Charlie Rose

robdverity  10/29/2010 07:25 PM Report

Yemenis FedEx mailings makes our Af-Pak endeavors as fatuous as Iraq. Somalia next? We can't police the world. Convert all military spending to intelligence and ME peace. Even then a US hit is inevitable. Making our conventional military expenditures a foolish waste. Asymmetry is becoming asymmetrical^2.

robdverity  10/29/2010 06:15 PM Report

Proctor & Gamble at $60?

BENEZRAA  10/28/2010 10:49 PM Report

A METAPHOR FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION...

Sooner or later, when honor among thieves has played out it's course into utter dishonor and corruption, even that society of thieves must bathe, as even that society of thieves may not tolerate their own stink.

robdverity  10/27/2010 01:12 AM Report

". . . for such firms and individuals to squirrel away money overseas?"

BEN, you're getting to the venality and corruption corroding our country. Laws are indeed for sale, so the one you suggest will be subsumed by the highest bidder - namely the MI oligarches.

Hank Paulson bought an island down there as a monied (ours) example.

BENEZRAA  10/26/2010 09:12 PM Report

BAHAMAS

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Perhaps others did comprehend your meaning via your "rhetorical device". The practicality of actually following the blood money may be daunting, even largely impossible. Would it not be worthwhile to legislate and enforce laws that would make it difficult and costly for such firms and individuals to squirrel away money overseas?

robdverity  10/26/2010 02:05 AM Report

Ben - bombing the Bahamas was a rhetorical device to emphasize following the blood money that would be the only way that they, the war profiteers, might attain some misgivings about their actions.

Some suggestions: if you feel strained for a worthwhile point try ad hominems. Good deflections - always.

BENEZRAA  10/25/2010 09:21 PM Report

CURLUM:

Thank you for your comments.

re: Eisenhower/Nam - You make an interesting argument. I don't buy it, but, it is interesting. Had Eisenhower been succeeded by Nixon instead of Kennedy, who is to say what Nixon would have done? Would Nixon have said, "...why does it matter if some rice paddies in SE Asia fall?" It is said that there is enough oil off the coast of Nam to make all the oil in the Gulf of Mexico look like a stamp on the back of an elephant. As a food supply, Nam in the hands of China would have been strategically significant. And then there is the significance of location as a base of operations in SE Asia. The Domino theory is not an incorrect theory; it is the policy response that was incorrect. Ho Chi Mingh favored the USA, had worked with the USA against the Japs, and would have been a client of the USA. Had Eisenhower not fallen for France's quid pro quo gambit, the USA might well have conducted business and established itself in a united Viet Nam. This is not to say that Nixon would have taken this untraveled path. Nor can we say, what Nixon might have done in Cuba. We only have the history we have, Eisenhower succeeded by JFK....

re: Bombing the Tracks to the Concentration Camps - Here you make a plausible argument, rather than a solid argument. I don't doubt that this was a rationalization by the Allies for their failure to bomb the trains and tracks. If you think about it, the same argument could have been used to say that the Allies should not have conducted any bombing at all. After all, the lack of precision bombing was all that you say it was: highly inaccurate and highly costly in men, planes, and resources. You forgot to mention that the collateral damage was profound; but, there was a war to win....

Curium  10/25/2010 05:09 AM Report

BENEZRAA: Bottom line: If Eisenhower had remained president for a few more years, American combat troops never would have set foot in Vietnam. He would have swatted down the Domino theory in a nanosecond (only Ivy-league pinheads would fall for that sophomoric argument). He would have said, "The BIG dominoes (Russia and China) have already fallen to the communists, so why does it matter if some rice paddies in SE Asia fall?"

As for your statement that we should have bombed the railroad tracks to the concentration camps in WWII: We didn't have precision bombing in those days; you drop a hundred bombs and maybe one would hit the railroad track; and the damage could be repaired in a few hours. We had a war to win, and the bomber casualties (e.g. 8th air force) were already very high. To divert planes and skilled crews to the bomb railroad tracks to camps would have been foolish and reckless. The only way to save people in concentration camps was to win the war as soon as possible, and you don't win wars by delaying the trains to a concentration camp for a few hours, and getting your skilled and experienced air crews killed in the process.

