The bomb in our back yard



“On Sunday, the 15th of July, about noon, we were at Hunters Point and they put on us what we now know was the atomic bomb.” – Capt. Charles B. McVay III, U.S. Navy commanding officer, USS Indianapolis (from the Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center)

Heavy is the head that wears the crown! On Aug. 2, 1945, U.S. President Harry S Truman, acting on the advice of military and civilian advisors, gave the order to drop the atomic bomb on a Japanese target. On Aug. 6, the first bomb fell on Hiroshima; on Aug. 9, the second was dropped on Nagasaki in Western Japan. On Aug. 14, 1945, Japanese Emperor Hirohito agreed to an unconditional surrender, thus bringing to an end the final tragic combat theatre of World War II.

On Aug. 6, 2009, in commemoration of the 64th anniversary of the world’s first atomic bomb attack, the mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, urged global leaders to back President Barack Obama’s call to abolish nuclear weapons.

The United States is the only nation that has deployed atomic bombs in combat. So much as we cower from the prospect of a nuclear Iran or North Korea, American leadership changed the history of mankind forever with the ultimatum – drafted by Truman, Winston Churchill and the joint chiefs of staff – sent to Japan on July 26, 1945, demanding it “surrender in safety or face utter destruction.”

War is the ultimate battleground of human ethics and morality. Quoting the wisdom of Martin Luther King Jr.: “There is nothing more tragic in all this world than to know right and not do it.” Wiser still is the dictum: Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it!

The Hunters Point Shipyard is located in southeastern San Francisco on a peninsula that extends east into San Francisco Bay. The history of the shipyard in the creation, testing and delivery of weapons of destruction will not remain safely buried within the depths of our conscience.

In 1956 Operation Skycatch was conducted by Lockheed Missiles and Space Division at the Hunters Point Shipyard to study dummy missiles structurally identical to live Polaris missiles. A huge overhead assembly on Parcel D was erected to catch a multi-ton dummy Polaris missile in mid-air, hurled out into San Francisco Bay and then retrieved.

As the U.S. Navy prepares for the 2010 dirty transfer of radiation impacted buildings, equipment and infrastructure at Parcel D to the city, questions regarding the past, present and future of the shipyard will be pushed to the forefront of public debate.

Radiation impacted sites at the shipyard are areas that have the potential for radioactive materials to be present and require further action. Impacted sites include areas where radioactive materials were used or stored, where known spills, discharges or unusual occurrences were documented and where radioactive materials were disposed of and buried, including landfills, laboratory drains and the underwater regions surrounding the base.

Parcel D comprises about 98 acres in the central portion of the shipyard. It was formerly part of the industrial support area used for shipping, ship repair, office and commercial activities. The docks at Parcel D were formerly part of the industrial production area.

Portions of Parcel D were used by the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL). NRDL was the premier radiation research laboratory of the post-World War II era. The main laboratories were located along Spear Avenue at the intersection of Parcel A with Parcels D and E.

The federal law for environmental cleanup at the shipyard is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, called CERCLA or Superfund. The CERCLA defines radionuclides as particles that emit radiation. They are hazardous substances under CERCLA and, as such, must be investigated, characterized and cleaned up.

Radiation damages human tissue by stripping it of charged particles called electrons. Radiation in low doses is linked to many cancers including breast and skin cancer. It can change the basic structure of our genetic material.

The Navy has identified radiologically impacted areas at Parcel D associated with the former use of general radioactive materials, decontamination of ships and NRDL research. The sewers and storm drains beneath Parcel D were designated radiation impacted because the scientists of the NRDL were known to have poured effluents of low level radioactive waste down their laboratory drains. These radioactive materials ultimately communicated in the 10 linear miles of sewer and storm drains with San Francisco Bay, the surrounding community and, perhaps, the entire Bay Area!

The answer to the breast cancer conundrum evident in the world’s highest incidence of breast cancer arising from San Francisco’s Bay Area counties may be ultimately linked to our known exposure to low level radiation in air, water and dispersed soil from activities at the Hunters Point Shipyard.

According to documents on file with the Naval Historical Center, Capt. Lewis L. Haynes, senior medical officer on board the USS Indianapolis, recalls: “On July 15th we were ordered to go to San Francisco to take on some cargo. I was amazed to notice that there was a quiet, almost dead Navy yard. We tied up at the dock there and two big trucks came alongside. The big crate on one truck was put in the port hanger. The other truck had a bunch of men aboard including two army officers, Captain James Nolan and Major Robert Furman. I found out later that Nolan was a medical officer. I don’t know what his job was – probably to monitor radiation. The two men carried a canister about 3 feet by 4 feet tall up to Admiral Spruance’s cabin, where they welded it to the deck. Later on, I found out that this held the nuclear ingredients for the bomb and the large box in the hanger contained the device for firing the bomb. And I had that thing welded to the deck above me for ten days.”

According to Capt. McVay’s recollections, “We sailed from San Francisco 0800 the morning of 16th July. We arrived in Tinian the morning of 26 July and unloaded the material and the bomb which was later to be dropped over Hiroshima.”

The components of “Little Boy,” the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, were probably loaded onto the USS Indianapolis from the drydocks at Parcel D – namely the radiation contaminated Gun Mole Pier.

In Feburary 2004 the Navy completed the Draft Final Historical Radiological Assessment for Hunters Point Shipyard. The Navy Radiological Affairs Support Office conducted extensive research on past radiological activities using both federal and personal historical archives. That research was supplemented by interviews with people who knew first hand of radiological operations at the shipyard.

Members of the Hunters Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), including myself – founding chair of the Radiological Subcommittee – commented extensively on the three draft versions of the Historical Radiological Assessment. The HRA studied 882 sites at the shipyard and found that the majority were not radiation contaminated. Fifty-eight of those sites were found to require further investigation and cleanup and another 32 sites were pending release for unrestricted use.

Bay View Health and Environmental Science Editor Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai can be reached at (415) 835-4763 or asumchai@sfbayview.com.

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/the-bomb-in-our-back-yard/

09.01.09 -- By Hook or By Crook


Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Puzzle by Steven Ginzburg, edited by Will Shortz

BY HOOK OR BY CROOK (37A. How 18-, 24-, 47- and 56-Across may be defined), SHARP TURN, SHEPHERD’S CANE, SWINGING PUNCH and RACKETEER comprise the interrelated group of this playful Tuesday crossword, the hooks being the sharp turn and the swinging punch, and the crooks the shepherd’s cane and racketeer. Neat!

Other entries of length include CODE NAMES (34D. Utah, Omaha and others, on D-Day), CHOP SHOP (39D. Hot car’s destination), NET WEIGHT (3D. Food package datum) and SAYS HI TO (5D. Greets informally). NORSE and TYR are tied clues (49D. Like Odin or 9-Down; 9D. 49-Down war god). Two six-letter entries are AWAKES (44D. Responds to a morning alarm) and BOTANY (10D. Plant expert’s field).


