The latest US missile strike on militants in Pakistan has raised a major outcry, this time from Pakistan's own army:

"The investigations show the attack was carried out by a US pilotless drone," Gen Athar Abbas, spokesman for the Pakistan army, told the BBC. "The US did not take permission or inform us before carrying out the strike."

He added: "We have protested to the US authorities in the strongest possible manner."

Earlier, Pakistani authorities had said they had no knowledge about Wednesday's strike.

The comments from Gen Abbas come a day after Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani called the attacks "wrong and unfair".

"Many innocent people have been killed and we condemn it," he said in a TV interview.

As if angering the democratically elected government and the army in one fell swoop wasn't bad enough, we're continuing to undermine negotiations between the civilian government and militants.

The attack came on the same day as a prisoner exchange between the Pakistan army and pro-Taleban militants. The swap is part of a developing peace deal, which is causing concern in the US.

A Pentagon spokesman said on Thursday that any deal with the militants "should be worth more than the paper it is written on".

But who exactly are we to attack people in other countries without their permission, and then condemn their governments' projects? Does the war in Afghanistan mean that Pakistan becomes our fief?

The consequences of the missile strike began immediately:

More and more, we're seeing that John McCain is confused about what he stands for. Does McCain favor talking to Hamas or doesn't he? Is it 100 years in Iraq, or 4 years (provided we ride to victory on a magic pony)? Add in his confused stances on torture, lobbyists, and the environment, and we realize that he long ago forgot or betrayed his principles.

In a way, it seems, McCain is trying to subtly shift left. He recognizes that Americans are sick of the war, that we care about health care and the environment, that we're worried about the economy. But his insincere moves to position himself near whatever's popular just aren't going to fly this year.

But that's not all. When McCain flips to try and co-opt a more centrist or even center left position, he exposes his colleagues for the right-wing extremists they are.

That's especially true of Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma's global warming-denying Republican senator. Today an email from his challenger's campaign pointed out the hard truths about Inhofe and Republicans:

Jim Inhofe has taken some blows this week – albeit indirectly – from the man who hopes to inherit the leadership of the Republican party. John McCain's recent touting of his green credentials and promises of action on global warming showed how far out of touch Jim Inhofe is from all Americans, even the stalwarts of the Republican party.

From McCain's speech:

"The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we to act meet the challenge, and act quickly."

From Jim Inhofe:

"As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, 'much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.' I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people[.]' "

John McCain:

"[F]or all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy. This has to change before we can make the decisive shift away from fossil fuels. […] And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president — a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy."

Jim Inhofe: Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate environment committee, has vowed to block any bills calling for mandatory actions by industry to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

As we learn from the contrast between McCain and Inhofe, the latter's stances on global warming aren't even in synch with his party's platform…or maybe they are, given how hard it is to tell what Republicans stand for these days. 

Inhofe's stances are definitely out of touch with Oklahomans, though. 69% of Sooners believe in global warming, according to research in this DSCC video. Inhofe, in the words of one of his constituents, is "an ostrich with his head in the sand." Oklahomans aren't alone in their beliefs - they join the majority of Americans in being worried about global warming.

All this is bad news for Jim Inhofe. But it's good news for Oklahoma, because thankfully they have a great candidate in State Senator Andrew Rice. Andrew is a leader who will tackle the challenges Oklahoma and America face instead of pretending they don't exist.

The choices are clear in this year's election. John McCain, Jim Inhofe and the GOP are not only confused and out of touch with America, they are also divided against themselves. The Democratic Party offers a clear message of change and problem-solving for America, and Andrew Rice offers that same vision to Oklahoma. 

Strong words from the UN, seemingly directed at American strikes on suspected insurgents in Afghanistan:

Foreign intelligence agents are leading secret, deadly raids on suspected insurgents in Afghanistan and shirking responsibility when innocent civilians are killed, a U.N. official alleged Thursday.

Philip Alston, a special investigator for the U.N. Human Rights Council, referred to three such recent raids in the country's south and east.

While he didn't specifically mention any intelligence agencies, he appeared to imply American involvement. U.S. military officials declined to comment on the allegations.

Alston said the raids were part of a wider problem of unlawful killings of civilians and lack of accountability in Afghanistan. He said about 500 civilians had been killed this year, most of them at the hands of the Taliban but some by Afghan police.

The allegation came as a suicide bomber wearing a burqa attacked a police patrol in western Afghanistan, killing five police officers and seven civilians.

Despite his criticism of secret raids, Alston said there was no evidence that international forces in Afghanistan are committing widespread intentional killings in violation of humanitarian law.

He did not give the nationality of intelligence operatives involved in the mainly nighttime raids on militant suspects, but he mentioned one raid in January that killed two Afghan brothers. He said it was conducted by Afghans and personnel from a U.S. special forces base in Kandahar.

He said Afghan government officials have said the victims had no connection to Taliban insurgents.

"It is absolutely unacceptable for heavily armed internationals accompanied by heavily armed Afghan forces to be wandering around conducting dangerous raids that too often result in killings without anyone taking responsibility for them," Alston told reporters after 12 days traveling in Afghanistan.

He said foreign intelligence agencies were operating with apparent "impunity" in some provinces where insurgents are active.