BENEZRAA  10/24/2010 09:11 PM Report

CLARIFICATION

By "local neighborhood" I am referring to the local neighborhood of Pakistan, not of Israel.

BENEZRAA  10/24/2010 09:09 PM Report

ROBDVERITY...

I cannot speak for Israel on a specific question such as to what extent Israel is concerned about Pakistan's nuclear capability. As an American, I am concerned about the close links between Pakistan's intelligence community and military in relation to Al Quaeda and the Taliban. It would surprise me, if this were not also a concern of Israel. In the local neighborhood it is much more the immediate concern of India. It is the concern of Russia and China only to the extent that they may keep their proxies on a tight leash.

As to your mis-perception that "pro Israelis... appear to ALL be saber-rattling jingos promoting US aggression wherever in the world" you are predictably dogmatic, biased, and prejudiced. It would not be incorrect to say that your own dogmas, biases, and prejudices make you quite guilty of jingoism in your own way.

Lastly, but, not leastly, why would you bomb the Bahamas, when it is the failure of our States and of our Nation to enact legislation to prevent wealth created here from leaking overseas, however near or far? Can you only think in terms of violence and destruction as THE WAY? What's it going to take, to wake you up out of your laziness, false interest, dogmatic vomit and thoughtlessness?

robdverity  10/24/2010 04:13 PM Report

Cogent post BEN. Being a geopolitical animal with an apparent pro-Israeli bent, do you see anything a bit fatuous about our "Too two contributions to geo-insanity?" Two too many contributions of two billion dollars EACH to Israel and Pakistan. To your point alluded to with a twist to Pakistan and Israel blowing each other up rather than Iran and Israel. Pak's already loaded. Any trepidations from the Zionists in this regard?

I think the neocons and war-for-profit oligarches play any and every one against the middle to sustain their flow of blood-money. Which IMHO will come home to roost all too soon as we arm others (Pak et al) with drone capability, missiles etc. NYC et al targets within 20 yrs? Technology is transferable. And we're doing it - to accelerate our own peril. Maybe when drones start hitting the Bahamas tax havens, the MI oligarch CEOs will start to wonder if they can take-it-with-them, and wonder about their jingoistic we're the kings of the world stance.

Lastly, my perception of pro Israelis is that they appear to ALL be saber-rattling jingos promoting US aggression wherever in the world, be it Iraq, Af-Pak or Iran. They offer to hold the US's coat while they fight so to speak.

This is totally counter-intuitive imo. Israel will come closer to peace with fewer geo-conflicts than more. Removes a rationale, a terrorists motive, another reason to hate (fewer deaths just might do that). MI oligarch lobbying to continue the world wide death march (see below for proof) solely for their profit is anathema.

BENEZRAA  10/24/2010 12:09 PM Report

IT IS LAZY, SIMPLISTIC, AND NAIVELY STUPID TO EVALUATE AMERICAN WAR PARTICIPATION ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PARTY PARTISANSHIP. NOR DOES SUCH A VIEW EVEN BIGIN TO EVALUATE THE POSSIBLE RIGHT OR WRONG OF ENGAGEMENT IN ANY PARTICULAR WAR. ALL THE WARS MENTIONED WERE CONDUCTED WITH WIDE NON-PARTISAN PARTICIPATION, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY.

For your consideration I would like to point out a few ideas and some facts about the 20th-21st Century wars.

WW1 - Woodrow Wilson was a Princeton University pinhead and a Democrat singular in his leadership in favor of the business capitalism of his time to the point of the destruction of the largest genuine grassroots labor union of his time, the Industrial Workers of the World, and singular in his allowance of the economic destruction of Germany at the hands of Allied greed (see the Versailles Treaty).

