Just in case anyone forgot that things are going on in places that aren’t Iraq. It seems like once in a while other regions enter the public spotlight, but as soon as things cool off a bit, out they go again. First up, Afghanistan. Amazingly, nearly six years after the invasion, the Taliban is still a presence, and still fighting.

The police are on the frontline of the conflict with the Taliban, with more than 200 officers killed this year, according to a news agency estimate.

On Friday, five police officers were killed when a group of Taliban fighters attacked a district office in the town of Ghorak, Kandahar, Alizai said.

A dozen Taliban members were also killed, he said.

Elsewhere in Kandahar, Taliban fighters ambushed a police vehicle with rocket-propelled grenades early on Saturday, Alizai said.

It’s worth noting that the Taliban aren’t alone there. As luck would have it, they’ve got Al Qaeda helping them along. Somewhere along the lines, getting rid of terrorists stopped having anything to do with Al Qaeda or the Taliban who harbored them. I’m sure that makes sense to the Bush Administration somehow, but I admit I don’t get it.

On the other side of the area, we’ve got Israel. For a little while, everyone was focusing on the battle with Palestine or the battle with Lebanon. It coated the news. I wonder how many people are aware that things haven’t exactly cooled off over there.

At least four Palestinian gunmen using an armored vehicle and grenade launchers broke through Israel’s border fence from Gaza on Saturday and fought a gun battle with Israeli soldiers, while Israeli troops entered Gaza near the southern town of Rafah to search for weapons and tunnels used to smuggle arms and explosives from Egypt.

I bring this up to make one main point: if the Iraq Fiasco is supposed to have anything to do with bringing stability to the Middle East, it ain’t helping. And I dare say it would have been a better idea to scrap invading Iraq and just work on Afghanistan and Israel.

Although I obviously disagree with the guy on all matters religious, I do look up to Il Papa in many matters humanitarian. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by having John Paul II around from childhood, but I tend to think of The Pope as I do the Dalai Lama, a voice on being good to your fellow man aside from being a religious leader.

This puts me in stark contrast with our president, who obviously considers himself a religious authority. However, apparently, he’s pretty removed from Da Pope when it comes to the humanitarian side. The two met up to discuss Iraq, and this part really struck me.

The war was vigorously opposed by the late Pope John Paul II, and Benedict, in his Easter message, denounced the “continual slaughter” in Iraq and said that “nothing positive” is happening.”

…

The president said their was no discussion of “just war,” a Christian doctrine that says war must have a reasonable chance of success of not doing more harm than good. According to the doctrine, war must be a last resort, launched in response to unjust aggression and civilians must be safeguarded.

I’ve have to say that I am 100% with Benedict on this. On both points. Not just that the Iraq Fiasco is a slaughter with nothing positive happening, but how war should be conducted. And it goes without saying that the Iraq Disaster is, actually, the exact opposite of a “just war”. It was the unjust aggression, and civilians are pretty much statistics we don’t read about.

One more bit.

The pope asked the president about his meeting in Germany with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has expressed opposition to a U.S. missile shield in Europe and raised eyebrows with democratic rollbacks.

“The dialogue with Putin was also good?” the pope asked.

Bush, eyeing photographers and reporters who were about to be escorted from the room, replied: “Umm. I’ll tell you in a minute.”

That’s our Bush. Always so eloquent.