Robert Gates has concluded that Pakistan has not cut its ties with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Since Gates has always known this, why does he reveal this information now? What propels his revelation? Gates gave his evidence to the House Committee on International Affairs at the same time as the Pakistani Prime Minister was visiting Downing Street.

"They have maintained some of those contacts and those relationships, frankly, as a hedge because of their uncertainty whether the US would be a reliable partner and ally for them going forward and whether we would remain in Afghanistan until we were assured of success in taking care of the extremists."

This rebuke could be double-edged:aimed at prevarication within Obama's administration and duplicity in Pakistan. What it proves is that Pakistan remains wedded to its strategy of war towards the west and appeasement of jihadism. Despite the power of the Pakistani insurgency, the elites do not have the ability to overcome the strategic confusion that destabilises their polity: rivalry with India requires a jihadist state in Afghanistan and terrorist resources in Pakistan itself.

The response of Gilani to these accusations is internal posturing and external defiance:

Gilani warned that India was increasing its role in Afghanistan. He claimed Pakistani forces had captured all the militant strongholds in South Waziristan. He claimed the operation in Swat, where 2 million refugees had been displaced, most of whom returned to their homes in a space of 10 weeks, was a world first. But he warned military action alone would not crack the problem of the tribal areas which needed economic aid. Strikes by US drones had caused great concern in Pakistan. "We are fighting our own war, not America's war or a proxy war. We have the ability and the resolve to do it. We lack only the capacity. "Washington could solve the problem by giving drones to the Pakistan army, he said.

Divided against itself, the civilian leaders in Pakistan will not undermine the useless strategy devised by the securocrats for fear of a coup. No doubt, the insurgency will return, fed from the wellspring of fundamentalist activity directed against Karzai.

Other bloggers have detailed the sins of the Hadley Unit and their useful exposure, an insight into the corrosive development of irrational thought wedded to an oligarchic political class. 'Climate change', as an ill-defined oxymoron, was taken up to swap faith for debate, and circumvent democratic channels of persuasion for coercion and control.

Copenhagen will act as the finest example of a political class, acting in the name of an ideal, for which they have to bypass those they are supposed to represent. For which they will follow a scientistic faith, last seen with such fervour during the time of Lysenko. Having lost the battle for a positive press, how will countries cope with the newfound scepticism?

For Britain, the arguments are exposing a lack of checks and balances, with a state press foundering as their propaganda campaign fails. They fall back upon agitprop in the classroom and newly educated generations of the credulous.

Another win for sunlight!

We get Baroness Ashton, and Sarkozy gets the City. How did we get into this bind? And was Broon blind to the ambitions of the French?

Apart from the ambitions of political failures like Mandelson, what purpose does the European Union now serve. Certainly, it does not serve any of our national interests. Costs outweigh opportunity.

Just as Labour's slogan at the beginning was "education, education, education", so at the end, it is "relocation, relocation, relocation".

The government has seen fit to announce that they will increase the number of British troops to 10,000. This is on the day prior to Obama's announcement, indicative of the 'surge' that the US is expected to pronounce. Brown's failed wizardry ensures that he is unable to achieve a sleight of hand with troop numbers. To impress with numbers, Brown overturned the protocol that the operational numbers of special forces are not revealed. I am not sure how recent this protocol is but it spawned leaks:

There had been angry debate between the Ministry of Defence and Downing Street over the issue as there has previously been a strict protocol in place of not revealing special forces numbers.

Until Mr Brown gave away the numbers operating in Afghanistan the D Notice Committee, that advises the press on national security matters, said that no mention of the elite force total was to be made....

A source within the special forces directorate told The Daily Telegraph: “We are not at all pleased about this decision but it is the kind of crass thing Number 10 gets up to these days.”

It is a surprise that the protocol lasted so long, given the political expediency of New Labour. We can expect more of these important civilities to fail.

Shannon Vyff of the Immortality Institute gave a talk yesterday in London on the advocacy work that she undertakes, promoting unlimited lifespans. At a basement room in Birkbeck, to an assorted crowd of extropians, greens and interested parties belonging to Extrobritannia, we heard from a person who actually leads the CR life.

Calorific restriction is controversial but the contrast for Shannon lay between her and, perhaps, her audience. As Brits, we are not particularly active in giving time or money to deserving or undeserving causes, and it was quite breathtaking to see an upstanding example of American voluntarism. From my perspective, it was gratifying that Ms. Vyff decided to devote her energy to causes closer to my heart: life extension and anti-aging.

Her other focus is on the introduction of these ideas to a wider audience of primary school children, proving an inkling of the wonders that technology can provide. This is coupled with the joy of thinking positively about the future and working for it and, to my mind, counts as an important antidote to the killjoyous scaremongering of the luddite greens whose tool of social control is to make children ashamed of life itself. Perhaps there are better written books, but not in this field. Vyff wishes to harness the motivational power of science fiction for a new generation.