WW2 - Franklin D. Roosevelt, also a Democrat and a strong supporter of capitalism, presided over domestic and international consequences to the previous war. Ironically he did so by ameliorating some of the extremes of anti-labor policies manifested by Woodrow Wilson. Another irony is that the anti-semitism of the Roosevelt Administration during WW2, and WW2 itself, would never have occurred, had the Wilson Administration not allowed the Allies of WW1 to so devastate Germany that Germany's worst xenophobic tendencies became realized by the coming to power of the Nazis. I point out the anti-semitism of the Roosevelt Administration in that it is not trivial that so many Jewish refugees were refused aid or entry to the USA, that that the Railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps were not bombed, that the concentration camps were not bombed (so many more prisoners would have survived bombing than survived "business as usual").

KOREA - It may be argued, whether or not Korea should have been divided into North and South; and it may be argued, whether or not the USA should have stayed the course and prevented manifestation of a North Korea; it may not be argued, that South Korea would rather be governed by North Korea. President Truman was a Democrat, and the first President to have The Bomb in his arsenal; who among us may actually stand in his decision-making shoes, Republican or Democrat?

VIETNAM - It was General Eisenhower, a Republican, who made a deal with the French, soon after WW2, as a QUID PRO QUO, that France would participate in NATO in exchange for American support for France to fight against the Viet Mingh so that France might re-colonialize Viet Nam. The Viet Mingh were the nationalist army under Ho Chi Mingh, which army worked hand in hand with America's OSS to kick the Japs out of Viet Nam, when the Japs had already kicked the French out. Under the Eisenhower Administration the OSS was transformed into the CIA, which turned against Ho Chi Mingh and the Viet Mingh, thus forcing Ho Chi Mingh into alliance with the USSR and even into alliance with the hated Chinese. This chain of events led to the USA getting bogged down into the Viet Nam War, and also distracted the USA from giving sufficient support to the nation of Tibet, which was all too easily overrun by the Chinese, who now control not only Tibet, but, also a third of Kashmir (we never hear about Chinese Kashmir, only about the conflict in Kashmir between pro-India and pro-Pakistan factions). Is it any wonder that China gains from the conflict between India and Pakistan/Afghanistan, feeding the Jihadists with weapons, resources, and refuge for as long as it may be expedient to do so, feeding America with low-cost goods that Americans buy because Americans are paying for War? President Kennedy, Democrat, did ramp up the Nam by sending thirty-thousand troops; President Johnson, a Democrat, did further ramp up the Nam by sending humdreds of thousands of troops; but, the circumstances and mindset for that war did begin with President Eisenhower, a Republican. Ironically, it was President Eisenhower, who warned America about the threat of the "Military Industrial Complex".

GRANADA - "Hello Mother, Hello Father, I am here at Camp Granada..." (comedian Alan Sherman). Enter President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Did he do right in Granada? Popular knowledge says that he did, even though it may have seemed to many to be an action analogous to swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN - Still happening, primarily under Republican Administration, now under Democratic Administration.

IRAN - Care to place your bets?

A FURTHER NOTE: AS IMPORTANT AS THE WARS ENGAGED IN MAY BE THOSE NOT ENGAGED IN. CONSIDER: THE MULAHS AND WOULD-BE "MAHDI" MUHAMMAD AHMADINIJAD MIGHT NOT BE RULING IRAN, HAD THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER NOT ABANDONED THE SHAH, MOHAMMAD REZA PALEVI. Compare the 2200 Iranian political prisoners reported by Amnesty International contemporary to and under the Palevi regime to what exists in Iran now. Is Iran better off now for Carter's failure to support Iran then? Under Mohammad Palevi, a believing Muslim, who modernized his nation, Iran was the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel. Under the Muhlas and Ahmadinijad Iran has been the pillar of support to Hezbollah and Hamas, and which is now a client state of Russia. Has former President Carter been an agent for Russia, or merely a profound hater of Iran and Israel? For the cold peace between Israel and the Arabs, Jimmy Carter was given a Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee ignored (or supported?) what Carter allowed to happen in Iran. Now we have another President, a Democrat, with a Nobel Prize granted in advance of any actual achievement save successful election. Care to make a wager? Will President Obama stand up to Iran? He talked the talk; will he walk the walk? Will he be to Carter, as Roosevelt was to Wilson? Will he do it without being anti-Israeli and yet pro-Arab and pro-Persian? Or will he merely back out of Afghanistan, throw up his hands, and say, "Let Israel and Iran blow each other up and we'll pick up the pieces later." Or will the Congress, Republican and Democrat, decide that right or wrong, it's too expensive to continue funding wars and related involvements abroad, be it in Central Asia or in the Middle East? What groundwork will a new Congress in 2012 lay for Foreign Policy and for the 2014 Presidential Election? Will 2014 bring us a Democrat or a Republican or a Tea Party executive branch? Do Tea Partiers drink coffee?

