Later On

Useful to know:

For far too long, the war in Afghanistan has been dubbed "the forgotten war." After U.S. forces ousted the Taliban in 2001, the Bush administration quickly shifted critical resources to the less critical war in Iraq. The Pentagon repeatedly begged President Bush for additional troops for Afghanistan, which never seemed to materialize. The Center for American Progress’s Lawrence Korb and Caroline Wadhams warned that this "forgotten front" could become "a terrorist haven for Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist networks." In the meantime, security around the region dramatically deteriorated, heroin production spiked, and government corruption ran rampant. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen has said of the current situation, "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must." In the past year, attention has shifted back to Afghanistan as coalition troop deaths there began surpassing those in Iraq. On Tuesday, President Obama announced that had approved the deployment of 17,000 U.S. soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan. This move is a fulfillment of a campaign promise made by Obama and marks the beginning of the drawdown in Iraq, where these troops were originally headed. "This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," explained Obama. To put together a comprehensive strategy to accompany this troop increase, Obama has authorized a strategic review — led by former CIA official Bruce Riedel, who was a member of the CAP’s 2008 working group on Pakistan — of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

CHANGING THE DYNAMICS: There are already 38,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, compared to 146,000 in Iraq. To meet Obama’s request, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered the deployment of 8,000 Marines — who are expected to arrive by late spring — and a 4,000-strong Army brigade that will follow in the summer. Another 5,000 support troops will be sent at a "later date." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) welcomed Obama’s announcement this week; Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that more troops were long overdue, but added that "the president must spell out for the American people what he believes victory in Afghanistan will look like and articulate a coherent strategy for achieving it." It’s important to keep in mind the mission in Afghanistan. As Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) recently wrote in the Washington Post, "The United States is not in Afghanistan to make it our 51st state — but to make sure it does not become an al-Qaeda narco-state and terrorist beachhead capable of destabilizing neighboring Pakistan." Indeed, the bulk of these new troops will be going to southern Afghanistan, where the poppy trade has exploded under the Taliban, which uses the profits to fund its forces. "What this [additional troop deployment] allows us to do is change the dynamics of the security situation, predominantly in southern Afghanistan, where we are at best stalemated," said commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan Gen. David McKiernan.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve noticed that many executives try to tinker with how things are measured if the measurements are unsatisfactory—much easier to bend the needle so that it’s not in the red than to actually fix the boiler. Easier and dangerous. But the Center for American Progress notes:

For the budget he will present next week, President Obama "has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller." The move away from budget gimmicks, one of which used to be failing to note the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will create "a budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear."

From the Center on American Progress:

In December, the United States joined China, Russia, the Vatican, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in refusing to support an unprecedented U.N. declaration calling for a worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. While the declaration "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests, or detention" was signed by 66 countries, the Bush administration "couched its objection to the measure in legal technicalities." At the time, human rights advocates slammed Bush for "trying to come up with Christmas presents for the religious right so it will be remembered." But yesterday, continuing the Obama administration’s rejection of Bush-era policies and attitudes, the U.S. offered support for a proposal to condemn "all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation" at the U.N.’s "Durban Review Conference" on racism and xenophobia in Geneva. While the measure failed because of resistance from non-western countries, U.N. Dispatch’s Mark Leon Goldberg noted that "it’s relieving to see that the United States is now back on the side of the enlightened on this issue of basic human rights."

Not doing too badly. Too bad we didn’t have one of these for George W. Bush. Details here.

Another environmental victory:

Anti-coal activists scored a win on Tuesday as the U.S. EPA signaled that it is reconsidering the Bush administration’s late decree that greenhouse-gas emissions shouldn’t be taken into account when determining whether to approve the construction of new coal-fired power plants.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said in a letter [PDF] to the Sierra Club that the agency will revisit the Bush-era memo and publish a proposed rulemaking on emissions from coal-fired plants in the Federal Register sometime in the near future, seeking public comment on the decision. The move reopens the possibility of regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act, and essentially puts a freeze on the construction of as many as 100 new coal-fired power plants around the country.

In November of last year, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board ruled that the Bush administration had failed to offer a good reason for not regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from the proposed Bonanza coal-fired power plant in Utah, but a month later EPA administrator Stephen Johnson issued a memo essentially overruling that decision.

The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the EPA on Jan. 6 challenging the legality of the Johnson memo. Briefs in that case were due the second week of February, but Obama’s EPA agreed to reconsider the decision rather than let the lawsuit proceed…

Continue reading.

