Iran has rescinded the method. Death by hanging remains imminent.

The most appalling aspect of the conviction is that it was implemented on the basis of “knowledge of the judge”. This convenient Iranian legal practice permits a judge to make a decision on a case without conclusive evidence.

The survival of Iran’s misogynistic justice system is something the world should be gravely ashamed of. The fact that it has gone unaddressed by the US, which is currently wallowing in two wars for “freedom”, is a testament to the sheer neglect that plagues the Iranian people, and in particular its women. The Iranian leaders who commit these shameless acts of oppression thrive on the fact that they are invisible to US eyes. Ahem, ignored by US eyes.

But as long as we’re selling them weapons, what do we care? Why should we be unsettled by the fact that a 27 year-old mother of two kids is being stoned to death for adultery? Hey, the Taliban is killing people too.

Last time I checked, when the Taliban decides to kill people as an act of terrorism, they don’t do it with stones. At least bombs and guns give victims the chance for a quick, painless deaths. While the Taliban might be cutting off noses and ears (as the latest cover of Time touts), the Iranian government wants to bash in brains and bones. If Time believes it is our duty to remain in Afghanistan for the sake of its violently oppressed women, why is it not then our duty to help the women who are being violently oppressed across the border? Our selective awareness for those who need our help only exposes the insidious falsehood of our intentions.

It is very ironic that Brazil should be the country to step into the situation. The US has long suspected Iran’s Uranium Enrichment to be the guise for a nuclear weapons program, and therefore Brazil’s support for the program an attempt at getting privy on the power. So now we have to something to ask ourselves: why would Brazil care to compromise its relationship with Iran—in a humanitarian effort, no less—if that very relationship only exists to gain them access to weapons of mass destruction? That’s a pretty hypocritical slap on the wrist from a country looking to bring about the world’s demise.

Iran has denied the accusations, stating that the program is only an attempt at increasing the people’s electricity supply. Perhaps you could feel safe arguing against that defense if you completely ignore all of its supporting evidence. Iran’s per capita energy consumption is fifteen times the amount of Japan’s, and ten times the amount of the entire European Union. Iran’s energy intensity is three times the global average, which makes the cost of its conversion into the GDP astronomical. By 2012, its need for energy will increase by 26.8 percent. Are Iran’s purported efforts in this Uranium Enrichment program unprecedented in their behavior? Not remotely. Since 2004, Iran has built an array of hydroelectric stations, dams, and both wind-powered and geothermal plants.

But if innocent people like Ashtiani are being killed in Iran, and we believe their government is building nuclear bombs, why aren’t we there instead of Afghanistan?

The answer is simple.

Iran holds the world’s third largest oil reserves, and the world’s second largest natural gas reserves.

Gotta pick your battles…

…but only after you pick your friends.

And this one’s got a pool in his backyard.

-Little Brother, Big Mouth-

Sorry, Ashtiani. If the stones had flown, we never would’ve seen them.

37 Billion Pills, Stuck Going Down

Two articles in today's and yesterday's Times discuss the rapidly growing suicide rate among both veteran and active-duty soldiers. While both the Pentagon and an official report from the US Army are attempting to explain away the statistical increase and diminish its connection with the unique nature of the current war, the truth lies in the numbers:

• In the past couple years, the Veterans Affairs Department has hired more than 5,000 new therapists and counselors and introduced a new system of suicide prevention at over 150 medical centers (having been pressured to do so by both congress and various veterans groups.
• Veterans account for about one in five of the approximate 30,000 suicides committed each year in the US (according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
• This past June, the one-month record for active suicides by veterans was broken at 32.
• The one year record for active-duty Army suicides was broken when it hit 160 between Oct. 2008 to Oct. 2009.
• From 2007 to 2009, the number of calls to the Dept. of Veterans Affairs suicide prevention hotline increased tenfold (from 9,380 to 119,000).
• The veteran suicide prevention hotline has 10,000 rescues under its belt since 2007.