The large five-letter group includes ACHED (7D. Needed a massage, maybe); ANGST (30A. Woody Allen’s trademark emotion); ARTSY (17A. Pretentious and showy); BOARS (1D. Sows’ mates); BOING (32D. Spring sound); BONDS (1A. Moody’s rates them); CHART (50D. Business presentation aid); 23A. EADIE Was a Lady” (Ethel Merman tune); EXUDE (11D. Give off, as charm); FLEAS (52A. A pet collar repels them; 43A. “You HAD TO be there”; HE-MAN (59A. Rambo type); HINTS (51D. Aids for the stumped); 48D. “10 ITEMS or less” (checkout sign); OPERA (14A. Musical work that’s often not in English) and OPRAH (2D. TV host with a book club); OVERT (63A. In-your-face); PESTS (66A. Noodges); SECTS (47D. Sunni and Shia, for two); SERBS (26D. Belgrade natives); VISOR (6D. Baseball cap part).

Short stuff -- ABC, AHI, ANNE and ANTE, ARG, ARMS, AVON, BARK, BASE, BETA, CAKY, CST and CUT, DRS, EASY, ERA, EVE, FRAT, HEM, IAIM, ICKY, KWON, LANE, LGS, LOGE, NYU, OXEN, PASO, PEAS, RAGU, RAW, SKA, SHOE, SOT, TAB, TERI, TESS and TOSS, TKO, VAST, VISE, WIGS (42A. Tops of many Halloween getups).

------------------

For today’s cartoon, go to The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.

Click on image to enlarge.

Puzzle available on the internet at

THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games

If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 6. Oceanic in scope; 10. Early software version; 15. Gross, in kidspeak, 16. Cart-pulling beasts; 20. Uncooked; 21. Old woman’s home, in a nursery rhyme; 28. “___ to please!”; 29. “Careful, now!”; 32. It may be worse than a bite; 34. Winter hrs. in New Orleans; 41. Director’s “Stop!”; 42. Tops of many Halloween getups; 43. “You ___ be there”; 44. Bell-ringing cosmetics company; 46. Theater area; 54. Flip, as a coin; 55. Tuna at a sushi bar; 61. Start the pot; 62. Equips for war; 64. “Guarding ___” (1994 MacLaine movie); 65. First, second, third or home. Down: 4. “M*A*S*H” staffers: Abbr.; 8. Precursor of reggae; 12. Garr or Polo; 13. Rice who wrote of vampires; 19. Accompaniers of carrots in a Birds Eye package; 22. Haw’s Partner; 25. El ___, Tex.; 33. Land SW or Uru.; 35. Pink elephant sighter; 36. Fight ender, for short; 38. Tae ___ do; 40. Giant in pasta sauce; 45. Workbench gripper; 46. Some football linemen: Abbr.; 52. Rush week venue, for short; 53. Sprinter’s assignment; 57. Running account at a bar; 58. Geologic time; 60. Day before a big event.

08.31.09 -- IV!

“We just want to go home.” -- Alien, “District 9”
-----------------
Monday,
August 31, 2009
Puzzle by Fred Piscop, edited by Will Shortz
FOUR-MINUTE MILER (17A. Roger Bannister was the first), FOR OLD TIME’S SAKE (35A. How something may be done, nostalgically) and FORE AND AFT SAILS (54A. Features of yawls or ketches) are the interrelated group of this fine Monday crossword.
Mid-size entries include CLIENTS (24A. Agents’ customers), DESPITE (45A. Regardless of),
HAREMS (26A. Women’s quarters, in sultans homes), LAMINA (36D. Thin layer), LASSOS (44D. Rodeo ropes), MOIRES (19D. Fabrics with wavy patterns), PLAINS (43A. Area west of the Mississippi), SLIVER (10D. Tiny slice of pie), SPEEDS (42D. Risks being caught in a radar trap), WAMPUM (5D. Indian beads used as money).

Five-letter entries --
ALIEN (49A. Visitor in “District 9”), ANNOY (6D. Really bother), AROSE (40A. Heeded the alarm), CHIME (24D. Doorbell), DAFOE (45D. Willem of Spider-Man movies), ELOPE (46D. Run off to the justice of the peace), EVENT (12D. Long jump or 100-meter dash), O’HARA (14A. Tara’s Scarlett), ORLON (60A. Fabric introduced by DuPont), OVINE (22A. Sheeplike), PALIN (11D. Politico Sarah), REFER (48D. Direct, as for information), SCREW (1A. Fastener that may have a Phillips head), 31A. “Rise and SHINE!”, SIREN (47D. Patrol car wailer), SKEET (63A. Sport with shotguns), SMART (42A. Mensa-eligible), STORE (31D. Part of a mall), WARES (13D. Peddlers peddle them), WHIRR (29A. Fan sound) and WHIST (29D. Predecessor of bridge).
Short stuff -- AIRE, AKIN, ALSO, AOL, ARK, AVOW, BAG, BARI, CHOO, DECO, DIE, DRAT, DULY, EENS, ERR, EVAC, GEMS, HEFT, ILLS, ISNT,
LAVA and SPEW, LINE, LOUD, NAP, NOON, ONE, OPED, PEAS and PEAT, PEER, PILE, PLOD, PRIM, PSI, RARA, RAUL, REAM, SLOE, SOFA, SOT, SPAM, TWA.
-----------------
For today’s cartoon, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 6. “One more thing …”; 10. Eject, as 16-Across; 15. Factory whistle time; 16. Material from a volcano; 20. “You’ve got mail” co.; 21. Trudge (along); 23. In the proper manner; 30. Emergency removal of people, for short; 32. “Paper or plastic?” item; 39. Old competitor of Pan Am; 41. ___ and proper; 48. 500 sheets; 50. Little vegetables that roll; 51. Pitchfork-shaped Greek letter; 58. Essayist’s newspaper piece; 59. Suffix with billion; 61 Poetic nights; 62. Use a spyglass. Down: 1. Couch; 2. Part of a sneeze after “ah-ah-ah …”; 3. Fidel Castro’s brother; 4. “To ___ is human …”; 7. Ear-busting; 8. Drunkard; 9. Marine ___ (presidential helicopter); 18. Woes; 23. Art ___ (1920s-’30s style); 25. Queue; 26. Test the weight of; 27. Swear to; 28. ___ avis; 32. Italian port on the Adriatic; 33. Closely related; 34. Rubies, emeralds, etc.; 37. “Dang!”; 38. E-mail often caught in filters; 43. Bog fuel; 50. Whittle down; 51. Heap; 52. ___ gin fizz; 53. “Money ___ everything!”; 55. 40 winks; 56. Expire; 57. Noah’s vessel.

Media Ape Goebbels in Defending CIA Abuses


By Ray McGovern

EXTRA! Read all about it in the Washington Post: Torture worked; Cheney and torture practitioners vindicated; morale at CIA harmed.


It seems coverage of the Bush administration’s “war on terror” has been put back on track by the editors of the Washington Post and their “sources,” who appear determined to highlight the supposed successes of waterboarding and other forms of torture.

In the last few days the Post has markedly increased its effort to “catapult the propaganda” (to borrow a phrase from former President George W. Bush). When the wind is still, Nazi propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels can be heard cheering from the grave.