Enough already. Back to my obsidian crystal ball....

robdverity  10/23/2010 05:23 PM Report

Curium - my accusation of "Republicans" was and is aimed at the MI oligarches. And no, I have not verified that. However, I'm willing to bet the farm on it nonetheless. Prove me wrong and I'll withdraw immediately - nonplussed and abashed.

Curium  10/23/2010 01:51 AM Report

robdverity: How do you reconcile your portrayal of Republicans as warmongers with the actual facts of the 20th century? E.g., the fact that about 99% of American combat deaths in the last 100 years occurred in wars that were entered under Democratic presidents: WWI (Wilson); WWII (Roosevelt); Korea (Truman); Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson). Compared to those wars, the recent Iraq and Afghan wars are mere blips. By the way, it was Eisenhower (Republican) who got us *out* of Korea, and Nixon (Republican) who got us *out* of Vietnam. Your perception doesn't fit the facts.

robdverity  10/21/2010 05:22 PM Report

The MI oligarches top 10 lobbyist purchasers:

Below is a breakdown of the military contractor, lobbying expenditures and the amount of money the company earned in contracts last year.

Company: Boeing

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $6.13 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $3.71 million

Federal Contracts in FY08 (according to fedspending.org): $23,547,610,878

Company: United Technologies

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $3.66 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $1.39 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $8,973,091,375

Company: Lockheed Martin

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $3.16 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $3.1 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $35,729,713,235

Company: Honeywell International

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $1.94 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $1.66 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $2,439,634,130

Company: Northrop Grumman

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $5.43 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $3.62 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $24,921,637,857

Company: General Dynamics

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $3,000,697

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $2,496,308

Federal Contracts in FY08: $14,244,546,441

Company: Raytheon

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $2.19 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $1.9 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $14,276,349,843

Company: L3

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $1.05 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $990,000

Federal Contracts in FY08: $7,464,053,901

Company: Textron

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $460,000

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $890,000

Federal Contracts in FY08: $2,858,396,315

Company: Goodrich

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $447, 098

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $425,529

Federal Contracts in FY08: $490,224,761

No way they're going to let that gravy train get away.

Doubtless Republicans all, and all decrying big-spending Democrats.

BENEZRAA  10/21/2010 02:40 AM Report

??PREDICTIONS

Loyal Al-Quaeda and Taliban operatives will aid Ossama's escape into Chinese Kashmir, only to find that this former refuge will be their undoing. Most of these operatives will meet a bloody death at the hands of the former welcoming Chinese, who will gain an international propaganda victory by capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban will play a part in the new Afghanistan, which will not live up to Western hopes, but, will live up to pragmatic Western expectations. It will be a good time for all to invest in tourist and supporting industries in and around Kashmir including the border areas of China (perhaps even in the territory of Tibet), Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Russia.

Kashmir will become the Switzerland of Central Asia, so expect to see lots of Russians, Chinese, and even some Central Asians engaged in climbing, skiing and yodeling on the slopes of the Himalyas; James Hilton and Frank Capra may be rolling over in their graves about now (ref: THE LOST HORIZON). Invest in the production of yogurt and chocolates; invest in hotels, restaurants, banking, and the fashion industry; invest in the building of rails and roads.