Mercury pollution is, to my mind, a very serious problem. Mercury is highly toxic, and the amount released into the environment is coming back to us via the foods we eat. And the half-life of mercury (an element) is infinity: it doesn’t just go away. Something must be done other than the course taken by the Bush Administration (advice to cut back on foods contaminated by mercury). This story from AP:

The new U.S. government abruptly reversed years of Bush administration policy Monday by calling for a legally binding international treaty to reduce mercury pollution, which a senior American diplomat called the most important chemical problem in the world today.

Some 6,000 tons of mercury enter the environment each year, about a third generated by power stations and coal fires. Much settles into the oceans where it enters the food chain and is concentrated in predatory fish like tuna.

Children and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to poisoning by the toxic metal, which can cause birth defects, brain damage and peeling skin.

Daniel Reifsnyder, the deputy assistant secretary of state for environment and sustainable development, told a gathering of global gathering of environmental ministers in Nairobi, Kenya, that the U.S. wants negotiations on limiting mercury to begin this year and conclude within three.

"We’re prepared to help lead in developing a globally legally binding instrument," he said. "It is clear mercury is the most important global chemical issue facing us today that calls for immediate action."

The statement represented a "a 180-degree turnaround" from policy under the Bush administration, said Michael Bender, co-coordinator of the Zero Mercury Working Group, a global coalition of 75 environmental organizations working to reduce mercury exposure.

"The change is like night and day. The Bush administration opposed any international legal agreements on mercury and President (Barack) Obama is in office less than one month and is already supporting a global agreement," he said.

Bender said his group has had more discussions over mercury control in the past two weeks than they have in the last eight years and that the U.S. government included many of their ideas in the proposal they are presented in Nairobi…

Continue reading.

Full disclosure: Rasage Poulin sent me the two new products gratis for me to try. Normally, I buy the products I use, but recently some shaving stores have wanted me to try things, and I’m not buying any more shaving products (for the most part), so my policy of only trying things I buy would lock them out. So I decided that the upfront way of handling you is to tell you when I’ve received a complimentary product, but then review it as I would normally.

I’ve not used the little Simpsons Classic shaving brush before—it’s rather small—but yesterday’s experience with the Nancy Boy shaving cream (a nonlathering shave cream) showed me that a damp brush is a great tool for applying nonlathering shave creams, much nicer than trying to use your fingers. You don’t want to add much, if any, water: these shaving creams are meant to be complete in themselves.

So the brush worked great at spreading a thin coating of the Salt Spring Soapworks shaving cream (another full disclosure: The Wife’s Brother and Sister-in-Law live on Salt Spring) over my morning stubble. Then I went to work with the Futur. Very nice shave, all told. The amount of shaving cream in the brush worked fine for three passes, and the Futur did its usual great job. Overall, I would say that this shaving cream is not in the same league as Nancy Boy, but it’s quite doable.

The aftershave spritz was nice, except that since I wear glasses, misting stuff onto my face is somewhat problematic. Nonetheless, this mode of application is quite frugal and it’s also what Charles Roberts uses for his Method Shaving aftershaves. The All Things Jill aftershave contains: witch hazel, lavender, peppermint, glycerin, bergamot oil, frankincense oil, and pepperment oil. This was quite pleasant, though I think next time I’ll unscrew the cap and splash it on in my usual style. Still, if you don’t wear glasses, the mist is quite pleasant and refreshing—and feels nice and cool.

Overall, quite a nice shave, and my thanks to Rasage Poulin for letting me try these products.

A wireless camcorder. That is, a camcorder (small, portable, reasonably affordable) that broadcasts via…  Bluetooth? to a recording station. Bluetooth is too short a range. The idea is that the violent offender could grab and destroy the camera—this is often what happens when cameras are used to record police violence—but that would butter no parsnips, since the actual recording is in another, undisclosed, location. I don’t think the technology’s available yet, but it’s an interesting idea. In fact, it occurs to me, that if you set up a laptop to receive the signal, the video could be streamed directly onto the net and recorded at the same time.

Check out this post for a great pair of gloves.

Pretty simple:

Individual Marine combat loads — including protective gear, weapons, ammunition, water, food and communications gear — range from 97 to 135 pounds, well over the recommended 50 pounds, a 2007 Navy study found.