Cheerleaders for the status quo would say, I guess, that we can't give terrorists an inch. What they don't admit is how the use of unnecessary force, combined with a lack of accountability, actually undermines the achievement of our core objectives in Afghanistan. When we kill civilians, we alienate people. Just like our strikes in Pakistan and Somalia, we create chaos where we say we want to foster stability. It's a failed strategy, it brings international condemnation, and it puts us farther away from success. We have to tone down the violence against civilians or we're just going to sink deeper into the quicksand. 

Irin reports that Afghanistan's Ministry of Public Health, in partnerships with the UN Population Fund and other organizations, will soon distribute millions of condoms throughout Afghanistan. Proponents of the plan cite several potential positive aspects; condoms could slow the spread of HIV/AIDS, provide flexibility in family planning, and contribute to a reduction of maternal mortality.

No one knows exactly how serious the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Afghanistan is. In 2007, a World Bank report said that "the HIV epidemic is at an early stage in Afghanistan," and that only a few hundred cases were known. However, the World Bank also said that a number of populations in the country were at high risk, especially drug users and refugees. The increased availability of condoms could, again, help prevent further transmission of disease. Certainly a heavy rate of infection is one of the last things Afghanistan needs now.

I've complained strongly about the weakness of development efforts in Afghanistan before, and I'll repeat that I don't think we can achieve meaningful success there without major successes in the field of development. Projects like this one offer some promise, in my eyes. There are problems in Afghanistan that I would target first - food insecurity, government corruption, lawlessness, lack of capacity for local conflict resolution - but as Irin's article points out, making changes in family structure can play a crucial role in development. And while it's complicated (and probably foolish) to talk about how the west can "help" women in countries like Afghanistan (how much have we helped so far, exactly?), it's tempting to say that widespread condom use might make a real difference in women's lives and the degree of control they have.

So, I give the idea decently high marks. At the least, it's better than many other projects that have failed there. On the other hand, without a more comprehensive development strategy, at best the condoms will achieve some limited benefits in the midst of other serious problems that are continuing to worsen. 

Americans need to pay more attention to Nigeria, for the simple reason that events happening in Africa's most populous country and largest oil producer (unless instability snatches that status away) have global significance.

Yesterday, a blast near Lagos, the largest city in the country, occurred when a bulldozer punctured a pipeline. Here's the context:

The disaster was the latest in a series of pipeline explosions or blazes caused by damage or theft which have killed more than 1,200 people since 2000 in Nigeria, the world's eighth largest oil exporter and Africa's top producer.

[snip]

A network of oil and fuel pipelines criss-crosses parts of Nigeria and explosions and fires that kill many are frequent.

In the creeks of the Niger Delta, the country's main oil producing zone, the pipelines are also the target of sabotage attacks by local militants seeking greater control over oil revenues and more development for their impoverished region.

Previous accidental pipeline blasts in Nigeria have been caused by vandals who drilled holes in the feeder lines, used to distribute mainly imported fuel, in order to steal petrol for sale on the black market.

Despite the country's oil wealth, most Nigerians live on less than $2 per day and many are prepared to take huge risks to obtain free fuel.

Reuters has a timeline of similar disasters.

From what I can see, the US doesn't even have the rudimentary elements of a coherent policy for dealing with these problems. Why should we, some would say. Well, aside from the glaringly obvious strategic and energy interests Nigeria represents, we should consider that our neglect of the world's problem spots has come back to haunt us again and again. A sane administration would have a more nuanced understanding of economic and political issues in Nigeria, beyond platitudes about democracy and freedom.

After all the hoopla about Obama and/or Carter sponsoring negotiations with MEND, maybe we should be thinking more along those lines. Clearly Nigeria's status quo results in death and suffering for many of its people, and disrupted oil supplies for much of the rest of the world. Let's be proactive, whether that means new programs of development that reach more of these disenfranchised populations, sterner rhetoric regarding Nigeria's flawed elections, or direct involvement of US representatives in helping to broker solutions to political conflicts (if we're invited).

There's a big flap today about President Bush's remarks in the Israeli Knesset to the effect that Obama is an appeaser a la American isolationists pre-World War II.

The controversy hinges on the following quote from Bush:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Now, which American senator was that, exactly?

Looking for the source of the quote, I stumbled across this 2006 piece by Charles Krauthammer denouncing Ned Lamont and other antiwar Democrats following Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman that year. Krauthammer gives the same quote as Bush, but mentions a name: William Borah. Borah served as Senator from Idaho from 1907 until his death in 1940.

And oh yeah. Borah was a Republican at a time when Republican isolationists like Robert Taft urged against helping the Allies in World War II.

You see, we love to remember how America won World War II. But we tend to forget that it was a Democrat at the helm. We don't remember Alf Landon or Wendell Willkie as the men who helped save the world.

The whole myth of Democrats being soft on defense spits in the face of history. Both parties have shown poor judgment about which wars to fight, especially in the postwar era, but Democrats have shown better judgment. It was Democratic leadership that won World War II, and it will be Democratic leadership that gets us out of the partisan-generated fiasco in Iraq.

And if you think that "you" or "we" won World War II, Doug Stanhope has some words for you.