So what exactly does the Pentagon have to say about this? How are they attempting to explain the arising proof that this war may be doing an unprecedented amount of psychological damage on our troops? Well they may as well have said nothing at all and conveyed their message more succinctly by simply throwing their arms up in the air.

Excuse #1:

The report from the US Army place a significant amount of the blame on the military commanders who fail to recognize high-risk behavior among their troops.

First of all, since when does the job of a military commander require the ability for psychiatric observation?

Now, obviously I have no actual military or active-duty experience, but I believe that I have gained some insight into a soldier's life. These men are fighting a war, which means two things. Firstly, one would have to assume that the majority of a military commander's attention and energy is being focused on what? Fighting the war. Once again, I've never been a military commander, but I would think (and hope), that even its most basic responsibilities leave little time for therapy sessions with despondent soldiers. Secondly, considering that these soldiers are consistently being put in near-death situations, frequently being made witness to a grisly display of killing, and are probably constantly sweating their balls off in the Middle-Eastern heat, which one of them wouldn't have an utterly depressed expression on their face at any given moment. Add to that the fact that they are fighting an entirely unpopular war (that has only becoming increasingly unpopular with the release of the Afghan War Diary), with enemies that are often indistinguishable from innocent civilians, and you can pretty much see how easily any American soldier would be starved of sanity.

This claim compels to me to imagine a scene in which a military commander approaches a young distraught soldier sitting with his arms crossed in the corner and asking him why he's not participating in all the fun the platoon is having (maybe doing arts and crafts, duck-duck-goose, or any other of the military's uplifting pass-times between fighting).

Second of all, what exactly can a military commander consider "high-risk behavior"?

Because of the past two wars' fast deployment rate, the US Army has been forced to lower its standards for recruiting and retention. The tool used to lower these standards is a waiver. Waivers are granted to soldiers to excuse behavior that would have made them unfit for service in previous wars. 80,403 waivers were granted in 2004, and 47,478 were given to excuse soldiers who'd committed felonies, misdemeanors, and had histories of substance abuse. These numbers offer a keen explanation to the fact that the amount of soldiers discharged from duty for misconduct has decreased significantly. (Misconduct = high-risk behavior.)

So what we're to understand is that military commanders are expected to care not only for the psychiatric needs of upstanding, mentally-sound soldiers, but of former felons and substance abusers as well? (If that's the case, perhaps every military commander should be required to obtain a Phd. in psychology before taking the position.)

And if the Army is refusing to discharge soldiers who have exhibited misconduct, and instead keeps them in an environment that is emotionally and mentally taxing for even the most psychologically stable soldier, what is the military commander supposed to do? Write them up? Give 'em a slap on the wrist? Lay them down on a couch, interpret a few dreams?

C'mon Pentagon. You can do better than that.

Excuse #2:

Since most new recruits are between 18 and 20 years old, the Pentagon is blaming the fact that this age group is statistically the most high-risk for suicide.

Fact: the suicide rate for soldiers entering the army in their late 20s is three times higher than for those in the aforementioned group.

Are we to believe that the sociological statistics of this age group undermine the statistics of an official military study? It would seem the Pentagon can't hear the words coming out of its own mouth. When the evidence doesn't help you, stereotypes can.
"Oh, those crazy kids, they're always killin' themselves these days. Doesn't matter where they are, who they're with, or who's shootin' at them. They'd do it anyway!"

The Pentagon's rhetoric is painfully transparent. But then again, who can risk any more bad publicity on a war that has virtually become an international embarrassment?

Excuses aside, the implications of these articles are dizzying. If more and more active-duty soldiers are finding reasons to commit suicide, a whole new meaning can be given to the term "war is hell". Has the nefarious nature of the past two wars in the Middle-East put a new twist on the psychological torture of combat? If so, why?
Is it the obfuscating appearance of the enemy? In this war, death can arrive in the form of any agent, and at any time. In Vietnam, it may have been difficult to tell guerrilla from villager, but if you saw either one in the jungle, you could probably be sure of shooting at him. This is a war that takes place on street corners and alleyways, with an enemy that can seem as innocent as your interpreter.

Or is it the futility of this war that is instilling such feelings of hopelessness in our soldiers? This war, which our government impregnates again and again with every billion we send, has given birth to no victory. Have our soldiers realized something that our leaders haven't?
Is this war un-winnable?

Maybe our soldiers are realizing something. Maybe 32 of them realized it in June.

And the $37 billion on its way overseas?

Consider it 37 billion aspirin, slowly sliding down the throat of the US soldier.

Sounds like a suicidal dose to me.


-Little Brother, Big Mouth-

What, No Stones to Throw?

So yesterday, Kaing Guek Eav, a prominent figure of Khmer Rouge, was found guilty of war crimes. As a prison ward, Eav oversaw the torture and slaughter of more than 14,000 prisoners. Upon conviction, the UN tribunal that conducted the trial sentenced Eav to nineteen years in prison (having already served sixteen). You may be wondering why such a monster of a man, a man who directed the deaths of thousands of innocents, would only be sentenced to a mere nineteen years.

Well there are two reasons; the first being that Kaing Guek Eav is now 67 years old, and it's probable that he'd be dead before eighty-six. And the second? Cambodia has no death penalty.

Here we have a man who represents the sheer brutality and inhumanity of the Khmer Rouge, a regime that brought about the deaths of 1.7 million people in just four years in the late 1970s. And yet, Cambodia will not have him executed.

What does that say about our system, in which a citizen can be tossed on death row with nothing more than a murder to his name? In the state of Texas alone, twenty-four people were put to death in 2009. And the number of people still waitin' to see the needle there this year? Three-hundred and thirty-three.

As Americans, we'd like to think of ourselves as being a fully matured and developed nation. At least more fully matured than a nation like Cambodia, right? We'd like to think that we have a better understanding of what is right and wrong than a country capable of the Khmer Rouge would. And yet, Cambodia, a nation that was devastated by an onslaught of sadistic oppression, seems to understand that an eye-for-an-eye doesn't make a victim less blind.

But we gotta have revenge, right? You kill someone, we kill you. That's the good-old American way, right?

Or is that the good-old ancient Babylonian way?

There are people who are shocked that Kaing Guek Eav isn't getting the death penalty. I for one am shocked that we insist on keeping a system of punishment that is almost four thousand years old.

Your average American's opinion of Cambodia (if he/she had ever heard of the country) would be that it's a primitive country, and that its citizens are a primitive people. But why? What, they don't have iPods?

The United States puts itself on the pedestal of progress. We send smirks to the world with every astronaut we launch into space. If your fingers haven't caressed the sleek surface of a touch-screen, you might as well be a caveman to us. And yet we haven't grown past the justice code of an ancient civilization.

Capital punishment is true primitivism. And yet while every good ole boy on the Bible Belt has a Facebook and a cell phone, he's still lickin' his lips at the chance to throw stones.

Cheers, Cambodia. But not really. You just make us look more stupid.

-Little Brother, Big Mouth-

Looking Through the Fog

Tragic news today. Wednesday morning, a Pakistani passenger plane crashed into the Himalayan foothills near Islamabad, allegedly due to the thick amount of fog and "intense" amount of rain. Considering that there are more donkey-riding related deaths per year in the world than there are plane-related, one might feel the need to examine this immensely unfortunate occurrence a little closer.

The fact that six members of the Youth Parliament Pakistan were onboard warrants further investigation. Pakistani authorities, while not ruling out the possibility of it having been an attack, officially blame the crash on weather conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29pstan.html?_r=1&hp

If you take a look at today's New York Times article, a couple things might jump out at you. I will attempt to collect the pieces of what could possibly be a very disturbing puzzle.