Frankly, I was wondering when this return to form would happen at the Post. I was surprised to see Post journalists recently losing their grip, so to speak, and falling into the practice of reporting real facts — like the sickening revelations in the long-suppressed CIA Inspector General’s report on torture.

Apparently they have now been reminded of the biases of the newspaper’s top brass, forever justifying the hardnosed “realism” of the Bush administration as it approved brutal and perverse methods for stripping the “bad guys” of their clothes, their dignity, their sense of self – all to protect America.

Hooded, threatened with a cocked gun and an electric drill, deprived of sleep for long periods, beaten, kept naked or dressed in diapers, forced into painful stress positions, locked in tiny boxes and subjected to the near-drowning of waterboarding, the terrorism suspects were supposed to be terrorized into what the CIA psychologists called “learned helplessness.”

And to read the Washington Post’s account, it all worked, transforming alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed from a “truculent enemy” into what the CIA considered its “preeminent source” on al-Qaeda.

The Post made the story of this transformation – “How a Detainee Became an Asset: Sept.11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding” – its lead story Saturday. To drive home the central point, the Post declared that “this reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.”

But the story contained some weird contradictions that might have given pause to a less credulous – or less biased – newspaper. For example, the Post’s two unnamed sources who told the tale of Mohammed’s transformation depicted him as anything but a broken man suffering from “learned helplessness,” terrified of more torture. Instead, Mohammed, known as KSM, is described as holding forth like a professor in a lecture hall, pontificating about Greek philosophy and criticizing his American students for their shortcomings. “In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture,” the Post wrote.

So, instead of a cowering figure induced to talk out of fear that he might be subjected to a 184th session of waterboarding, Mohammed appears to be a boastful narcissist who views himself as a historic figure – exactly the sort of interrogation subject who would be susceptible to flattery and other successful, non-violent strategies favored by experienced FBI interrogators.

If the “learned helplessness” had worked – and was the reason Mohammed was talking – would he really have risked scolding an American interrogator, like an angry teacher chastising an inattentive schoolboy?

However, that is not a question the Post asks or its editors apparently want the readers to think much about. The story is written as if the Post writers Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate are seeking expiation for their sins of writing fact-and-document-based stories in recent days.

Back to the Steno Pool

The Post management, it seems, is determined to return to its past practice of acting as stenographers for the CIA’s PR machine. On Sunday, the Post had its steno pad out again, taking dictation about how torture investigations were harming CIA morale. The story, titled “Ex-Intelligence Officials Cite Low Spirits at CIA: IG Report’s Release, Looming Investigation Into Detainee Interrogations Blamed” by Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick, filled nearly half of Page Two.

The CIA is the only agency of the U.S. government that elicits the Post’s hand-wringing concern about its morale and “spirits.” It’s as if CIA officers were fragile Southern belles at risk of being overcome by “the vapors” if a harsh word is uttered in the parlor.
It’s hard to recall any similar concern expressed by the Post over poor morale at other government offices, say, the Environmental Protection Agency when President George W. Bush was ignoring evidence of global warming or the Justice Department when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was firing prosecutors for not going after Democrats.

But the delicate “spirits” of the CIA work force are something that the Post never ceases to worry about. So Pincus and Warrick ran to some “ex-CIA officials” to gauge the morale damage that the torture disclosures had caused.

It turns out that many of these “ex-CIA officials,” cited in the Post article, are folks with the most to lose if Attorney General Eric Holder starts unraveling the sordid tale of torture, assassination, kidnapping, you name it over which they had purview and in which they were involved.

The Post article was accompanied by a photo of A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard, who laments that “morale at the agency is down to minus 50.” To their credit, I suppose, Pincus and Warrick do note that Krongard was the “third-ranking CIA official at the time of the use of harsh practices,” but there is no specific statement that Krongard and other worriers about CIA morale just might have some huge self-interest in discouraging investigations.

Post readers are not alerted, for instance, to Krongard’s history as the official who gave Blackwater, the ex-CIA-official-dominated firm sometimes called Assassination Inc., its initial contract, nor that he joined Blackwater’s Board of Directors after retiring from the CIA. Nor that with the help of his brother, the State Department’s Inspector General, he helped block congressional inquiries into alleged Blackwater illegalities.

Instead, the Post treats Krongard as a reliable source and the Obama administration’s release of torture-related documents as a policy blunder.

“One former senior official said President Obama was warned in December that release of the Justice Department memos sanctioning harsh interrogation methods would create an uproar that could not be contained,” the Post reported, quoting the official as saying:
“They [the White House] thought that it would be a two-day story; they were wrong.”

“Warning” the President of the United States! Who’s running this country, anyway?

Loving the Inquisition

In Saturday’s front-page story, the Post was even more obvious about which side it was taking on the issue of torture and the efficacy of using brutal methods to extract information.

Warming the cockles of Dick Cheney’s heart, the Washington Post was “confirming” that waterboarding and sleep deprivation worked — just as we were told by Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, on May 13 at a hearing on detainee interrogation that included an implicit tip of the hat to all manner of infamous torture past:

“The Vice President [Cheney] is suggesting that there was good information obtained, and I’d like the committee to get that information. Let’s have both sides of the story here. I mean, one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is apparently they work.”

Five hundred years takes us proudly back to the Spanish Inquisition when the cardinals at least had no problem calling a spade a spade. Their term for waterboarding was tortura del agua. No euphemism like “enhanced interrogation technique” or EIT, for short.

As for Cheney's earlier claim that two CIA documents would prove that the EITs were effective — the two were released this week, and they prove nothing of the kind. Together with others, they do indicate that detainees like KSM provided important intelligence on al-Qaeda and its plans. But they fail to support the contention that it was the use of harsh techniques (as opposed to traditional interrogation methods) that yielded the information.

The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman, who has been covering all this like a blanket, notes that the two documents actually suggest that non-abusive interrogation techniques were primarily responsible for eliciting the most important information cited in the two documents.
In short, Cheney is no closer to proving that "torture works," than he was before the release of those two documents to which he gave so much fanfare. Indeed, given how the two fizzled out, he is now farther away from making that case, except in the eyes of senior editors at the Washington Post and other outlets of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).

Water and Sleep

For years now, the FCM has largely succeeded in trivializing “water torture.” So who’s afraid of a little water? Don’t those Muslims know how to hold their breath, like we do at Rehoboth? And besides, we waterboarded our own troops in training, without adverse effect. Are Americans so dumbed down that they cannot see the difference between a U.S. military training exercise, during which a simple gesture will stop the torture, and the real thing?

And how well did torture work on KSM? If one examines the record more carefully, it turns out that the alleged 9/11 mastermind was uncooperative and deceptive during the torture. When U.S. authorities finally let KSM be interviewed by the Red Cross, he said this (which was shoehorned onto page 6 of the Post, presumably to provide the article some semblance of “balance”):

“During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive.
“I’m sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time.”

Ask FBI investigators and others sent on wild goose chases to check out such “information”; in candid moments they will corroborate what KSM has to say on that key point.

