So some 92,000 US military documents were leaked by an unknown agent to Wikileaks and handed on to three big news outlets for co-ordinated news releases today.

The question is, what do they reveal according to the New York Times, the Guardian (Britain), and Der Spiegel (Germany)?

Not much is the answer.

The NYT finds proof that Pakistan’s intelligence service has been actively helping the Taliban. But news reports of that have been appearing for some time now.

The Guardian, perhaps a jot more interestingly, finds no convincing evidence of it in the documents. What it does find is evidence that a secret  unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders – which is already known or at least assumed  – and that the US has covered up the fact that the Taliban got hold of, and is deploying, heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles. The Taliban’s possession of them must be a cause for concern, but is not a startling revelation. If the high command, or the Pentagon, or the administration, or all of them have been trying to conceal the fact, the wonder is why, and how they hoped to succeed.

Der Spiegel finds evidence that German troops are coming under increasing threat. But the German government has plainly said as much.

Any scandalous revelations? There are mentions, yet to be filled out, of civilian deaths that may have been suppressed. Bad, but not unusual in a war.

It’s possible that something surprising, illuminating, significant in some way will yet be caught in that blizzard of paper. Possible, but not very likely.

Wikileaks is an international organization “based” (whatever that means) in Sweden, that “publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of their sources” (according to Wikipedia).  One of its founders is Julian Assange, an Australian who seems also to be its only or chief spokesman.

The Wikileaks list of past revelations is not very impressive.

They were one of several channels through which the Climategate documents were released. Good.

They saw fit to release Sarah Palin’s private emails when she was a vice-presidential candidate, given to them in September 2008 by the hacker himself. Not so good.

Far more useful would be documents revealing  the suppressed facts of Obama’s life, schooling, and career. And even better would be a list of the politicians who made the decision to admit millions of Muslim immigrants into Europe and the United States, and documents that would tell us why they made it. If Wikileaks could supply those, it would truly deserve the gratitude of this generation and future historians.

When Abdi Nur sought political asylum from Somalia in Britain, he was provided with a five-bedroomed house to accommodate himself, his wife, and seven children in the London borough of Brent, for which the tax-payers forked out £900 per week ($1,370).

But Nur considered Brent a “poor area”, and he didn’t think the (free) schooling his kids were getting was good enough. He would rather live among rich people. So he asked for a house in Kensington, one of the most expensive  parts of London.

And he got it – a luxury home valued at £2,100,000 ($3,15o,000), near a good (free) school.

Now his rent is costing tax-payers £8,000 a month ($12,020).

Neither Abdi nor his wife Sayruq has a job. They live entirely on welfare support.

(The MailOnline reports the story with more  details.)

Britain is in dire economic difficulty.

However did that come about?

Now there’s a real head-scratcher!

Within living memory, Britain was an imperial power, its empire so vast that the sun never set on it.

The sun has set, however, not only on Britain’s greatness but on its common-sense.

Here are two illustration of the country’s deplorable decay, told by Melanie Phillips:

Zenna Atkins [chairman of the Office for Standards in Education] said … “If every primary school has one pretty naff [bad] teacher, this helps kids realise that even if you know the quality of authority is not good, you have to learn how to play it…. If kids can manage to cope with one bad teacher that’ll be a good learning lesson for them in life – it is not necessarily an absolute disaster.” …

Can this woman think at all? What, indeed, were her qualifications for this post? … Illiterate at the age of 11, expelled from school and to have failed English O level – totally flunked it, with an unclassified ‘U’. Three times. Ms Atkins’s academic career is marvellously inglorious – she left school with an O level in biology – for the woman now in charge of the nation’s educational standards.

Next:

The Chief Inspector of Probation, Andrew Bridges [said]: “Murders and other serious crimes committed by prisoners released early from jail may have to be ‘accepted’ by the public as part of attempts to keep down the cost of the criminal justice system.” …

Some reoffending — even if it involved “serious” new crimes — could be the price that society had to pay for trying to cut down on the huge cost of the country’s rising prison population, said Mr Bridges …  While acknowledging that prison reduced crime, he described it as a ‘rather drastic form of crime prevention’ and said it was time to consider dealing with more offenders in the community.

He claimed that the public could never be perfectly protected and that the cost of a ‘small amount’ of reoffending could be outweighed by the ‘benefit’ of financial savings to the public purse …

Melanie Phillips concludes:

So Britain has an education regulator who believes that every pupil needs a useless teacher, and a probation regulator who believes the public will just have to get used to being murdered, attacked or burgled.