• While aviation experts blame the faultiness of the airport's autopilot landing system for the crash. Mohammad Haroon, managing director of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), a man who has been flying for 34 years, says that since pilots always manually fly through bad weather, it must've been due to an error by the pilot.
• And yet, Hashim Raza Garvaizi, a captain for PIA, was quoted as saying he knew the pilot and that he had an impeccable record. One of the pilots, Pervaiz Iqbal Chaudhry, had more than 25,000 hours of flying under his belt from a 35-year career.
• While authorities blame the fog, the last recorded exchange between the pilot and the airport's dispatcher would suggest differently. The dispatcher warned the pilot that he was flying away from the runway, the pilot responded saying "I can see the runway", the dispatcher then tells the pilot to turn left because the plane was heading towards the hills, and the dispatcher replies with "we can see it".
• It was Airblue's first crash as a company since it began in 2004. The plane, built in 2000, had made a total of 13,500 flights, and Airblue was quoted as stating it did not have a single problem in its operational history.
• Three separate witnesses claim they watched from the ground as the plane crashed. One of them said it was flying at the height of a four-story building. He also claimed to have witnessed the explosion and even the black smoke the rose thereafter. One would think that if a man from the ground could see black smoke rising from the "highest" mountain, the fog couldn't have been thick enough to shield the view of the entire mountain from the pilot.
• Another witness claims to have watched the crash while on a family outing in the hills outside Islamabad. Thick fog? Intense rain? One would think these reported conditions would not be the type to invite a family out for bonding time in the great outdoors. The witness was quoted as saying "The plan had lost balance, and then we saw it going down."

http://www.pildat.org/youthparliament/AboutYPP.asp

The link above is the website for the Youth Parliament of Pakistan. It is a political, left-wing organization that works to muster awareness and involvement among the youth of Pakistan. The main aim of the YPP is to bring an end to the religious intolerance and extremism that has plagued the country for years. In their mission statement, they stress that one of their most imperative objectives is making the government accountable for its actions.

Pakistan has been in the spotlight of scrutiny since the release of the Afghan War Diary. It would not be outlandish to conclude that a country capable of domesticating known terrorists, such as Osama bin Laden, would also be capable of arranging acts of terror to preserve its own government. If those in power want to stay in power, nothing can be put past them. Especially when the means can be so easily utilized.

http://www.pildat.org/youthparliament/officebearers.asp

The above link is a listing of Youth Parliament Pakistan positions, ranked from highest to lowest. Three of the six members killed in the crash held three out of the six highest positions in the organization, including the highest position: Youth Prime Minister. Opportunity arises when all the eggs are in one basket.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope there was fog. I hope there was rain. I hope those six Youth Parliament members were not punished for committing their lives to the betterment of their country. Six voices were silenced today. I can only hope that six new voices will emerge to take their place. I can only hope that this tragedy does not instill the fear that would imprison the potential for a democratic Pakistan.

Rest in Peace:

Hassan Javed Khan - Youth Prime Minister

Syeda Rabab Zehra Naqvi - Youth Information Minister

Prem Chand - Youth Minister for Culture, Sports, and Youth Affairs

Bilal Jamaee - Youth Shadow Minister for Information

Owais bin Laiq - Member Youth Parliament Standing Committee on Information

Syed Arsalan Ahmad - Member Youth Parliament Standing Committee on Information

...and every passenger aboard plane A321.