Getting What You Want

It boggles the mind what information one can extract by torture. A U.S. Army interrogator with long experience in conducting interrogations, and in training others in traditional Army techniques, recently told me this:

“Give me no restrictions, and allow me to use non-traditional techniques, and I promise you I can get a detainee to confess to having launched, solo, not one but two successful suicide bombings!”

The FCM’s dismissive attitude toward waterboarding goes in spades for sleep deprivation. One hears things like: We’ve all gone without sleep — preparing for exams, for example. We know what it’s like, and it’s no big deal. And, anyway, these are bad guys.

Not so fast. It’s difficult to say that sleep deprivation is worse than waterboarding, but it is just as torturous. Much can be learned from Darius Rejali, a scholar who is one of the world’s leading thinkers and writers on torture and its consequences. The paragraphs that follow are drawn largely from his book, Torture and Democracy.

Israeli terrorist and later prime minister, Menachem Begin, describing the sleep deprivation inflicted on him when he was a prisoner of the KGB as a young man, observed that anyone subjected to this condition knows that “not even hunger or thirst are comparable to it.”

Experts now agree that sleep deprivation is a basic, and potentially dangerous, physiological-need state, similar to hunger or thirst and as basic to survival. Sleep-deprived people are highly suggestible (a condition not unlike drunkenness or hypnosis), making sleep deprivation ideal for inducing false confessions.

Rejali gives a 15th-century Italian lawyer “credit” for introducing this technique into the Inquisition’s toolkit. But Inquisitional interrogators soon became aware of the unreliable character of information acquired through sleep deprivation, and the preferred technique became the rack.

The Gestapo used sleep deprivation among other “Verschäfte Vernehmungen” — sharpened interrogation techniques. Against whom? You guessed it; against “Terroristen.”

Sleep deprivation also was in the quiver of British interrogators in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and is still included in current Israeli procedures. And after 9/11, the CIA and the military were authorized to take the technique out of mothballs and apply it in interrogations — with terrific results, if you believe Page One of the Washington Post.

For additional context, it may be worth citing what Rejali says about the experience of using sleep deprivation in the U.S.:
“American courts finally barred sleep deprivation for domestic policing during World War II. In 1941 Tennessee police subjected one suspect to sleep deprivation and interrogation for thirty-six hours until he confessed he had killed his wife....

“In 1944, the Supreme Court not only tossed out the confession as unacceptable in any democratic society,” but drew a link between sleep deprivation and “the practices of certain foreign nations dedicated to…physical or mental torture.”

Political Correctness

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured as the writers of the 9/11 Commission were preparing their report. If we think he was the mastermind behind the attacks, then ask him why he did it, was their understandable request. The answer was quite telling.

Mohammed had attended North Carolina A&T in Greensboro; thus, initial speculation regarding his motive centered on the supposition that he had suffered some gross indignity accounting for his hatred for America. Not so. Rather, as the 9/11 Commission reported on page 147:
“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

Yesterday’s Washington Post article offers a revisionist view. It seems Mohammed’s initial response was found to be politically incorrect by implicating “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” Perhaps after a few more sessions of waterboarding or a few more days of sleep deprivation he came up with a more acceptable explanation of his motivation. Or perhaps the Post has been selective in picking and choosing among the various things that came out of reports from his interrogation.

In any event, without so much as a word as to why his story has changed, the Post now would have us believe that the following is the real reason:

“KSM’s limited and negative experience in the United States — which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist,” according to the [CIA] intelligence summary. “He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country.”

A telling revision, indeed.

But let’s also look for a moment at “debauched and racist” on its own merits. Could the hated Khalid Sheik Mohammed be speaking some truth here? If he and other Middle Eastern Muslims looked and dressed more like us, would it be so easy to demonize them – and to torture them?

Would the Washington Post’s editors be so supportive if representatives of a more favored ethnic or religious group were stripped naked before members of the opposite sex, put in diapers, immobilized with shackles in stress positions for long periods, denied sleep and made to soil themselves?

In my view, racism is very much at play here.

And “debauched?” Just read the CIA Inspector General report and decide for yourself.

And please: don’t stop with a “Tsk, tsk; those interrogators were certainly debauched.” We — all of us — let it happen. We — all of us — need to ensure that our country does not descend again into such depravity.

The only way to do that is to hold ALL the rotten apples accountable, from the top to the bottom of the proverbial barrel.


Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He worked for almost 30 years in Army intelligence and as a CIA analyst, and is now a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
This article appeared first at Consortiumnews.com.

08.30.09 -- Farewell to New Orleans -- the Acrostic

Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, August 28,2005, NASA
-----------------
Sunday, August 30, 2009
ACROSTIC, Puzzle by Emily Cox and Henry Rathvon, edited by Will Shortz

This Sunday’s acrostic quotation is from
“Domestic Manners of the Americans” by Fanny Trollope, published in 1832, described by Amazon.com: “When Fanny Trollope set sail for America in 1827 with hopes of joining a Utopian community of emancipated slaves, she took with her three of her children and a young French artist, leaving behind her son Anthony, growing debts, and a husband going slowly mad from mercury poisoning. But what followed was a tragicomedy of illness, scandal, and failed business ventures. Nevertheless, on her return to England, Fanny turned her misfortunes into a remarkable book. A masterpiece of nineteenth-century travel-writing, "Domestic Manners of the Americans" is a vivid and hugely witty satirical account of a nation and was a sensation on both sides of the Atlantic.”

The quotation: THE LAND IS DEFENDED FROM THE RIVER BY A LEVEE WITHOUT WHICH THE DWELLINGS WOULD SPEEDILY DISAPPEAR I COULD NOT HELP FANCYING NATURE WOULD SOME DAY TAKE THE MATTER INTO HER OWN HANDS AND IF SO FAREWELL TO NEW ORLEANS
The author’s name and the title of the work: F TROLLOPE DOMESTIC MANNERS


The defined words:
A. Exemplar of superfluity (2 wds.), FIFTH WHEEL; B. One unlikely to foot the bill, TIGHTWAD; C. Flavoring for Turkish delight (2 wds.), ROSE WATER; D. Tending to stay in line, OBEDIENT; E. Target of a late-night raid?, LEFTOVER; F. Game banned in the U.S. in 1988 (2 wds.), LAWN DARTS; G. Farther along in time or place, ONWARD; H. Protection from some harmful rays, PARASOL; I. One of the Waughs, or his first wife, EVELYN; J. “Annus Mirabilis” poet, DRYDEN; K. Confessed, admitted (2 wds.), OWNED UP; L. Stonehenge constituent, MEGALITH; M. Knockout, looker, hunk, babe, EYEFUL; N. Grant recipient’s regular allotment, STIPEND; O. Rock opera pioneers (2 wds.), THE WHO; P. Spoken with varying pitch, INFLECTED; G. Topper for satay or samosas, CHUTNEY; R. Figure you might see in a mosque, MULLAH; S. Offer a friendly word of advice, ADMONISH; T. Erstwhile requirement at New York’s “21” Club, NECKTIE; U. Improvise in a casual way, NOODLE; V. Fanged snake like a cobra or krait, ELAPID; W. Region of reduced precipitation to the lee of high mountains (2 wds.), RAIN SHADOW; X. John McEnroe memoir “You Cannot Be SERIOUS”.