In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions, said Jim Stone, acting director of the soldier requirements division at the Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga. In Iraq, where patrols are more likely to use vehicles, loads range from 60 to nearly 100 pounds, he said.

"It’s like a horse: We can load you down, and you just don’t last as long," Stone said.

Injuries — the bulk of them muscular-skeletal — are the main cause of hospitalizations and outpatient visits for active-duty Army soldiers, leading to about 880,000 visits per year, according to Army data. The injuries include sprains, stress fractures, inflammation and pain from repetitive use, and they are most common in the lower back, knees, ankles, shoulders and spine. They are one of the leading reasons that soldiers miss duty, said Col. Barbara Springer, director of rehabilitation under the Army surgeon general.

Read the full article here. It’s a very serious problem, with more and more soldiers becoming undeployable due to muscular-skeletal injuries.

I want one, of course. The video below is from the Cool Tools post where I learned about it, and that post has two more videos, plus order information. Check it out.

Obama Foodorama has a very good update about the doings of the new Secretary of Agriculture (and that title should definitely be changed to "Secretary of Food"). It begins:

Obama Foodorama has been impressed–you might even say amazed–at the very bizzy bee-ness of Tom Vilsack, our new Secretary of Agriculture. Lately he’s been up to all kinds of things that are setting the food world abuzz, what with his pseudo policy changes, his adoption of faux Michael Pollan speak, his non-pronouncements on food safety, his meeting with US Rice farmers (who?!), his veiled threats that Ag policy might be based on his own eating disorder, his hacking up the pavement at USDA headquarters to plant a "People’s Garden" (garden ceremony, in pic). Heck, Bizzy V has even thrown the junkies out of the USDA, though he’s also admitted he has no idea who actually works for him, so there could be more busts in the future. All of this has been extravagantly documented on USDA’s website, where there’s now a photo gallery of Bizzy V that’s the Ag equivalent of People magazine. It’s been excellent watching Vilsack trying to become a household name (perhaps for another run for president, in 2012?), and we can hardly keep up. But we’ve been liking the show!

Today’s page in the Bizzy V Big Ag Adventure Book has an international flavor. Yesterday, Bizzy V announced that he’d have a press conference today to publicly inform US meat producers/packers that they’d better get their collective asses in gear and start voluntarily coding their products with strict Country of Origin Labeling.

COOL is USDA’s long-disputed yet absurdly simple law that requires that the name of the country where a piece of food originates be attached to that piece of food. But the wording of the law is as confusing as a speech by Blago, and there are loopholes in it that are large enough to fly Air Force One through. There’s all kinds of nonsense about excluding processed foods, and foods that are sold in markets and malls, and foods that might’ve been created by, say, fairies. The final rules for COOL were supposed to take effect on March 16, but the date was rolled forward when Rahm Emanuel put the brakes on all Bush-era policies. We’re still officially in the "public comment period" for COOL, but that didn’t matter to Bizzy V.

In what now looks like an odd, mad power grab, Bizzy V decided he’d strong-arm US processors and producers, and announce his own new interpretation of the COOL rules today in his press conference, in advance of Barack’s very first trip "abroad," to Canada. Bizzy V was going to "urge" the meat industry to "voluntarily" adopt stricter labeling standards, or face his wrath.

Screaming ensued from …

Continue reading.

I must be in a salad mood. This recipe from the Kitchn [sic] seems quite appealing:

Fresh Fennel and Lemon Slaw
serves 6, at least

1 large bulb fennel
1/2 head green cabbage
1 head red radicchio
2 lemons (preferably Meyer lemon)
3 tablespoons orange juice
3 tablespoons red wine vinegar
1 teaspoon soy sauce
1 teaspoon sugar
1/3 cup olive oil
Salt and pepper

Finely chop the fronds of the fennel bulb. Thinly slice the stalks and bulb with a mandoline (or finely chop with a chef’s knife). Do the same with the cabbage and radicchio, and toss all the vegetables together. Zest the Meyer lemons and toss with the vegetables. Season to taste with salt and pepper.

Whisk the dressing ingredients together, taste, and adjust. Toss with salad and refrigerate for an hour before serving.

UPDATE. Good, demned good. I omitted the sugar and in its place had 3 strips crisp bacon, chopped. I also added a good slug of pepper sauce and a handful of grated 4-cheese TJ’s blend. This is the first time I realized I could eat all of the fennel. Duh. Next time I make it, I’ll also include half a red onion, minced.