-Little Brother, Big Mouth-

Give us Facebook or Give us Death

Hey, remember Vietnam? That precocious little country in southeast Asia that embarrassed our military efforts forty years ago? It'd be understandable if you'd forgotten. As a nation, we have a very selective memory about our history, so naturally we'd want to block out the trauma of our mistakes. But when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a visit to the country last week, one may have been compelled to explore what her intentions could be. Did Hillary Clinton awake with a start in the middle of the night, suddenly remembering Vietnam as if it were an oven or a iron left on? Was she overwhelmed with the urge to repair a relationship that has only ostensibly been mended in recent years with passive politics? Perhaps she was overcome with a rush of guilt from the long list of atrocities committed there by American hands. Perhaps she was electrified with the conviction to fully alleviate the effects of Agent Orange, the detrimental defoliant employed by the US that caused physical mutation and birth defects in thousands of Vietnamese citizens. Perhaps she sensed the stirring souls of the twenty political dissidents that have been jailed in the country since October of 2009. Perhaps she felt inspired towards outlining an economic plan that might assist Vietnam in blooming as the middle-class company it has strived to become (prior to the past couple years, the entire nation's per capita income was a mere $726). After all it was her husband, Bill Clinton, who in 1994 made the first friendly gesture in decades by lifting the American trade embargo, who in 1995 established diplomatic relations, and in 2000 visited the country to discuss economic aid commitments and pierce the long-standing silence that had prevailed since the war. Perhaps Hillary felt the need to revive the mission of her husband's efforts with a new visit, one that might establish an international friendship and conjure up benefits for the destitute country.

But no. While the Secretary of State may have made a few wistful remarks about the detrimental defoliant Agent Orange, tossed a few words towards the three democracy activists that were imprisoned there in January, and mentioned the violent religious climate, these were all petty issues compared to her true reason for visiting.

And that reason? Human rights. Or, um, what are now considered human rights. You know, in the modern world.

Two weeks ago, nineteen members of congress wrote to Clinton about the dire abomination towards human rights that was being perpetrated in Vietnam. And exactly what intolerable injustice could have amplified such an awareness within congress? Vietnam's banning of the online social network site, Facebook. I know, I know. It's enough to send shivers down the spine of every living, breathing human being with half a heart.

One can imagine the scene that unfolded as the Secretary of State first stepped foot on Vietnamese soil, surely to a roar of cheers from the native villagers who were finally now being graced with a beam of light in their dark, facebook-less lives. No longer would these people be oppressed with the absence of status updates, of wall comments, of poking, friending, and profile picture cropping. One might wonder how these people managed to survive until this point in time. Without facebook, how could they have kept in touch with their friends from grammar school? How could their relationships have held any reality without the security of facebook's relationship confirmation option and its accompanying little pink heart? As Clinton entered Hanoi, her soul was surely filled with a profound surge of righteousness at the sight of every Vietnamese preteen face that has been scarred with the malnourishment of social networking. Scattered about the streets of Hanoi are desperate young men and women, doomed to despondence as they hunch over their Macbook Pros and wonder when the world might save them from the oppressive grip of their overreaching government.

Well, let's not get too proud of our Secretary of State and her crusade for the liberation of every laptop-toting Vietnamese villager. After all, even with the nation's per capita income having climbed to $1,052 in 2009, for the average citizen to collect the money necessary to buy a computer would necessitate a year's worth of starvation. Sure, in Ho Chi Minh City, one of the country's major cities, you can find a broadband connection that would send you surfing through the internet just as fast as you would back in the states. You can find touch-screen savvy students, gadget-filled electronic stores, and the latest in the computer world's technological advancements. But when the nation's entire per capita income was $726 in 2008, the per capita income of Ho Chi Minh City was more than double that amount, $1800. The disparity between the quality of life in its major cities and in its countryside is staggering. If Hillary Clinton is visiting Vietnam in the name of human rights, why then would her mission serve only to benefit the wealthy? I don't necessarily care if our government wants to get riled up over Vietnam's facebook ban, but it truly disturbs me that our secretary of state believes she is acting in the name of human rights. The purpose of Clinton's visit is to grant the rich their "rights", not their people at large. The fact that the word "facebook" and the term "human rights" could ever have appeared within the same newspaper article is a testament to the ever-more amazing heights of American ignorance and self-illusion.