The unabridged quotation: At no one point was there an inch of what painters call a second distance; and for the length of one hundred and twenty miles, from the Balize to New Orleans, and one hundred miles above the town, the land is defended from the encroachments of the river by a high embankment which is called the Levee; without which the dwellings would speedily disappear, as the river is evidently higher than the banks would be without it. When we arrived, there had been constant rains, and of long continuance, and this appearance was, therefore, unusually striking, giving to “this great natural feature” the most unnatural appearance imaginable; and making evident, not only that many had been busy there, but that even the mightiest works of nature might be made to bear his impress; it recalled, literally, Swift’s mock heroic, “Nature must give way to art;” yet, she was looking so mighty, and so unsubdued all the time, that I could not help fancying she would some day take the matter into her own hands again, and if so, farewell to New Orleans.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

08.30.09 -- So Out of It!

"Ida," the small "missing link", a 47-million-year-old fossil that suggests a critical missing-link species in primate evolution --National Geographic
-----------------
Sunday,
August 30, 2009
LITERALLY SO, Puzzle by Ashish Vengsarkar and Narayan Venkatasubramanyan, edited By Will Shortz
The clues for the interrelated group of this Sunday puzzle are constituted by both the in-all-caps clues with missing letters and the missing letters sequentially -- for TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT (23. -IRC-S-ANCES, missing C-U-T. BLOODLESS REVOLUTION (36. ANTI--VERNMENT UN--ST), G-O-R-E; THE MISSING LINK (52. AR--CL-), T-I-E; DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (70. P---ARY CARE PHY-ICIANS), R-I-M-S; SPARE NO EXPENSE (86. FI-TH-WH--L), F-E-E; EATS SHOOTS AND LEAVES (98. WHAT A -ANDA DOES IN -EIS-RELY FA-HION), P-L-U-S; LEMON DROP COOKIES (121. W--THL-SS R-AD-TER), O-R-E-O-S. I found the gimmick made for an irritating and clumsy solve, whether or not it might be considered clever.
Other entries of length include ALEATORY (92D. Dependent on chance);
DIES IRAE (29. Hymn whose second line is “Solvet saeclum in favilla”); ELLIS ISLAND (15D. National monument site since 1965); EUROAREA (78A. Currency union since 1999); LOMILOMI (107A. Hawaiian massage); TEAR STAINED (71D. Like the face after a good bawl); THOM MCAN (66A. Shoe brand reputedly named after a Scottish golfer); and YOU AND ME (5D. Us).
Mid-size entries -- ADVICE (92A. Tips, e.g.);
AGATHAS (27A. Mystery writers’ awards); ALPACAS (96D. Sources of fleece); ARTSALE (6D. Gallery event); ATLANTA (115A. Home of the N.H.L.’s Thrashers); BATEAU (14D. French river craft); BONITO (36D. Mackerellike fish); ENCORE (50A. It’s music to a musician’s ears); ENGINE (73D. It typically has lots of horses); GNARLED (56D. Knotted up); INASEC (59A. Soon); LACTIC (37D. Kind of acid); METHANE (53D. Dangerous buildup in a mine); RANKLE (10D. Stick in one’s craw); REACTS (74D. Isn’t inert); REROUTE (51D. Send another way); STRATI (79A. Low clouds); STOLEN (100D. Pirated); TONNES (101D. British weights).
Five-letter -- ASPCA, EAGAN, ERASE, GELID, INALL, LITRE, MERCK, NEXUS, NICOL,
OSCAR (126A. 8 ½-pound statue), ORAMA, ORRIN, RHOMB, ROOTS, SANER, SASSY, TONAL, YAPAT.
Four -- ADAM, AFTA, AKIN, AMFM, ANTA, ARLO and ORAL, ASEA, AVIS and AVIV, DAZE, DIAG, EGGS and EKGS, ENDS, EROS, FINE, GAZA, GEAR, GOAD, IMAX, IMHO, INRE and INTR, IRAN, LEAK, LIDS, MAZE, MCXI, MEET, MERE, MONK, NANA and NINA, NLER, NONE, ODOR, OPED, OTIS, PERT, RAGA, ROSA, SLEE and SKED and SLED, SNAP, SOLD, SPAR, STOA, TACO, TERN and TERP, TPKE, XBOX.
Three -- AKC, ANT, ASS, DEM, ETO, HST, ITI, IDA, LAI, MBA, MTN, NEA, ODS, OLA, OOH, OSO and OSU, OTB, OUI, PAO, PCS, RNA, SCH, SIR, SON, SSE and SST (30D. Bygone flier), TWA (64D. Bygone flier), XOO (105A. Tic-tac-toe loser).
-------------------
For today’s cartoon, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 1. Singer Lambert, runner-up on the 2009 “American Idol”; 5. Talk to shrilly; 10. Four-sided figure; 15. Halloween purchase; 19. “___ by me”; 20. Slangy commercial suffix; 21. Shelter org.; 22. Scuba diver’s worry; 26. Be a couch potato; 28. Person with few possessions; 31. Breeze; 33. Pay stub?; 35. Ninny; 45. Urge; 46. Maker of Fosamax and Zocor; 47. Moscow’s home: Abbr.; 48. Covered walkway; 57. Size unit of an English soda bottle; 58. Like 11-Down: Abbr.; 59. Soon; 60. “Is ___?”; 61. Underground network; 77. Together; 78. PBS benefactor; 82. Stranded messenger?; 84. 1991 Tony winner Daisy; 93. Heart lines: Abbr.; 94. Where some people get tips: Abbr.; 95. Like the Vietnamese language; 97. Like some verbs: Abbr.; 104. Tiny tunneled; 108. Box lightly; 112. Met, for one; 120. Modern home of the biblical Elam; 124. Stun; 125. Take out; 127. Regarding; 128. Bob in the Olympics; 129. Connection; 130. Fresh; 131. Favorite baby sitter, maybe. Down: 1. Brut rival; 2. TV screen meas.; 3. “It’s Time to Cry” singer, 1959; 4. Hook up; 7. Kung ___ chicken; 8. Alternative to satellite; 9. Kind of shell; 11. Pres. When the C.I.A. was created; 12. Piece of a newspaper?; 13. 1,111; 16. Skis, boots, masks, etc.; 17. Mideast tinderbox; 18. ___-Ball; 24. Very; 25. “___ off?”; 32. Fresh; 34. Company name that becomes another company name if you move its first letter to the end; 38. Effluvium; 39. Principal location?: Abbr.; 40. TV exec’s concern; 41. Some E.R. cases; 42. Chou En-___; 43. ___ Chandler, longtime publisher of the Los Angeles Times: 44. All’s opposite; 45. Icy; 49. Dog breeders’ org.; 54. Preface online; 55. “Excalibur” star Williamson; 62. Senator Hatch; 63. Spanish bear; 65. Word often following yes or no; 67. Agreement abroad; 68. Atlas abbr.; 69. Wharton deg.; 72. A.C.C. athlete; 75. Less bananas; 79. Toledo-to-Columbus dir.; 80. N.J. or Pa. route; 81. Music in Mysore; 83. Architectural pier; 85. Tel ___; 87. Cry at a circus; 88. W.W. II arena; 89. Wii alternative; 90. Male delivery; 91. Some receivers; 99. NBC inits. Since 1975; 102. Cry after the rap of a hammer; 103. Man’s name that’s an anagram of 108-Down; 107. Caps; 108. Exam format; 109. Something to be threaded; 110. Pure; 111. Kind of screen; 113. Psyche’s love; 114 Sub ___ (confidentially); 116. Similar; 117. Ship that sailed “the ocean blue”; 118. Shore flier; 119. On the ocean; 122. The cowboys of the Big 12 Conference; 123. They may be cloned.