British  governments, no matter what political party is in power, do not care much for fulfilling their primary duty of protecting the citizenry: they much prefer to use the public purse to provide luxurious living for non-working immigrant Somalians  – see our post below, Where beggars can be choosers.

America, Britain, NATO  – anyway, our side –  is trying to sue for peace with the Taliban.

They’re not calling it that – they’d say they’re “asking for talks” – but it amounts to the same thing. It’s the first step in the attempt they must make to get out of the war without too great humiliation. So far, they’re not succeeding even with that low aim.

The British army chief of staff, General David Richards, egged on by US commanders, shouted out loud that “it might be useful to talk to the Taliban”.

The Taliban couldn’t help hearing, and their  answer through intermediaries is that they will not enter into any kind of negotiations with Nato forces.

That’s according to the BBC – not a source we usually trust, but the story rings true.

The Taliban statement is uncompromising, almost contemptuous.

They believe they are winning the war, and cannot see why they should help Nato by talking to them. …

June, they point out, has seen the highest number of Nato deaths in Afghanistan: 102, an average of more than three a day.

“Why should we talk if we have the upper hand, and the foreign troops are considering withdrawal, and there are differences in the ranks of our enemies?” said Zabiullah Mujahedd, [when] a trusted intermediary conveyed a series of questions to [him], the acknowledged spokesman for the Afghan Taliban leadership, and [he] gave us his answers.

“We do not want to talk to anyone – not to [President Hamid] Karzai, nor to any foreigners – till the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan.” …

Doubts about the value of the operation are already growing in every Nato country.

The BBC  (or “Auntie Beeb” as the old harridan is often unaffectionately called in Britain) thinks that General Petraeus’s task is now to change that perception. We don’t think so. His task, as we have said, is to find a way of getting out of the war with as little humiliation as possible.

But even that’s a bad idea. Best thing would be to get out now, because the most humiliating way will be to go on trying not to be humiliated without succeeding.

Actually there must be humiliation whatever is done.

Karzai in power corruptly and/or dealing with the Taliban ? Humiliation.

NATO/US talking to the Taliban to include them in power? Humiliation.

The Taliban refusing to talk to NATO and waiting for it to leave? Humiliation.

Continuing to pretend there is an Afghan army loyal to “the nation”?  Humiliation.

Leaving next July with the same sort of mess there is now or worse? Humiliation.

Giving up on victory and preferring the word “success”? Humiliation.

Pretending Pakistan is an ally and doesn’t have its own designs on Afghanistan? Humiliation.

Trying not to be humiliated and pretending not to be? Humiliation.

Defeat on the battlefield in Marja, Kandahar, and soon all over? Utter humiliation.

Our side is thoroughly, deeply, irredeemably humiliated now. And not another American or NATO life should be lost in this hopeless and even absurd cause .

Melanie Phillips, writing on Obama’s anti-British feeling and action – more obvious now to the British since the disastrous explosion of the BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico – declares that Obama”is not on America’s side”. We agree. We believe that he hates what America stands for – individual liberty – and is using the power American voters so stupidly gave him to work against American interests.

Here’s what she says in part – the whole article is worth reading:

Indeed, there is an argument for saying — astounding as it may seem — that Obama is not on America’s side …  given the way in which he has been upsetting America’s friends around the world while sucking up to its enemies.

The ’special relationship’ is important to Britain because America has been its great ally in the defence of freedom and western values. But the U.S. is being led by someone who does not reflect America’s traditional values or interests. The irony here is as intense as the danger. …

Now Obama is swatting Britain aside …

What they failed to realise was that Obama was not just anti-Bush but anti-capitalism and anti-West. And so his knee-jerk hostility towards ‘colonialist’ Britain or ‘multinational’ BP, while taking the side of dictators and tyrants in the Third World, is deeply damaging to this country, as indeed it is to his own.

Cameron’s attempt to pour oil onto BP’s troubled waters is, therefore, wildly inappropriate — and not just as a tasteless metaphor.

It is the gushing geyser of Obama’s anti-British and anti-western animus which now so urgently needs to be capped, in order to protect the shores of liberty itself.

To impress the (unbelieving) world with how hard the Obama administration is working to stop the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico since the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar notoriously announced that it would keep its “boot on the throat” of BP.

Obama and the Democrats generally like to pretend that Big Business is a wild destructive beast that has to be brutally tamed by government, as Salazar’s image implies.

But in fact, there is a symbiotic relationship between government and Big Business.