On the painfully ironic side, when Clinton visited China as the secretary of state, she made no mention of the actual human rights issues that have been boiling up within and around the country for some time. Appropriately enough, while Clinton was championing for the freedom of facebook, an organization called the Human Rights Watch released a disturbingly detailed report on China's violent suppression of the Tibetan protests of 2008. Apparently the paramilitary branch of the Chinese government that oversees domestic security, the People's Armed Police, answered the monks' peaceful protests with a bloodthirsty rampage across the Tibetan plateau in western China. Aside from three separate instances in which the police were said to have open fire indiscriminately on the crowds, they were reported to have also used batons and clubs to bludgeon the unarmed Tibetans to death. Aside from monks and holymen, the crowds were comprised of women, teenagers, and nuns, but none received mercy from the Chinese policemen's brutality. The ruthless retaliation of the People's Armed Police represents the truly horrific nature of what a government --what humans-- are capable of. And yet, when Clinton visited China, she managed to tip-toe around the subject with all the grace and poise of a Russian ballerina.

But what was one of her reasons for visiting Vietnam? Besides facebook? Speaking out for religious freedom.

In 2007, when China pressured foreign oil companies to abandon their ambitions in the Vietnamese territory of the South China Sea, ExxonMobil, a US-based firm, buckled and withdrew from an agreement that would have given Vietnam unprecedented economic gain. ExxonMobil terminated its exploration plans with PetroVietnam after China warned the company that any business with Vietnam would cost them any future business with China.

A mere year ago, China arrested and detained two dozen Vietnamese fisherman for several weeks in an effort to enforce the unilateral fishing ban they hoped to impose upon the South China Sea.

But hey, who cares about a couple of hard-working Vietnamese fishermen looking to provide food and shelter for their families in a hostile economic climate? The people don't have facebook! Sure, China has exploited its position as Vietnam's largest trading partner and held the country in an economic stranglehold for the past thirty years. But hey, China's not the issue here. Facebook is. And China's been friends with us on facebook for years.

And so we come to the heart of the matter.

You see, the US sent a friend request to Vietnam that has been left pending for waaay too long. We even poked them a couple times! The Vietnamese just don't understand. Here in America, the first thing you do when you meet someone is friend them on facebook. Then the friendship really begins. Sure, you could seem them around at a party or two, but it's not official if it's not on facebook. Vietnam, how are we supposed to know when you're being economically oppressed by China if you're not writing about it in status updates? And if you won't be friends with us on facebook, how can we tell you even want to be friends at all? Letting our friend request pend for so long sure doesn't send the right message. But I suppose it's a matter of cultural etiquette. In the US, facebook is the springboard for friendship. Listen Vietnam, friend us on facebook, and we'll go from there. Who knows, maybe after that, we'll invite you to become a permanent member of this cool facebook group we've got going with everyone called the UN.

Is the Vietnamese government's internet censorship a problem? Yes, but it's a matter of freedom of speech, not facebook. Two Vietnamese journalists in the past 18 months have been arrested and convicted for their investigative work on the corrupt practices of the Vietnamese government. Editors and writers at Vietnam's top newspapers have been fired for sticking their noses in high places. And yes, several internet bloggers have recently been imprisoned for posting about hierarchal evils and even for simply protesting China's actions on the waters.

But try as you may, oh 19 members of congress, you cannot reasonably portray facebook as being a medium for free speech. Sure, the ban on facebook is a deliberate message of disrespect to the people. And yes, it does reflect the government's attitude at large, which imperatively needs to be addressed. But beyond your desire for advertising opportunities, and your dream of seeing American influence further extended, I don't believe you give a shit about these people, Mr. Congressman.

But then again, why should we? We're not even friends with them on facebook.

In related news, Indonesia is currently attempting to block all internet porn sites within the country for the Muslim holy month, Ramadan.

Get out your pens, congressmen.

-Little Brother, Big Mouth-

Boo-hoo, Big Brother, Now the People Know

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html?pagewanted=all

Those pesky punks at WikiLeaks have done it again. One of them God-hating, flag-burning,

nosey little citizens has snuck into big brother's room and stolen his diary.