08.29.09 -- It Can Be Brutal!


Saturday,
August 29, 2009
Puzzle by Doug Peterson, edited by Will Shortz
Four 15-letter across entries are the main feature of this superior Saturday stumper --
CELL PHONE TOWERS (17. Some coverage providers), INTIMATE APPAREL (15. Revealing pieces), SECURITY COUNCIL (49. Russia, China and France are in it) and SKATEBOARD TRICK (46. Something shown off on a half-pipe).
Eight eight-letter down entries follow:
ATOMIZED (7. Like turbojet fuel); ELSINORE (14. “To be, or not to be” soliloquy setting); I GUESS SO (29. “Um … all right”); MAP MAKER (30. Creator of the stuff of legends?); PLUTARCH (32. “On the Malice of Herodotus” author); POPULACE (31. Hoi polloi); SERRATED (13. Like many leaves); URETHANE (12. Bowling ball material).

Seven-letter entries are led by
MUSSINA (1A. 2001-08 Yankees pitcher with seven Gold Gloves). Hey!, I was at Mussina‘s final game at Yankee Stadium last year, his 19th win of that season; the following week, he reached his only 20-win season with the Yankees' 6-2 win over the Red Sox, then called it, his 18th season, the final one -- and vanished. Other entries of seven letters, IMPUTED (29A. Credited); J’ACCUSE (8A. Headline during the Dreyfus Affair); HONESTY (51A. It can be brutal); OREGANO (50A. Greek salad ingredient); PRECEDE (32A. Appear before).

Six --
CATHAY (34D. Old Silk Road destination); DESOTO (36D. Studebaker alternative); ELICIT (38D. Summon up); ENAMEL (16D. Coat in one’s mouth); GAOLER (33A. Worker in a big house near Big Ben); JAEGER (8D. Bullying seabird); MICMAC (1D. Algonquian language); PANICS (37D. Loses it); PLANER (28A. Carpentry machine); ST LUKE (3D. He wrote of the prodigal son); UNEASE (2D. Butterflies, say); WEAKLY (39D. Without conviction).
Five -- APTED (9D. “Nell” directed Michael); BORNE (42D. Shouldered); CLOCK (34A. What an antsy person might watch); CRACK (23D. Figure out); DAUNT (36A. Cow); DETER (25D. Check); DOZER (25A. Inattentive type); ELECT (26D. Awaiting induction); JEWEL (27A. Particularly prized possession) and
JULES (27D. Pulitzer-winning cartoonist Feiffer); MAGES (19A. Conjurers); MAULS (18A. Heavy hitters); MIMED (22A. Acted out); ); MOWER (22D. It may be pushed or ridden); PRONE (28D. Back up?); 41D. SABIN vaccine; SASHA (44A. “Peter and the Wolf” bird) and SONIA (45A. “Peter and the Wolf” duck); SETTE (41A. Otto follows it); SILLS (4D. Sash supporters); UPPER (35A. Boot part).
Short stuff -- ASKS, BALE, CAW, CEE, CHAN, CPOS, DOO, EMUS, IMPS, NAH, PEW, SAL, SERA, STUN, TRI,
TUG (47D. Harbor pusher).
------------------
For today’s cartoons, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.

Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 20. City or state lead-in; 21. Puts it to; 23. “Keeper of the Keys” was the last novel he was featured in; 37. Hymnbook holder; 40. Some farm stock; 42. Straw unit; 43. Seasoning cristales. Down: 5. Hell-raisers; 6. “Ixnay”; 10. Coast Guard noncoms; 11. Field call; 44. Clinic supplies; 45. Overwhelm; 48. Ending with Sea or Ski.

The media can't handle the truth


So yet another Bush administration Cabinet-level official has petitioned to get his conscience and reputation back. This time, it's Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security. The one-time Pennsylvania governor admits in a new book that he felt political pressure from the White House to issue bogus terror alerts before the 2004 presidential election.

Big surprise, right? By 2004, anybody who didn't grasp that crying wolf was the Bush/Cheney administration's basic game plan was probably also astonished last January when the "Texas cowboy" who's never been seen on a horse chose a Dallas mansion over his beloved ranch. Golly, who's doing all that brush-cutting?

Indeed, the most fascinating aspect of the Ridge revelations has been a flame war that's broken out between establishment Washington pundits and less-reverent bloggers. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder started it by observing in smug inside-the-Beltway fashion that he and like-minded colleagues were actually right to be wrong about fake terror warnings.

People who smelled a rat, see, "based their assumption on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence." Whereas, sober-sided thinkers like him credited the Bush administration's good intentions.

Confronted with ample contemporaneous evidence of Bush administration flimflams by Salon's Glenn Greenwald and the scholarly Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake.com, Ambinder apologized for the "gut hatred" part. But he alibied: "Information asymmetry is always going to exist, and, living as we do in a democratic system, most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt, even having learned lessons about giving the government that benefit."

Yeah, sure. Purely with regard to terrorism and national security, by 2004, Bush/Cheney had already gotten caught deceiving the public about having "no warning" before the 9/11 attacks, not to mention about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. If skepticism was still inappropriate, would it ever be warranted?

Yet people who found the timing of terror alerts suspect, such as then-Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, were dismissed as crackpots.

It was much the same after former Secretary of State Colin Powell confessed misgivings about his 2003 U.N. speech that stampeded the United States into an ill-advised war in Iraq. How could any serious American journalist possibly have seen that coming? Or, as your humble, obedient servant here wrote at the time, "War fever, catch it."

This column summarized "mainstream" opinion on Feb. 12, 2003: "The allegedly 'liberal' Washington Post responded editorially with a one-word headline, 'Irrefutable.' Columnist Mary McGrory announced that despite being almost a pacifist ... 'I'm Persuaded,' mostly by what she described as Powell's unimpeachable integrity. Joining the stampede was New York Times columnist Bill Keller, who noted that 'The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club includes op-ed regulars at this newspaper and the Washington Post, the editors of the New Yorker, the New Republic and Slate, columnists in Time and Newsweek."