Big Business generally donates far more to the socialist parties of the Western world than to those that ideologically support the free market. Why? Because up to a point – a point that big businessmen are apparently too short-sighted to discern – high-taxing, high-spending big government is profitable for companies like BP.

And big government, while hypocritically heaping blame on them for its own failures, keeps its hand stretched out towards them.  

From the Washington Examiner:

Lobbying records show that BP is … a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.

As Democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics they used in their health care and finance efforts: posing as the scourges of the special interests and tarring “reform” opponents as the stooges of big business.

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

In February, BP quit USCAP without giving much of a reason beyond saying the company could lobby more effectively on its own than in a coalition that is increasingly dominated by power companies. They made out particularly well in the House’s climate bill, while natural gas producers suffered.

But two months later, BP signed off on Kerry’s Senate climate bill, which was hardly a capitalist concoction. One provision BP explicitly backed, according to Congressional Quarterly and other media reports: a higher gas tax. The money would be earmarked for building more highways, thus inducing more driving and more gasoline consumption.

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

Ex-Im has also put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to Ceyhan, Turkey — again, profiting BP.

Lobbying records also show BP lobbying on Obama’s stimulus bill and Bush’s Wall Street bailout. …

BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans.  … There’s no truth to Democratic portrayals of the oil company as an arm of the GOP.

Two patterns have emerged during Obama’s presidency: 1) Big business increasingly seeks profits through more government, and 2) Obama nonetheless paints opponents of his intervention as industry shills. BP is just the latest example of this tawdry sleight of hand.

An informal blogpost here by Sam Westrop, Director of IMED, about the challenges facing the discussion of Israel on campuses in the UK.

This turn of events is not the aim of StandforPeace. Instead, we are an unashamedly pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian group – that is, we encourage both Jewish and Palestinian self-determination. The emotional hatred perpetrated by groups such as Action Palestine, PSC and Viva Palestina prevents any progress or hope. Their tactics are devoid of the progressive, liberal and veritably Jewish sense of optimism and forward thinking. They appear more interested in preventing Jewish self-determination than actually ever encouraging Palestinian self-determination. The negation or rationality also prevents identifying where moral culpability lies – show a picture of a dead baby, and it is the product of Israel’s cruel and wanton agenda to genocidally murder; it is never the fault of Hamas firing rockets or planting IEDs in the baby’s nursery.

It is a specious tactic to describe ‘activists’ or groups such as Action Palestine as ‘pro-Palestinian’, because they are not; they are almost solely anti-Israeli, and show little drive for peace.

…

Much like the flotilla activists, the white, middle-class, pro-Hamas PSC persons were also armed; in this case, with a McCarthy-esque biography of me, poorly researched claims from the Internet. There were wild accusations that I took money from the far right, I had a paid agenda to slander ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists, I was in cahoots with the Ayn Rand Institute. Only three days before, several National Front and BNP members had accused me of similar crimes, switching far-right for far-left. Potato, potahto; tomato, tomahto – let’s call the whole thing off.

…

Accusations of racism are often the refuge of the weird and the virulent ideologues. Who can forget Ahmadinejad and Mugabe leading the speeches at the UN’s anti-racism conference? – an event that appeared to be solely dedicated to hatred of Israel, an event led by two genocidal dictators – the former the patron and supporter of most of the terror and suffering in the Middle East.

Described by some fellow Amnesty activists as ‘quiet and unfriendly’, Fraser is not a manifest lunatic like Jamie ‘Stan’ Stanley, but he is someone who is slightly more sinister. Slightly more intelligent than Stanley, Fraser has the nihilist fascinations with suffering and vulgarity. He proudly boasts that his first ‘book’ was banned under obscenity laws.

Read more!

To those who feel morally good because they buy and consume only “organic” food, this may come as a most uncomfortable truth: you cannot be both FOR universal organic farming and FOR feeding the hungry millions.

And you need not worry that your health will suffer if you eat mass-produced foods. It’s a misconception that organic food is better for your health than the kind grown with chemical aids. It’s just more expensive.

This report by the Center for Consumer Freedom explains:

Another study, another dose of reality for organic-only foodies. A review published this month in the prestigious American Journal of Clinical Nutrition finds that the evidence from previous studies … indicates that organic food isn’t any healthier than ordinary, conventionally grown food.

This follows on the heels of, and supports, a similar review last summer from the same team. That review, released by Britain’s Food Standards Agency, came to the same conclusion after the authors sifted through 162 peer-reviewed research articles from the previous five decades.