And get ready for The Big One. The Brits are standing down their military capabilities; President Obama is fanning the Sunni-Shia flames by proposing to provide F-18's to Saudia Arabia (which could amount to providing these F-18's to Iran should there be a Saudia-Iranian Alliance, as Iran's Ahmadinijad believes himself to be The Mahdi, who by Muslim prophecy will unite Islam's Sunni and Shia factions into one great Army of Islamic Jihad); China and North Korea have been ramping up their militaries; and both India and Pakistan have The Bomb. Of course there may well be a related War [of Oil? of Distraction?] in the Sudan.

Invest in sunglasses....

BENEZRAA  10/21/2010 02:40 AM Report

??PREDICTIONS

Loyal Al-Quaeda and Taliban operatives will aid Ossama's escape into Chinese Kashmir, only to find that this former refuge will be their undoing. Most of these operatives will meet a bloody death at the hands of the former welcoming Chinese, who will gain an international propaganda victory by capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban will play a part in the new Afghanistan, which will not live up to Western hopes, but, will live up to pragmatic Western expectations. It will be a good time for all to invest in tourist and supporting industries in and around Kashmir including the border areas of China (perhaps even in the territory of Tibet), Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Russia.

Kashmir will become the Switzerland of Central Asia, so expect to see lots of Russians, Chinese, and even some Central Asians engaged in climbing, skiing and yodeling on the slopes of the Himalyas; James Hilton and Frank Capra may be rolling over in their graves about now (ref: THE LOST HORIZON). Invest in the production of yogurt and chocolates; invest in hotels, restaurants, banking, and the fashion industry; invest in the building of rails and roads.

And get ready for The Big One. The Brits are standing down their military capabilities; President Obama is fanning the Sunni-Shia flames by proposing to provide F-18's to Saudia Arabia (which could amount to providing these F-18's to Iran should there be a Saudia-Iranian Alliance, as Iran's Ahmadinijad believes himself to be The Mahdi, who by Muslim prophecy will unite Islam's Sunni and Shia factions into one great Army of Islamic Jihad); China and North Korea have been ramping up their militaries; and both India and Pakistan have The Bomb. Of course there may well be a related War [of Oil? of Distraction?] in the Sudan.

Invest in sunglasses....

BENEZRAA  10/21/2010 12:38 AM Report

REFERENCE

The "Banana Boat Song" popularized by Harry Belafonte.

"Hey! Mistah Tally Man! Tally me banana! [etc.]"

BENEZRAA  10/21/2010 12:32 AM Report

"DAY-O! DAY-AY-AY-AY-OH! DAYLIGHT COME 'N ME WANN GO HOME...."

"Hey! Mistah Taliban! Tally Me Ossama! Daylight come 'n me wann go home!"

BENEZRAA  10/20/2010 11:48 PM Report

"Vehhllly Intellestingh!" would have said 'Wolfgang' (Arte Johnson of Rowan and Martin 'Laugh-in' fame). "I vunder ow much de enemy shpent! De collective enmity izh zhooo much money! But shtupid!"

robdverity  10/20/2010 06:02 PM Report

No way they're going to let that gravy train get away.

Doubtless Republicans all, and all decrying big-spending Democrats.

robdverity  10/20/2010 05:59 PM Report

The MI oligarches top 10 lobbyist purchasers: (N.B. Goodrich the only one not in the billions of earnings.)

Below is a breakdown of the military contractor, lobbying expenditures and the amount of money the company earned in contracts last year.

Company: Boeing

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $6.13 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $3.71 million

Federal Contracts in FY08 (according to fedspending.org): $23,547,610,878

Company: United Technologies

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $3.66 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $1.39 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $8,973,091,375

Company: Lockheed Martin

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $3.16 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $3.1 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $35,729,713,235

Company: Honeywell International

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $1.94 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $1.66 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $2,439,634,130

Company: Northrop Grumman

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $5.43 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $3.62 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $24,921,637,857

Company: General Dynamics

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $3,000,697

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $2,496,308

Federal Contracts in FY08: $14,244,546,441

Company: Raytheon

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $2.19 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $1.9 million