This recipe looks good, from Everybody Likes Sandwiches:

Tahini ginger slaw

1/2 small head of red cabbage, shredded
1 jumbo sized carrot (like a really, really, really huge carrot – or several normal sized ones)
1/2 small, red onion, sliced thinly
1/2 red pepper, diced

Dressing

1 T tahini
juice of half a lemon
1 t minced fresh ginger
1 t agave syrup
1/4 c olive oil
salt & pepper, to taste

Mix together all the vegetables into a large bowl. In a mixing cup or small bowl combine all the dressing ingredients. Pour dressing over salad (not all of it!) and let sit for a few minutes or just dig in!

She includes links to other of her salads. Check ‘em out:

Creamy Asian Slaw
Kitchen Sink Salad
Lemon Coleslaw
My Waldorf Salad
North Carolina Coleslaw
Peanutty Coleslaw

Very interesting post, which begins:

PRINCIPLES FOR AN AFGHANISTAN STRATEGY

As the Obama Administration begins a 60-day review of its Afghanistan strategy, a diverse group of progressive experts in development, counter-terrorism, regional politics and US politics came together to advise NSN on a set of principles that might guide both the Administration in building a new strategy and advocates in Congress, the media and the public in judging a proposed strategy. We begin from the premise that the situation in the United States, and the history and dynamics of the region, require a sharp differentiation between objectives that we might like to achieve and a baseline of what must be achieved for our national interests and our moral obligations – to our military, our citizens and the people of Afghanistan.

Realities: The ‘Why’ and ‘Why Not?’

Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan are in a crisis that was years in the making. Under President Bush’s neglect, the situation in Afghanistan grew steadily worse. The Afghan government has grown dysfunctional, the Taliban once again threaten large swaths of the country, al-Qaeda is reconstituted along the border with Pakistan, our allies’ commitment is waning and the Afghan people are losing hope.

National security interests are at stake in Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s continued deterioration would allow al-Qaeda central, which intelligence agencies identify as the greatest national security threat to the United States, to operate with impunity under a resurgent Taliban. It would also risk greater instability in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state with a struggling civilian government.

Domestic and Afghan constraints severely limit what we can achieve. Americans are justifiably reluctant to redouble efforts in Afghanistan. Afghan history as well as fatigue from the Iraq War and the economic downturn all argue against a US presence that is massive and unlimited in time or scope.

The scale of the challenge demands broad vision but modest objectives. Larger than Iraq, with a population close to 32 million, Afghanistan suffers from one of the world’s lowest development levels, scant economic opportunity, crude infrastructure, and a dependence on the opium trade – interrelated problems that go beyond the near term issue of worsening security. Humanitarian and governance goals to which Afghans and many Americans rightly aspire will be better-served by a smaller-scale effort which can enable local, regional and non-governmental efforts than a massive one which cannot be sustained.

Principles: The ‘How’ and ‘For What?’
…

Continue reading.

Very good lengthy (two-part, in fact) post on the blog Invictus, which begins:

Oh, beat the drum slowly and play the fife lowly…

In the United States, questions around prosecution of war crimes revolve around the use of torture by Bush Administration officials, as well as the illegality of the U.S. attack on Iraq, which resulted in over a million deaths.

As regards torture, the Bush administration’s head judge at Guantanamo has already admitted that torture was used at that facility, and dropped the charges against one high-profile detainee, Mohammad al-Qatani, as a result.

When it comes to the attack on Iraq, there was this report in the Guardian late last year:

Addressing the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night, [former British senior judge, retired, Lord] Bingham said: "If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the security council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law. "For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the security council …"

If you read for awhile the various blog and mainstream press opinion pieces on the issue of prosecuting American officials, you will come across a good deal of pessimism and ignorance. Some of the critics of prosecuting are well-informed, but present one-sided views of the difficulties involved in making such a prosecution. But UN officials seem to find the issue quite straightforward.

From The Jurist:

[A]ccording to a statement made by UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Manfred Nowak in an interview Tuesday with German television program ZDF Frontal 21. Nowak said that such actions constituted a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a party. Nowak noted that although evidence is available to press charges, he does not know whether US law would recognize the interrogation techniques used as forms of torture.

There are a number of instruments whereby U.S. officials are vulnerable to war crimes charges. The UN Convention Against Torture required implementing laws to be established in signatory states. Consequently, the U.S. "enacted 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340 and 2340A, which prohibit torture occurring outside the United States (torture occurring inside the United States was already generally prohibited under several federal and state statutes criminalizing acts such as assault, battery, and murder)" (see CRS report).