As you might expect, the review last summer came under instant criticism from groups that promote organic foods by making health claims. So who’s to say who’s right? Writing in the Institute of Food Technologists’ journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety this spring, Rutgers University professor Joseph Rosen analyzed the marketing and health claims made by organic proponents. After noting that experts at the Mayo Clinic and American Dietetic Association don’t find any real benefits in organic food, Rosen concludes: … Consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money.

And …  let’s just dispose of the ridiculous idea that the whole world could go organic if we all agreed to do it. Limited crop yields mean organic agriculture simply can’t feed the world. University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen (widely used today) with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock). That’s the size of the lower 48 states.

In other words, the organic niche is just that—a niche, and a feel-good boutique system for those who can afford it. But the idea that its widespread use would bring widespread benefits to humanity belongs in the compost.

Bush was right to go to war against the Taliban after 9/11.

The enemy was defeated quickly. Then Bush went wrong. American forces should have been withdrawn immediately, the Afghans left with a warning that if the slightest attempt was made by any group on their territory to attack America again – or Americans anywhere in the world – all hell would be unloosed on them, each time harder than the last.

The idea of democratizing Afghanistan is foolish. “Winning hearts and minds” is ingenuous idealism, or to put it more bluntly, sentimental tosh. And no, it has not been achieved in Iraq. The Iraqis do not love Americans, and their “democracy” is a sliver-thin veneer.

Forcing soldiers to be social workers is an insult and an abuse.

And now they are to be used even worse.

The job of a soldier, throughout history, has been to kill the enemy. But the politically correct ladies – of either sex – in charge of the Afghan engagement don’t approve of killing.

They think it would be nicer if a soldier refrained from killing or hurting. He should not shoot even when he’s being shot at, if there’s the least danger that a civilian might be caught in the fire.

How do you recognize a civilian? He or she is not in military uniform. But no terrorists wear uniforms, and they deliberately and habitually shoot from among families and even hospital patients, in order to use the higher morality of our side against ourselves.

What then should an American soldier do when he’s fired at from among civilians?

The ladies say that for not shooting, not killing, and not hurting the enemy, he should get a medal.

Here’s part of an Investors’ Business Daily editorial:

Some would reward timidity and cowardice with a medal for “courageous restraint” under fire.

A nonsensical proposal circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Forces in Afghanistan would give a medal to soldiers in battle who show restraint in the use of deadly force in situations where civilian casualties might result.

This will not protect civilians as much as it will endanger the lives of our troops.

Our soldiers are already disciplined and trained not to wantonly kill civilians. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they’ve placed themselves repeatedly at risk in an environment in which the enemy wears civilian clothes and uses civilians as human shields. Such an award would embolden the Taliban to continue, knowing that our soldiers will have an extra incentive to hesitate.

Giving a medal for not shooting after having been shot at was proposed by British Major Gen. Nick Carter, ISAF’s regional commander, during a recent visit to Sgt. Maj. Mike Hall of the Kandahar Army Command and the top U.S. enlisted member in Afghanistan. That it was not laughed right out of the tent is as disturbing as the idea itself.

“In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Todd Sholtis, a command spokesman, such restraint “is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those combat actions that merit awards for valor.”

We beg to differ. The persecution of the Haditha Marines and the Navy SEALs has already added an element of fear to doing what our soldiers are trained to do: win battles and kill the enemy. Rewarding them for showing hesitation under fire gives the enemy an added battlefield advantage and places our soldiers and those they are fighting for at added risk.

In Haditha, Iraq, on Nov. 19, 2005, a Marine convoy was ambushed by insurgents after a roadside bomb destroyed a Humvee, killing one Marine. The Marines returned fire coming from insurgents hiding in civilian homes. In the ensuing house-by-house, room-by-room battle, eight insurgents and several civilians used as human shields were killed.

For their bravery and doing what they were trained to do — use deadly force to subdue an enemy — the Haditha Marines were rewarded with courts-martial and the threat of prison. [They have all been found not guilty – JB.] Is it seriously being suggested that if they had run away, they’d have been given medals?

“The enemy already hides among noncombatants, and targets them too,” says Joe Davis, a spokesman for the 2.2-million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars. “The creation of such an award will only embolden their actions and put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy.” …

This medal is a slap in the face because it implies that discipline and concern for civilians is rare … This is war by political correctness, and it will get our soldiers killed.

Of course the commander-in-chief is a model of heroic inaction. He was honored and rewarded in advance, by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, presumably for not winning the war in Afghanistan, not making war on Iran, not discouraging the Palestinians from attacking Israel, not recognizing that Islam is waging war on the rest of the world, and not keeping America militarily strong.