Like the Libertarian Alliance, the Immortality Institute remains an outlier. Despite debates over entering the mainstream, the group decided to retain its name, a wise decision. As these concepts become more accepted, other groups will spring up to advocate more moderate agendas, but the promotion of pure life extension remains a valuable project in and of itself.

IBM aims to develop a chip that can sequence your genetic structure and bring portable, personalized medicine to the marketplace. The device is designated as a genome reader:

The genome reader is being designed as a silicon chip in which DNA is threaded through a pore in the chip and its characteristics are read out sequentially. The chip has tiny electrodes to produce electrical fields that can trap negatively charged DNA molecules, after which the chip will measure and sequence the DNA. Components integrated into the chip include chemical, physical and atomic layers that aid in evaluating the molecules and sequencing the genetic composition. A microprocessor, most likely residing outside the chip, would also be needed for DNA sequencing.

The DNA-reading chip might also be used for other biotechnology applications that involve sequencing human, animal, bacterial and vegetable DNA, Stolovitzky said.

I hate to use a cliché, but a step nearer Star Trek.

IBM have announced that, through a series of innovations, they are now able to model the cortical structure on a large scale. Though this does not replicate specific neuronal structures, the team state that they will be able to copy various patterns such as “sense, perceive, interact and recognise”.

The article is accompanied by speculation on how computational structures emulating neural structures will prove useful as the flood of data and connections continue to explode. The shorthand of 'brainchip' and computers at the level of cats may be more of a stretch. Though if we are at the level of a cat in supercomputing, this is a tremendous advance.

After the exposure and the lies, the excuses and the 'business as usual' attitude, we are told that only four broke the law. Only four were stupid enough to actually get caught. The rest get slapped wrists or a golden handshake, happy wanking their golden pay-off from the backs of the taxpayer, now viewed as a bottomless treasury for Labour's ballot fund.

This Parliament is a sump, a slough, a slurry pit which does not even have the decency to develop an upper crust to disguise its foulness. You cannot drain this away as the swine have developed a taste for speculation, peculation and entitlement. And worse than the poor suckers of dole who know no better, their entitlement is a result of greed, not Special Brew.

How can an electorate inoculate ourselves from those who would wield power? In days past, this was the result of a tie: the contractual ties between governed and governor enriched by the fear of riot, the joy of bribery and an indecent sense of superiority over the occasional war: such are the advantages of a rising power. Even thirty years ago, our greatest traitor, Heath, was tested and sent packing when he had the temerity to ask “Who governs Britain?”

That crisis of governance may be more important than we know. Fifteen years of turbulence may have taught some that it is better to dilute the power of the demos, and transmute rage to apathy, gold to lead. And what better vehicle for this inoculation arose than the European Union: a new structure that observed the norms and the forms, but rendered each voter more impotent than a castrati in a Nevada brothel.

So when I say “only four?” I know that their fellow politicians will look on them as sacrificial lambs, thrown to wolves now and rescued later through sympathetic parole boards and glowing character references from fellow peers.

Pakistan's campaign in southern Waziristan, against Taliban threatening the integrity of their state, has been successful, in part. The Taliban of North Waziristan, fuelling the insurgency in Afghanistan, remain untouched. News is threading through of redeployment by the insurgents to Orakzai, near Peshawar, and a direct threat to NATO supply lines.

The question of Pakistani fragmentation and the consequences for the nuclear arsenal are rarely aired in public. Even if they are, bland assurances of current security are given, leaving detailed assessments of the security threat in private. Pakistan is a radioactively hot topic.

Occasionally, potential friction between US and UK forces was leaked to the papers. Often, this was directed at Afghanistan, not Iraq. However, the latest leaks, a series designed to destabilise the MOD prior to the start of the Chilcot report, have cast a question mark over potential co-operation with the United States armed forces.

The major criticisms involve an inability to communicate or co-operate with allies: of having an imperious attitude that leads to contempt:

General Stewart bluntly admitted that “our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.” He said that “incredibly,” there was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad.

Col Tanner said that General Sanchez “only visited us once in seven months.” Col Tanner also added that he only spoke to his own US counterpart, the chief of staff at the US corps headquarters in the Green Zone, once over the same period.

Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US policy which had significant implications for them and their men.

Only historians will be able to tell how far this lack of communication impacted upon British operations. The Pentagon, as managed by Donald Rumsfeld, was reputed to be unsympathetic to coalitions or co-operation. The evidence of the British generals seems to bear this out. Understanding the impact of your policies upon your allies is basic courtesy, one that was not adhered to, according to our armed forces:

When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter.

“Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most awkward event of my tour.” 

Yet, none of these problems were addressed at the time. Our generals expect plaudits for evading American orders, rather than dealing with the increasing problems of the Iraqi insurgency that forced the Basra scuttle. To ride the populist vehicle of Anti-Americanism to distract from the strategic and political errors carried out by the MOD and the top brass would be contemptible: scapegoating Rome to avoid the shortcomings of Greece.