And yet it was all rubbish, exactly as some of us raised on intelligence hoaxes suspected. Evidence of what I called "chicanery and fraud" in the U.S. case against Iraq was obvious to anybody unafraid to see it.

But here's the big thing about "mainstream" journalism and what Ambinder calls "information asymmetry." Upton Sinclair said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Furthermore, the safest place during a stampede is the middle of the herd. Establishment journalists with mortgages, car payments and children in private schools saw what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Why couldn't it happen to them? (The job I got fired from that month wasn't paying my bills.) The United States had been attacked. Feelings ran high, especially in New York and Washington.

What did it matter if we killed the wrong Arabs, so long as Arabs were being killed? In Thomas Friedman's immortal words, "We hit Iraq because we could. That's the real truth."

Under oath to a Senate committee, Condi Rice told a barefaced whopper about the Aug. 6, 2001, CIA terrorism briefing that Bush blew off. Media insiders pretended not to notice. Bush made a slapstick skit of searching under his Oval Office desk for Iraqi WMDs. The press laughed on cue. He claimed that Saddam Hussein forced him to invade Iraq by expelling U.N. arms inspectors. (In reality, Bush made them leave.) Pundits praised his charm.

Long under siege for "liberal bias," media careerists now find themselves confronted with people they see as passionate amateurs. True, fearless scrappers like my friend Joe Conason have always been around, and somebody like Paul Krugman -- a world-class economist who doesn't care what, say, MSNBC's Chris Matthews thinks of him -- can be very annoying.

But what's really driving these jokers up the wall is economic and intellectual competition from the Internet: people with first-class minds and a passion for truth that some of them can barely remember.

© 2009 Gene Lyons. Distributed by Newspaper Enterprise Association

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/27/lyons/index.html


Afghanistan Apocalypse


Accounts of thinktank evaluations of the war in Afghanistan

By Robert Dreyfuss | Nation

Part 1

Yesterday afternoon at the Brookings Institution, four analysts portrayed a bleak and terrifying vision of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan in the wake of the presidential election. All four were hawkish, reflecting a growing consensus in the Washington establishment that the Afghanistan war is only just beginning.

Their conclusions: (1) A significant escalation of the war will be necessary to avoid utter defeat. (2) Even if tens of thousands of troops are added to the US occupation, it won't be possible to determine if the US/NATO effort is succeeding until eighteen months later. (3) Even if the United States turns the tide in Afghanistan, no significant drawdown of US forces will take place until five years have passed.

The experts at the panel were Bruce Riedel, a 30-year CIA veteran and adviser to four presidents, who chaired President Obama's Afghan task force; Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert and adviser to General David Petraeus; Tony Cordesman, a conservative military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Kim Kagan, head of the Institute for the Study of War.

Not a single panelist questioned the goals, purpose or objectives of the Afghan war. Not one said anything about a political solution to the war, about negotiations, or about diplomacy. Not one questioned the viability of an open-ended commitment to the war. And none of them had any doubts about the strategic necessity of defeating the Taliban and its allies. Although the growing political opposition to the war was referenced in passing -- more than half of Americans say the the war isn't worth fighting, and liberal-left members of Congress are beginning to raise objections -- the panel seemed to believe that President Obama can and must ignore politics and push to expand the war when General McChrystal, as expected, recommends an increase in the the level of US forces once again. O'Hanlon, a well-connected, ultra-hawkish Democrat who backed the war in Iraq, said that the chances that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will lead congressional opposition to the war in Afghanistan in 2009-2010 are zero. "Congress will not pull the rug out from under Barack Obama, before the mid-term elections," he asserted, calling the very idea "unthinkable" and "political suicide."

O'Hanlon, who had just returned from Afghanistan, acknowledged that McChrystal is "fully aware that, right now, America is not winning this war." But he gently scolded Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs, for saying that the war is "deteriorating." If Mullen goes around saying that in public, even after the addition of 21,000 US troops in 2009, he makes it harder to convince Americans that the war is winnable. O'Hanlon strongly favors adding yet more troops, but he didn't provide numbers on how many forces the US will need ultimately. If the United States can turn things around, "In four to five years we will be able to substantially downsize."

The bleakest account of the war came from Cordesman, Washington's resident Cassandra. He delivered a blistering assessment of the Bush administration's complete failure to pursue the Afghan war, with "almost no coherence in strategy" for seven years. President Bush, he said, didn't properly "resource" (i.e., fund) the war, kept troop levels far too low, and failed to build the Afghan National Army (ANA). In addition, he said, US intelligence was extremely poor. The Bush administration and the Pentagon lied about how the war was going, saying, for instance, that only 13 out of 364 Afghan districts were threatened by the Taliban, when if fact nearly half of the country was under siege. And he said that, even under McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry, a former military commander, coordination between the military command and the embassy is "extremely poor."

Cordesman warned that McChrystal and the NATO/ISAF command is under pressure from the White House and the National Security Council not to increase troops levels, and he warned that if "politically correct" limitations are imposed on the US war effort, "I believe we will lose this war." He blasted General James Jones, the national security adviser, for expressing White House opposition to additional troops during a meeting with McChrystal at which Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was present. Of the four panelists, Cordesman was the only one who suggested that Obama and the NSC might resist McChrystal's request for additional forces.

Riedel presented a series of alternative outcomes of the presidential election, which may or may not result in a second-round runoff election in October. He seemed gloomy about the overall election results, noting that overall turnout was held to 30 to 40 percent, and that in some provinces turnout would be far less, below 20 percent. In some areas, less than 5 percent of women voted at all, he said. And he said that President Karzai, if he wins, will emerge even more dependent than before on warlords. Indeed, amid charges of widespread fraud being leveled by leading opposition candidates, general apathy and disaffection about the vote from the majority Pashtun population, and effective Taliban-led intimidation, the election may not create any sense of legitimacy for the next government. (According to Cordesman, "Regardless of who wins, we will not have people capable of governing the country.")

But Riedel's more apocalyptic point came in response to a questioner who wondered why the war is important. If we lose in Afghanistan, or if we withdraw, it will trigger a victorious war dance throughout the Muslim world by radicals and militants, he said. Riedel portrayed the stakes in the war as nothing less than dealing a fatal blow to jihadism. "The triumph of jihadism, in driving NATO out of Afghanistan, will resonate throughout the Muslim world," he said, comparing it to the belief among many Al Qaeda and Taliban types that the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowhere did Riedel suggest that there is a middle ground between crushing the Taliban and an outright Taliban victory over the United States, say, by reaching a political solution brokered by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other outside parties with large sections of the Taliban leadership. Nor did any of the panelists suggest that it's possible to split Al Qaeda and the most extreme elements of the anti-Western forces in Afghanistan-Pakistan away from other Islamists, such as the Taliban's core leadership and guerrilla chieftains such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former US and CIA ally in the 1980s, who is now a key ally of the Taliban.