The Afghan War Diary.

While the more well-informed among us may have welcomed these war logs as a

long-approaching pat on the back, there are many who seem to be managing shock.

But lest we forget, we Americans are a people whose patriotism lies within our

capacity to pretend.

They took our diary and they didn't even ask!

In response to the WikiLeak publication of the Afghanistan documents, General James L. Jones, White House National Security Adviser, whined to the New York Times about how "WikiLeaks made no effort to contact us about these documents - the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted." His argument was that such classified information could "threaten our national security", an oldie but a goodie as far as empty political excuses go.

First of all, WikiLeaks is an organization whose survival can be solely contributed to the fact that its sources and editors have remained anonymous, which precludes any possibility of its members conducting personal communication with any party. Secondly, does Gen. Jones really wonder why they didn't contact the US government? Can he really hope to preserve his level of intelligence with such a question?

I can imagine the call.

"Hello, US government? This is Mr. John Doe of the online organization WikiLeaks. Sorry to bother you, but we were wondering if it might be okay for us to publicly release classified documents that will likely expose the last nine years of your corrupt agenda in Afghanistan."

"WikiLeaks? Oh, I've heard about you guys! Oh, of course, no problem! Hey, while you're at it, stay on the phone a little longer so that we can trace the call and have your coordinates located. By the way, you might want to call up your loved ones and tell them how much you love them, you know, just for the hell of it. Oh, and polish off that last will and testament when you get the chance. Ha, you never know what might happen. Dangerous world we live in!"

Apparently, the documents include information about how Osama bin Laden has been attending meetings in Quetta, Pakistan. I wonder how he got there? Perhaps the Air Force drones that the CIA has been covertly operating there has anything to do with it. Hopefully the Air Force awards frequent flyer miles. If so, Osama might finally be able to go on that trip to North Korea he's been waiting for! I hear the nuclear reactors are beautiful this time of year. Hmm, I wonder if Hillary Clinton bumped into him on her visit to Pakistan last week. Or perhaps if bin Laden is seeing any of that $500 million the US just gave them. Hey, "partners joined in common cause", right?

Amrullah, You Old Bastard

The classified documents also released information about Amrullah Saleh, the head of Afghanistan's spy agency, and his last meeting with top American military commanders. Apparently when the CIA decided that they would no longer be funding the agency as a subsidiary in 2008, and the Afghan government was preparing to take over their budget, Saleh got a little desperate. Because the loss of CIA funding would result in a budget cut of 30 percent for the spy agency, and Saleh would be facing tough times, the meeting proved to be a tearful goodbye. In his last request to the American military commanders, Saleh asked for a couple of parting gifts. This is how I fancy the farewell went:

Saleh: All right, well, I guess this is it. Sure was good working with you guys. Hey, you sure you don't wanna stay? We could break out a few barrels of oil or something.

(heading for door)

American Commanders: No, that's okay. Good luck, we'll be in touch.

Saleh: Wait! Before you guys go, I was wondering if...

(commanders stop)

AC: Yeah? Wondering what?

Saleh: Well, with the CIA gone, there will probably be a lotta penny pinching around here, and uh...

AC: Yeah?

Saleh: Well. I was wondering if you had any extra AK-47's with you. Maybe some ammo too? You know, anything you got lying around would help.

AC: Are you serious?

Saleh: Well...yeah, you know...a couple AK's for old times sake. And if you have any old pairs of boots, that'd be awesome.

(leaving room)

AC: Goodbye, Mr. Saleh.

Saleh: No? Okay. That's cool. Hey, come by anytime, huh? Oh, tell Hayden I say hi! Maybe ask him to send a care package or somethin' sometime? No? Okay. Bye.

