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:

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. 

As I remarked (in a comment) yesterday, I actually got a little queasy thinking about the discussion among the Bush speechwriters that hit on this idea of having the grandson of a Nazi sympathizer/financier/profiteer (you choose which) invoke the Holocaust to make a US domestic political point. . . while standing before the Israeli Knesset.

Bad enough that the president abandoned the “all politics stop at the water’s edge” axiom. Bad enough that he (or the speechwriter) was dumb enough to quote a Republican Senator’s wish of talking to Hitler. Bad enough that Bush would mar what was supposed to be a celebration of Israel’s founding with a nakedly political speech. Bad enough that he would cheapen the Holocaust and dishonor its victims by invoking it just to serve his partisan goals. And certainly bad enough that a sitting president would sink so low as to liken the Democrat running against Bush’s third term to a Nazi appeaser. . . but. . .

Thomas Friedman has a rather provocative column in the New York Times today. Not only does it suggest the next president of the United States will inherit an on-going cold war with Iran over its nuclear ambitions and sphere of influence in the Middle East but it also suggests that in this war, the U.S., or "Team America", if you will, is losing. Friedman writes

For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. Any other questions?

Ehud Yaari, one of Israel’s best Middle East watchers, seems to agree.

“Simply put,” noted Mr. Yaari, “Tehran has created a situation in which anyone who wants to attack its atomic facilities will have to take into account that this will lead to bitter fighting” on the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Persian Gulf fronts. That is a sophisticated strategy of deterrence.

I'm not entirely convinced that Iran could successfully pull off such a strategy, but Friedman's conclusion seems apt.

When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran.

The next president will most likely inherit the antagonism plaguing U.S. relations in the Middle East, but hopefully who ever steps in to fill Bush's shoes will have the foresight and gall to try a new (i.e., non-cold-war) strategy with Iran.

The BBC reports that the Taliban claim to have shot down a US helicopter, while the military says the aircraft made a "hard landing."

Apparently this incident is only one of a series of disputed crashes. A few weeks ago, the Taliban told Al-Jazeera they had shot a helicopter down, but the US denied it. In May 2007 there was a similar incident when a Chinook went down in Helmand. As The Times commented,

The Taleban’s apparent success in downing a Chinook will ring alarm bells throughout the Nato force in Afghanistan. The British force in Helmand relies on Chinooks for transporting troops and supplies and evacuating casualties.

Finally, in June 2005 the Taliban claimed responsibility for a Chinook crash which killed 17 Americans.

I point out these incidents to show that we face a sophisticated enemy in the Taliban. And let me add that some Taliban fighters are ones trained in anti-aircraft missions by US-affiliated personnel during the Soviet occupation of the country. We need to remember that history, because we are in danger of losing a war of attrition. We need to have a different strategy from the Soviets, one which doesn't believe that endless warfare will somehow bring us victory just because we are stronger. As I've said before, we need to undercut the Taliban's support through serious and creative development projects and by supporting Afghan leaders who want to talk to the Taliban.

There really is no limit to how low this pompous little shit will go to satisfy his fragile ego and retarded worldview. Speaking to the BBC in advance of a trip to Middle East, George W. Bush used the recent civil strife in Lebanon to again push his latest crusade (and I do not use that word lightly):

[Bush] said the US was helping the Lebanese army become effective enough to act against Hezbollah's armed wing.

"I don't see how you can have a society with Hezbollah armed up the way they are.

"In this case though, they moved against the Lebanese people, they're not moving against any foreign country, they're moving against the Lebanese people and it should send a signal to everybody that they're a destabilising force."

"The first step of course is to make sure that the Siniora government has got the capacity to respond with a military that's effective," he said.

Hezbollah would be nothing without Iranian backing, he said, adding that Iran was the source of much instability in the Middle East.

First, if the US is helping the Lebanese army the way we’re helping the Iraqi army, or the Pakistani army (or, frankly, our own army), then good luck to them—they’ll need it.

