Prairie Weather

US role in Afghanistan questioned in view of new development

Afghani President Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, is stepping out of the election run-off, allowing Karzai to take the presidency, a move which may undermine government stability.

But Mr. Abdullah seemed to be keeping his options open until the last second, as he has done throughout the Afghan political crisis. Those close to him, speaking on condition of anonymity on Saturday, said he was still trying to decide whether to publicly denounce Mr. Karzai, whom he has accused of stealing the Aug. 20 election, or to step down without a fight.

American and other Western diplomatic officials said late Saturday that they were worried that a defiant statement by Mr. Abdullah could lead to violence and undermine the credibility of Mr. Karzai, and they were urging him to bow out gracefully. ...NYT

The election system has been clearly rigged by the Karzai government -- one of his supporters runs the Independent Election Commission -- and Abdullah refuses to be a part of any new government without a guarantee of cleaner elections.

It can't be emphasized enough that the Bush administration installed a capable but corrupt president with ties to war lords and drug production in Afghanistan.  A lot of Americans are asking themselves if this is what we want to invest our lives and capital in:  a corrupt and unstable regime.  Not me.

NB:  A corrupt and unstable Afghanistan will have as neighbors a corrupt and unstable (and nuclear) Pakistan on one side) and an increasingly unstable Iran, also possibly nuclear, on the other side, if today's news turns out to have legs.

Iranian opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi appeared to urge his supporters Saturday to take part in rallies on November 4 marking the 30th anniversary of the student seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

If they gather in the streets Wednesday, there may be clashes with police and government backers, as happened at annual demonstrations to support the Palestinians on September 18. ...NYT

Pullout not an option

Nothing in the Washington Post's report on the troop level options being considered by the president and the Pentagon suggests pulling out of Afghanistan is being considered.  Given the Post's late, hot banner headline -- "Abdullah Widely Expected to Boycott Afghan Run-Off Election" -- it seems clear that the integrity of the existing regime in Kabul will not be a factor.  

The military chiefs have been largely supportive of a resource request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, that would by one Pentagon estimate require the deployment of 44,000 additional troops. But opinion among members of Obama's national security team is divided, and he now appears to be seeking a compromise solution that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers.

Several strategic alternatives are being reviewed.

Before he can determine troop levels, his advisers have said, he must decide whether to embrace a strategy focused heavily on counterinsurgency, which would require additional forces to protect population centers, or one that makes counterterrorism the main focus of U.S. efforts in the country, which would rely on relatively fewer American troops.

One option under review involves a blend of the two approaches, featuring an emphasis on counterterrorism in the north and some parts of western Afghanistan as well as an expanded counterinsurgency effort in the south and east, one of the officials said. Obama has also asked for a province-by-province review of the country to determine which areas can by managed effectively by local leaders.

The president appears committed to adding at least 10,000 to 15,000 troops in Afghanistan in an effort to bolster the training of Afghan army and police officers in the country. Current plans call for the United States to double the size of the Afghan army and police forces to about 400,000 in the hope that they can take over security responsibilities.

The Post concludes that "in contrast to Iraq, where there was significant dissension on whether to deploy an additional 30,000 troops in 2007, the top brass has been mostly united in the support of McChrystal's call for more troops in Afghanistan."

The civilian leadership should, of course, take the military's opinion seriously but not -- not ever! -- allow it to dominate the decision-making process.  For Obama, though -- like it or not -- compromise is in, withdrawal is out.

CIA faced (faces?) prosecution

In a document dump late Friday by the Department of Justice, the CIA officials are revealed to have faced possible prosecution for "mistreatment" of prisoners.

F.B.I. agents who arrived at a secret C.I.A. jail overseas in September 2002 found prisoners “manacled to the ceiling and subjected to blaring music around the clock,” and a C.I.A. official wrote a list of questions for interrogators including “how close is each technique to the ‘rack and screw,”’ according to hundreds of pages of partially declassified documents released Friday by the Justice Department.

The documents also include handwritten notes, apparently prepared by Justice Department officials, discussing the possibility of prosecuting some personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. The notes reveal that the Justice Department considered prosecuting a C.I.A. interrogator for a previously reported incident in which a detainee was threatened with a gun and a power drill, but it says Justice officials declined to prosecute the case. 

The documents were released in the latest response to several Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Judicial Watch, a Washington advocacy organization. ... The Caucus

So what's next?  Anyone heard about John H. Durham lately?

In August, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asked a Justice Department prosecutor, John H. Durham, to review the C.I.A. interrogation program, as well as the deaths of several prisoners in American custody, to see if prosecution is warranted.

There oughta be a law. Isn't there a law?

Have you checked the interest rates on your credit cards lately? Odds are they're going way up.That's because credit-card companies are rushing to raise rates and tack on extra fees ahead of a law slated to take effect Feb. 22 that is supposed to limit such moves in the future. In some cases, rates are doubling to as high as 30 percent or more, even for people who pay their bills on time.The current maneuvering by the card companies is serving up another blow to American consumers who are already struggling with their finances. U.S. lawmakers let that happen by giving the card companies nine months to prepare for the rules. ...AP

Cheney nailed on lie about Plame/Wilson. Judith Wilson is back in the news.

Vice President Cheney did lie to prosecutors about his role in the vendetta against former ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The vice president had been engaged in a series of efforts to "prove" that Saddam Hussein was obtaining uranium for nuclear weapons -- a discovery which, had it been true, would have provided the Bush administration with justification for going to war with Iraq.  No such justification existed, as Joe Wilson, in the role of special investigator/envoy, demonstrated. Cheney then set out to destroy the reputations of Wilson and his wife.

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) have obtained documents relating to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI's behind-closed-doors questioning of Cheney.  The former vice president has maintained that he knew nothing/could remember nothing about the "outing" of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent -- a crime punishable under federal law.  Interviewer's notes show a chain of  "can't recalls" when asked about his connection to the betrayal of a CIA employee.

But Cheney was known for his sharp, detailed memory.  And he did know about selling out the CIA operative.  Trial documents show that he "instructed" his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, to "out" Plame to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Mr. Cheney, who agreed to be interviewed by prosecutors after long negotiations, said he had played no role in sharing an intelligence report with a reporter to bolster the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain uranium for a nuclear weapons program. Mr. Cheney said in the interview that “no one ever told him of a desire to share key judgments” of the classified document.

But Mr. Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff at the time, gave a sharply different account of Mr. Cheney’s behavior in July 2003. Mr. Libby offered a detailed account of Mr. Cheney’s role in authorizing the intelligence report to be shared on July 8 with Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times.

He testified under oath in March 2004 that Mr. Cheney had thought it was “very important” to get out the information in the report that Mr. Hussein had tried to acquire uranium, saying “the vice president instructed me to go talk to Judy Miller to lay this out for her.” 

Now what?  Want to bet the Department of Justice makes this go away?

In spite of angry opposition

There are a lot of Americans alive today (in spite of for-profit insurance companies) who know how long Congress and successive administrations have put off facilitating a system which would insure that every one of us gets the best available health care at the lowest possible cost. 

A cool look at what we may be about to achieve should make us feel pretty hopeful.  It's not nothing.  It's a triumph. 

... The House bill has a lot of provisions for consumers to like. It would require insurers to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies. It would provide immediate help to people who have been uninsured for several months or denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It would speed elimination of a gap in drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries (the so-called doughnut hole) and would give the government power to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, a promising way to reduce costs. The bill would take a long stride toward universal coverage while remaining fiscally responsible. Senate leaders should try to do as well. ... NYT [emphasis added]