Obviously the meeting probably ended on friendlier terms, but I thought I'd indulge. And in case you were wondering, Saleh did ask for a couple extra AK-47's, ammo, and any boots the commanders could spare. You really can't make this shit up.

Ford Model T(aliban)

Perhaps Saleh also might've asked the American military where he could find a Ford pickup truck like the one pictured carrying a cozy load of Taliban members and their bazookas in today's Times article. Boy, Ford has never looked so good. The way those nine militants and their anti-aircraft weapons are packed so comfortably in the back, it really illustrates the amount of space a Ford pickup has to offer. Just look at the militants' faces. Their facial expressions have buckled under the anticipation in the air. They're about to cruise through Musa Qala, a village in southern Afghanistan, in a rip-roaring, fifteen hundred pound American-made mean-machine. It's gratifying to see one of our good old-fashioned automobiles being put to such use. Ford Motors, a company that came to internationally enliven the innovative nature of the United States itself, has strengthened its impression on the world yet again, as it has now proven it is the top choice for Taliban transportation purposes. I for one am proud to see one of our most patriotic of products winning the hearts of truck-drivers everywhere. I can't imagine how much business Ford is now doing after such a felicitous happenstance of advertising.

Perhaps it's a part of Ford's new advertising campaign. Has Ford suddenly attuned its marketing strategy to ensare the Taliban demographic? Or have these militants simply recognize the convenience and capability that Ford has to offer? If so, what exactly drew these men to Ford? What lies within the soul of Ford Motors that has so aroused the spirit of adventure that is now evident in the faces of these pictured militants?

Consider the timeless messages Ford has employed in its advertising campaigns. One examines them in hopes of obtaining a deeper understanding of why Ford's slogans have struck so deeply within the hearts of these honest, hard-working, American-trained insurgents:

1910-1920's

"Ford, the Universal Car"

(There's a lotta oil in your neck of the universe, amigo.)

1920-1930

"Pride of Ownership"

(You'll be hittin' the strip and pickin' up chicks. Trunk squeezes seventy-two.)

1944

"There's a Ford in Your Future"

(I also see...crusty old...white men...with...green paper...and they're...damn! Lost it.)

1951

"You Can Pay More, But You Can't Buy Better"

(Present your special CIA discount card and drive it home that day, all expenses paid.)

1950's-'60s

"Ford Has a Better Idea"

(Follow me and call yourselves al Qaeda in front of the camera.)

1970

"Ford Listens Better"

(And money speaks Pashto.)

1976

"Ford Wants to Be Your Car Company"

(Car. Bomb. Car-bomb. Get it?)

1970's-'80s

"At Ford, Quality is Job #1"

(Job number two: war profiteering.)

1980's-'90s

"Have You Driven a Ford Lately?"

(Just kidding. Of course you haven't. What do you drive, a donkey?)

1980-present

"Built Ford Tough!"

(Ignite fear in the eyes of every infidel.)

2000

"Everything we do is driven by you."

(Ahem, everything we drill is given by you.)

2004

"Ford. Built For the Road Ahead."

(But not for the mines on the one behind.)

2006

"Ford. Bold Moves."

(If you haven't noticed.)

Keep it up Ford, no publicity is bad publicity. Maybe that's what Henry had in mind all along. Hopefully more insurgent groups will follow these trendsetters and start buying American. Gotta keep the economy in mind. We're still in that recession right? I could've sworn I heard someone complaining about it just last week.

But hey. Wait a minute. The Ford pickup truck picture in the Afghan War Diary is the exact same vehicle the US gives to the Afghan Army. And the Afghan police force. We've been supplying them with pick-up trucks for the past several years. But then again, couldn't have these militants simply bought or leased the truck from one of the sparkling Ford dealerships that can surely be found scattered throughout southern Afghanistan?

It seems our leaders may have dipped their pens in the oil thinking it company ink.

They wouldn't do that.

They couldn't do that.

Could they?

If you're still asking, they've still pulled a fast one.

-Little Brother, Big Mouth-