This past Wednesday was Israeli Independence Day, the 60th, which makes it the diamond anniversary. Naturally, Palestinians saw little reason to celebrate, and they were not alone.

Over 100 prominent British Jews issued a letter proclaiming "We're Not Celebrating Israel's Anniversary." From the letter:

We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land. We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state that even now engages in ethnic cleansing, that violates international law, that is inflicting a monstrous collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza and that continues to deny to Palestinians their human rights and national aspirations. We will celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East."

In July 1948, 70,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in Lydda and Ramleh in the heat of the summer with no food or water. Hundreds died. It was known as the Death March. We will not be celebrating.

In all, 750,000 Palestinians became refugees. Some 400 villages were wiped off the map. That did not end the ethnic cleansing. Thousands of Palestinians were expelled from the Galilee in 1956. Many thousands more when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Under international law and sanctioned by UN resolution 194, refugees from war have a right to return or compensation. Israel has never accepted that right. We will not be celebrating.

In the stifling heat that surrounds the Israel/Palestine debate, there's one point that, in my mind, is unquestionable; the nuts and bolts of Israeli state-formation were an act of cruelty by Western governments.

Though the Rice-Bush thinks there will be peace in the holy land by year's end, reality is once again at odds with the world view of our nation's most prominent representatives. Unless something truly biblical in its consequences happens, the 61st Israeli independence day will not be celebrated, or protested, amidst peace. Until that peace happens, the violence and bloodshed that ensues will continue on as a testament to the West's arrogance.

Israeli's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has recently faced a number of accusations regarding financial scandals, as well as rising cries for his resignation. So far, he is refusing to step down.

Olmert, whose departure could disrupt U.S.-sponsored peace negotiations with the Palestinians, pressed on with his duties after telling the nation in a late-night address on Israel's 60th Independence Day that he would resign only if the attorney general could produce sufficient evidence to indict him.

Coalition allies have been conspicuously mute in offering their public support. But the prime minister, who will host U.S. President George W. Bush next week, looked relaxed when speaking in Jerusalem to Canadians who raise funds for Israel.

He made only an oblique, passing reference to his troubles, saying: "I have enough political issues to deal with here."

"Millions of shekels — cash in hand," screamed top-selling tabloid Maariv. All media splashed the story after police lifted a gag order imposed when Olmert was quizzed a week ago.

Yet Israelis have grown used to tales of corruption at the top and many noted that Olmert, who last year called himself "indestructible", has ridden out a series of other scandals.

At the heart of the scandal is an American philanthropist named Morris Talansky, who Israeli police may have connected with bribes and illegal donations to Olmert's campaigns. Via the New York Times, we learn that Talansky has been active for many years in both American and Israeli politics, donating to candidates on both sides of the aisle including Bill Clinton, Edward Kennedy, Rudy Giuliani, and George Bush. His involvement in Olmert's case is still unclear.

The story's international relevance has more to do with its impact on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, of course, than it has to do with domestic scandals in Israel. Undoubtedly more details will surface soon, but already this seems like yet another indication that the peace talks will not reach a conclusion any time in the foreseeable future - and certainly not before the end of Bush's term.

My knowledge of Lebanon is extremely limited. But the events unfolding there right now have regional and international significance.

The BBC reports that Hezbollah has taken over West Beirut.

Gunmen from the Shia militant group Hezbollah have seized most of western Beirut, driving out supporters of the Western-backed government. The gunmen, who also back Hezbollah's Shia opposition allies, have forced the closure of pro-government media. The opposition said it would maintain roadblocks around Beirut until there was a solution to the political crisis.

At least 11 people, mainly civilians, have been killed and dozens injured in the city in three days of clashes.

The fighting was sparked by a government move on Monday to shut down Hezbollah's telecoms network. The UN Security Council has urged the rival parties to stop fighting amid fears of civil war breaking out.

Matt Yglesias adds that this removes any doubt about whether Hezbollah was weakened by their clash with Israel in the summer of 2006.

Any further insights welcome.