Besides CAN, the U.S. has a duty to prosecute Bush administration officials, both civilian and military (and intelligence), for torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. H/T to Charles Gittings (emphasis added): …

Continue reading.

Murray Waas has a lengthy and excellent summary of the situation. It begins:

At least nine Bush administration officials refused to cooperate with various Justice Department investigations during the final days of the Bush presidency, according to public records and interviews with federal law enforcement officials and many of the officials and their attorneys. In addition, two U.S. senators, a congresswoman, and the chief of staff to one of them, also refused to cooperate with the same investigations.

In large part because of that noncooperation, Justice Department officials sought criminal prosecutors in at least two cases so far to take over their investigations so that they can compel the testimony of many of those officials to testify through the use of a federal grand jury.

With the stakes now escalating for both sides — the possibility of grand jury subpoenas for recalcitrant witnesses and the specter of senior government officials invoking their Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination — it remains unclear whether and how many of them will continue to defy investigators.

In one instance, an attorney for former Bush White House chief political strategist Karl Rove recently told TPMmuckraker that even though Rove had refused to cooperate with an earlier Justice Department inquiry into the firings by the Bush administration of nine U.S. attorneys, he would now fully cooperate with a federal grand jury that has been empanelled to hear evidence in the case. But most of the other former senior White House officials, as well as members of Congress and their staffs, declined to say for this article whether they have or will cooperate with the various federal criminal investigations.

Previously, two Justice Department watchdog offices, the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility conducted investigations of the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the politicization by the Bush administration of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. But those two offices do not have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses outside the department itself or to initiate criminal prosecutions. The Inspector General and OPR successfully sought the naming of a criminal prosecutor to take over their probes.

In a report that the Inspector General and OPR made public last September detailing the findings of their investigation of the prosecutor firings, they asserted that their investigation was severely "hampered… because key witnesses declined to cooperate with our investigation."

In regard to the investigation of the politicization of the Civil Rights Division, …

Continue reading.

Excellent editorial:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has persistently attempted to reverse “harmful, dangerous, un-American and illegal” practices of the last seven years.

She recently pressed CIA nominee Leon Panetta on secret CIA detention and torture, asking: “Will the CIA continue the practice of extraordinary rendition by which the government will transfer a detainee to either a foreign government or a black site for the purpose of long-term detention and interrogation, as opposed to for law enforcement purposes?”

Panetta responded, “No we will not, because under the executive order signed by the president, that kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values – that has been forbidden by the executive order.”

So far, so good. The United States, going forward, rejects Bush administration policies and will abide by its own laws and international treaties.

But undoing Bush administration actions seems to be another matter. In an actual case, the Obama Justice Department is hewing to a sweeping Bush position regarding “state secrets,” arguing that courts should dismiss without hearing any evidence a challenge by individuals who allege they were abducted, sent abroad and tortured.

The case at hand involves a San Jose company. …

Continue reading.

Russ Kick has available some new documents, which he lists in this post:

The documents are available here (scroll down to the sections titled “DOD Document Release” and “Noteworthy Pages from DOD Doc Release” at the bottom of the page).

AlterNet has covered the release: “Explosive New Documents Reveal More Details of Bush-Era Torture, Including Prisoners Tortured to Death.”

From the Center for Constitutional Rights:

February 12, 2009, New York and Washington, DC—Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit confirm Department of Defense involvement in the CIA’s ghost detention program, revealed three prominent human rights groups today. The groups—…

Continue reading. With documents like this on the Web, I can imagine that some pretty good papers are being written in Problems of Democracy classes these days.

Glenn Greenwald has a good comment on Savage’s story in the NY Times. It begins:

During the Bush presidency, there were few reporters, if there were any, who were better on issues of civil liberties and executive power abuses than Charlie Savage, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his work exposing the lawlessness of Bush’s signing statements while at The Boston Globe.  For that reason, it will be very difficult even for the hardest-core Obama supporters to dismiss away the following observations about Obama as nothing more than the angry harping of excessively impatient, unfairly harsh and/or alarmist Obama critics (also referred to by some Obama supporters — using the Fox News script — as “Far Leftist, Marxist, reactionary, radical demagogues“).  From Savage this morning in The New York Times:

Read the rest of this entry »