Martin Indyk, who runs foreign policy for Brookings, asked Riedel if reality, so far, clashed with the plan that he helped draw up for Obama earlier this year. No, said Riedel. He said that Obama had inherited a disaster in Afghanistan from the Bush administration."Trying to turn that around overnight is an illusion," he said. (He failed to note that in trying to turn it around, Obama is turning it in the wrong direction, i.e., toward escalation rather than de-escalation.) "Anyone who thinks that in 12 to 18 months we're going to be anywhere close to victory is living in a fantasy," Riedel said. He did leave open the possibility that the conflict is now unwinnable, and that the US escalation is "too little, too late." But, like the rest of the panelists, Riedel suggested that there is no alternative to victory.

Sadly, like Richard Holbrooke, who two weeks ago told a Washington audience that he can't define victory, none of the panelists bothered to explain what victory might look like either -- only that it will take a decade or more to get there.

Part 2

The highlight of Thursday's event at the Heritage Foundation was analyst Marvin Weinbaum's scathing review of the Afghan elections. Weinbaum, who served as a member of Barack Obama's advisory task force on Afghanistan, is a former analyst for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). His report on the election, where he served as an observer during the vote, contrasted sharply with the happy talk from the administration and from official and semi-official Afghan agencies who presented the vote as an inspiring exercise in democracy.

It wasn't.

Weinbaum warned that the election was so grievously flawed that it may serve to further de-legitimize the regime of President Karzai. Turnout was abysmally low, with only about one-third of Afghans going to the polls, and in some districts -- especially in the Pashtun-dominated south -- perhaps between 5 and 15 percent of people voted, he said. On top of that, Weinbaum said, there is evidence of widespread fraud, and virtually all of the main opposition candidates are charging that the election was rigged. More than a thousand specific complaints have been lodged already, he said, adding that he himself saw properly marked ballots for opposition candidates that had been destroyed and left scattered along a roadside. He suggested that it's likely that evidence of fraud and vote-rigging will emerge in the coming weeks, helping to convince Afghans that the election was illegitimate.

On election day, Weinbaum noted, there were hundreds of violent attacks on polling places across the country, yet most of them went unreported because the Afghan government had insisted that the media ignore them. Observers, like himself, observed the vote almost entirely in relatively secure areas, whereas problems occurred elsewhere. He suggested that large-scale stuffing of ballot boxes and manipulation of the tallying of votes occurred.

As a result, he said, "Our entire strategy may be at stake here." Asked Weinbaum: "How can we expect to partner with a government de-legitimized by the very process by which it came to power?" He zinged the Obama administration for having lauded the electoral process, a wrong-headed judgment that will only embarrass the White House when the full details of the rigged nature of the election emerge.

A key point of the Heritage Foundation presenters, including Weinbaum, is that it is critical for the White House to shore up declining political support for the war -- which is already opposed by a majority of Americans, who've told pollsters the war isn't worth fighting. So the White House is caught between two bad options: if it continues to gloss over problems like the fraudulent election, it will develop a Vietnam-like credibility gap as the truth becomes clear. But if Obama tells the truth, an American public already soured on a hopeless war against a vaguely defined enemy ten thousand miles away, with rising US casualties and the prospect of spending hundreds of billions of dollars, is very likely to decide that it's long past time to get out.

The four panelists at the event -- Weinbaum, General David Barno, Lisa Curtis, and David Isby -- all agreed that getting out of Afghanistan would be a first-order catastrophe, but they didn't prove it to me. In fact, it's a difficult case to make. Their argument was: if we leave, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their jihadist allies will gain influence across the region, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to central Asia and the Persian Gulf. Again, as in Vietnam, all the panelists seemed content to make Vietnam-era, domino-theory arguments that the entirety of the Muslim world is at stake. To me, that's a patently absurd argument.

Here's the reality: First, if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban may or may not take over. Most of the Afghan population hates the Taliban, and the non-Pashtun minorities won't roll over and accept a Taliban victory even if we aren't there to fight alongside them. Second, even if the Taliban do take over, or set up a statelet in the south (consolidating areas already under their control), they may or may not invite Al Qaeda to join them. Al Qaeda already has a base, in Pakistan, and so far they've been unable to use that base to attack much of anything outside the war zone. Besides, the Taliban isn't the same thing as Al Qaeda, and they may find it politic not to re-ally with Osama bin Laden's terrorist band. And third, Taliban-style Islam and Al Qaeda-style terrorism is fast losing support among Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, and there's zero evidence that the re-establishment of a Taliban state in Afghanistan would do much, if anything, to excite Muslims. In fact, it's easier to make the argument that radical Muslim extremists are energized by the US presence in Afghanistan and the concomitant jihad, and that a US withdrawal from Afghanistan would calm passions, not inflame them.

Those facts didn't prevent the team at Heritage -- like the team at Brookings two days ago -- from issuing dire warnings about cataclysms to come if the US doesn't prevail.

General Barno, who commanded US forces in Afghanistan from 2003-2005, stressed in his presentation the importance of domestic US propaganda for the war, saying that a key to the success of the US enterprise in Afghanistan is to "rebuild popular support" for a sustained US effort. Barno's main argument was that the Taliban's strategy is to "run out the clock" -- yes, he used a football analogy! In other words, the Taliban expect that US political support for the war will force a US withdrawal before we can "succeed." (I wanted to ask him if he was aware that precisely the same analogy was used in Vietnam, that the Viet Cong and Hanoi wanted to outlast the US invasion. How ironic.) Okay so far, I guess: but then Barno moved dangerously close to the Republican right's line that anyone who doesn't support the stay-the-quagmire policy is committing treason. "The idea of an exit strategy," said Barno, "plays into the hands of the Taliban strategy." That, to me, is an outrageous affront, as if differing political views about the war are "playing into the hands of the Taliban." Barno should be ashamed oh himself! But he's not. He really believes this crap.

Similar nonsense came from Lisa Curtis, a former Capitol Hill aide now with Heritage, who said that statements about "timelines" -- presumably referring to courageous Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who's challenging Democratic party groupthink -- "encourage the Taliban." Better get on board with our plan, say Barno and Curtis, or you're encouraging the Taliban. (Needless to say, it was the far right, the neoconservatives, and the Reaganauts who spent billions of dollars to support the Islamist nutcases in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Today, they're very upset about acid-in-the-face, burka-imposing, Koran-thumping Talibans. But a generation ago, these very same acid-in-the-face, burka-imposing, Koran-thumping thugs were our anti-Soviet freedom fighters. No apologies were heard at Heritage.)

Comic relief at the Heritage Foundation event was provided by David Isby, a self-described "military expert" and apparent loony right-winger. His two gems: (1) "We need a relationship with Afghanistan like that we have with Israel." And (2) "Every mosque in Afghanistan on Friday preaches propaganda for the enemy." Leaving aside his idiotic comment No, 1, and taking up the second idiotic comment, Isby seems to believe that the problem in Afghanistan is that the people who live there are Muslims. He proposed some cockamamie idea about how America could help reinvent Islam in Afghanistan -- a proposal that, if the Taliban got ahold of it, would adorn every recruiting poster they print. (I know that they don't actually produce recruiting posters. It's a metaphor.)

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/467353/afghan_apocalypse_part_ii