Federal Contracts in FY08: $14,276,349,843

Company: L3

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $1.05 million

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $990,000

Federal Contracts in FY08: $7,464,053,901

Company: Textron

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $460,000

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $890,000

Federal Contracts in FY08: $2,858,396,315

Company: Goodrich

Lobbying In Fourth Quarter: $447, 098

Lobbying In Third Quarter: $425,529

Federal Contracts in FY08: $490,224,761

robdverity  10/20/2010 05:54 PM Report

For those who suspect correctly that I'm a flaming liberal, try this from the Huffington Post:

The ten largest defense contractors in the nation spent more than $27 million lobbying the federal government in the last quarter of 2009, according to a review of recently-filed lobbying records.

The massive amount of money used to influence the legislative process came as the White House announced it would ramp up military activity in Afghanistan and Congress considered appropriations bills to pay for that buildup. All told, these ten companies, the largest revenue earners in the industry, spent roughly $7.2 million more lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2009 (October through December) than in the three months prior.

Such an increase in lobbying expenditures is partly a reflection of just how profitable the business of waging war can be. Each of these companies earned billions of dollars in defense contracts this past year.

robdverity  10/20/2010 05:40 PM Report

COOOOORECTIONSSS ARE CONTAGIOUS.

to maintain their (not there) war-for-profit.

robdverity  10/20/2010 05:36 PM Report

Sounds like a desperate death knell to me. Wasn't that a similar refrain at the end of Vietnam? Public opinion must have dropped even more than expected. Not that the MI oligarches would manipulate the news to maintain there war-for-profit adventure.

When Iraq succumbs to a despotic (Saddam reincarnation) governance will the surge still be held as successful? When we (finally) leave Af-Pak (10 yrs hence?) with a net increase in enmity and enemies (with terrorists coming from elsewhere like Yemen, Somalia) will the good General be so jingoistic then? Of course - it's his vocation.

Keep sending your sons and daughters, quarterly reports are always looming - along with yacht payments.

BENEZRAA  10/20/2010 03:47 PM Report

COORRECTION:

First sentence should read "is" credible (not "are" credible).

BENEZRAA  10/20/2010 03:45 PM Report

A POSITIVE REPORT FROM GENERAL KEANE...

And given the source are credible. Nonetheless, just as the "jury" is still out with respect to the situation in Iraq, so to is the jury still out regarding Afghanistan. While we do have the model of the success of the surge in Iraq, there has not yet been sufficient elapsed time in the development of the new Iraq by which to extend the same or similar model to Afghanistan predictions beyond the likely success of the Afghanistan surge. That said, there is no successful result without successful follow-through. Any premature withdrawl, any premature cessation of action can only signal "taking a dive" (to use a phrase from another martial activity). I agree with REMant that General Keane's forecast should not be taken for granted; but, I have more faith in General Keane than REMant seems to have. Nor do I perceive a colonial attitude in General Keane. To the contrary General Keane comes across to me as a man, who knows his profession, has a clear headed view of the realities of the situation, expresses his views humbly, and would like to see no more and no less than completion of the task at hand in order to secure freedom for the Afghan people and in order to bring our troops home.

REMant  10/20/2010 12:35 PM Report

The admin certainly is working hard these days. Napolitano was on The View this AM assuring the ladies everything is being done about immigration enforcement and "homeland" security. Gen Keane's view is certainly not the same as has been reported in recent weeks. What about the number of Afghan army desertions? Reports of extensive pot use? The Karzai govt's approach to the Taliban? Can it honestly be said that counterinsurgency is behind reports of discouragement or is it due to special forces activity? How can anyone put faith in govt polls or by any outside group, when they stage rigged elections? Nevertheless, I have no doubt that more troops have made a difference, but the question is, how much, and for how long. What do they propose to replace opium with? I'm sorry, the timing, etc of this is too suspicious, and the message too much like the mission statement. Plus I don't really like his rather colonial attitude. BTW, if the Sadrists and Kurds do join the al-Maliki govt, leaving the Sunnis out, what do you think will happen?