Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution has a piece in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, "Al-Qaeda Strikes Back," which finds, "By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11." While still supporting the Afghanistan mission, Riedel sees the Iraq war as counter-productive, and warns that attacking Iran would play into al-Qaeda's hands. He also has an interesting take on the notion of "false flag" operations, so beloved of the conspiracy industry:

Iraqi legislators passed a resolution June 5 requiring the government to seek parliamentary approval before asking the UN to extend the mandate for US-led forces in Iraq. The Sadrist-drafted resolution passed by a vote of 85 to 59. The members of parliament voted along party lines, with Sunnis joining the bloc loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr and other Shi'ite legislators at odds with the leadership. Supporters of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki opposed the resolution.

Mansour Dadullah, new Taliban military commander since the death of his brother Mullah Dadullah in combat last month, told AlJazeera in an exclusive interview: "Sheikh Osama bin Laden is alive and active. He's carrying out his duties. The latest proof that he is alive is that he sent me a letter of condolences after the martyrdom of my brother. He advised me to follow my brother's path... Sheikh Osama prefers not to be seen or meet anyone because if he makes himself available to the media maybe he will be facing danger."

Intolerance and stupidity, it seems, are equal-opportunity employers. Since 9-11, Sikhs in the US have faced violent attacks from Ugly American types who are too dumb to know that they aren't Muslims. Now a Sikh student has been attacked by real Muslims for not being Muslim. From amNew York, June 5:

From Reuters, June 4:

Car Plows into D.C. Street Festival, Injuring 35
WASHINGTON - A woman plowed her car through several blocks at a crowded street festival in Washington, D.C. on Saturday night, injuring 35 people, police said.

Just two days after a mass anti-G8 demonstration in Rostock turned violent, protestors skirmished with police June 4, this time in a part of town known for neo-Nazi attacks in the early 1990s. Nearly 1,000 staged a sit-down protest in front of the immigration office in Baltic Sea port city to protest the asylum policies of the world's major industrialized countries. Police said the rally turned violent when black-clad anarchist bloc began throwing bottles. Four protesters were detained there for violating a police ban on wearing masks at rallies. However, a photo showed police detaining a protester in a clown outfit armed with a water pistol.

As the Lebanese army continues to pound Fatah al-Islam positions at the Nahr el Bared refugee camp, fighting also broke out June 3 with a second Islamist faction, Jund al-Sham, at Ein al-Helweh, Lebanon's largest refugee camp. Mediators from other Palestinian groups are attempting to negotiate a ceasefire at Ein al-Helweh.

A telling story in the June 2 New York Times, "Advocacy Group's Publicity Campaign on Darfur Angers Relief Organizations," reveals a rift between the Save Darfur Coalition and the aid agencies actually on the ground in Darfur. Save Darfur takes a hard line, calling for UN intervention, which has prompted the Sudanese regime to turn up the heat on aid workers. This is a real dilemma. Are the Save Darfur folks naive do-gooders—or, worse, cynical exploiters of the Darfur genocide with hidden agendas—who are (even if unwittingly) actually making things worse by interfering with relief efforts? Or are the relief organizations being coopted by the Sudan regime and (even if unwittingly) allowing the genocide to continue by opposing intervention? Via the exile-based Sudan Tribune, links and emphasis added: