“Secretary Gates is extremely pleased that, after two days of thoughtful discussion, NATO has decided to allow ISAF forces to take on the drug traffickers who are fueling the insurgency, destabilizing Afghanistan, and killing our troops,” said a Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell.

Throughout the two days of talks, Gates and Craddock had argued that the trafficking networks and drug trade had helped fund the Taliban insurgency, providing them with manpower and weapons. The amount that the Taliban is earning from the drug trade is up to $100 million a year, according to Craddock. Over 90 percent of the heroin that reaches Europe comes from Afghanistan, according to the UN.

This may actually be somewhat more successful than the hopelessly pitched domestic “war on drugs” as it is being done with purely economic and political goals in mind, rather than attempting to wipe out all substances of a particular type.  On the other hand, most of the poppy crop obviously isn’t going to just supply the muffin and bagel industries.  This type of move increases the degree to which the central Afghan government will essentially be supported by the illicit drug trade - which makes a great deal of money from customers in the United States.

This whole thing seems like yet another paradox where we’re working against our own interests.  We’re operating in a country where the enemy is supported by narcotics manufacturers, so we’re trying to turn those people to our own side and support a friendly government.  In the meantime, we’re trying to prevent those same people from shipping their product to our country.  What’s up with this?

Though his resignation had been expected for days, a move to flee the country is a surprise since Musharraf and his chief allies have said he would fight impeachment and remain in Pakistan. At a gathering at the presidential palace in Islamabad on Wednesday, the eve of Pakistan’s Independence Day, the president may have foreshadowed his decision in a speech to his guests. He tried to put the best face on his worsening predicament, calling for reconciliation among the country’s political forces as the only way that Pakistan could face its many challenges. But according to NEWSWEEK sources, in private conversations that night Musharraf agreed with several close friends that his resignation was his only viable option, and that fighting impeachment proceedings in parliament would only deepen and prolong the country’s political agony.

The world must now watch Pakistan very closely this week. The nuclear-armed nation cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists, many of whom have fled to Pakistan from Afghanistan in recent years. If any Al-Queda allied groups wanted to make a move, this seems like their ideal time to strike.

Any crisis in Pakistan would surely impact the U.S. Presidential election as well. Consider Hillary Clinton’s now famous “3 A.M.” ad — who do you trust in times of uncertainty? A proven leader and bonfide war hero or a freshman Senator who’s never accomplished anything substantative?

“I am stepping down from the volunteer role I recently agreed to take on with the Obama campaign as Arab-American and Muslim American coordinator in order to avoid distracting from Barack Obama’s message of change,” Ashabi wrote.

Seems like Senator Obama ought to be a little more careful about who he associates with.

The cumulative surplus for the past four years is expected to total $80 billion, according to a report issued by the Government Accountability Office on Tuesday.  Many in Washington have expressed outrage at the numbers, charging that Iraq needs to pitch in more towards its own reconstruction.

“We should not be paying for Iraqi projects while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank, including outrageous profits from $4-a-gallon gas prices in the U.S.,” said Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We should require that U.S. taxpayers be reimbursed for the cost of large projects.”

Having some money to work with is definitely a good training stage for any fledgling democracy - it’s important for various branches to learn how to properly delegate funds and allocate for expenditures.  Moreover, it’s better that it be locked away - for now - rather than getting pilfered away by snookering purloiners.  The GAO report mentions that there simply isn’t a lot of working knowledge in the Iraqi government to begin with in terms of dealing with the affairs of properly assigning money to specific tasks.

According to the report, “(the)…relative shortage of trained budgetary, procurement and other staff with the necessary technical skills as a factor limiting the Iraqi government’s ability to plan and execute its capital spending.”

The GAO goes on to mention that Iraqi government accounting leaves much to be desired.  Under the Hussein regime, accurate budgeting was not a top priority.  Many members of the government were somewhat apathetic to where the money was, so long as they were able to skim their cut.  This is far different from a modern democracy, where budgets are considered an important responsibility and mismanagement of federal funds is a serious offense.

This situation needs to be rectified as quickly as possible.  This money can have a tremendous impact on winning the life-or-death struggle in Iraq, and it is untenable for the Iraqi government to simply stash it under the mattress, unused, while the clock continues to tick.  Iraqis should unleash this incredible potential as soon as it can be responsibly unlocked without half of it being stolen and going to waste.

Now, that might be bad enough on it’s own, since Obama is refusing to debate McCain anywhere other that the standard Fall-trio of snoozefests. What makes it worse is that the event was to be held near Fort Hood and focus specifically on the armed forces and veterans issues. The audience will be packed with both active duty and retired military folks.

What’s so important that Obama can’t make it to the event? Well, he’ll relaxing in Hawaii for about a week and on August 12 he’s hosting a $2,300 per person private fundraiser at the Halekulani Hotel. Local organizers are also hoping for a public rally, possibly to be held at Magic Island.

“He’d rather speak to 80,000 people from a podium than answer one unscripted question from an undecided voter,” said Tom Kise, a spokesperson for the McCain campaign.

There’s no shortage of talk over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  Israel has said point-blank that it would not hesitate to attack Iran (again) if Tehran continues with a weapons program, and both presidential candidates in the United States have said that Iran is dangerous and shouldn’t have nuclear capabilities.  However, the real threat has largely not been discussed by the media in the US.  A report issued in April by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack notes that an EMP attack could be one of the most devastating types of attack against US military and civilians assets, and wreak havoc on the economy - without requiring a very sophisticated nuclear weapon.

Dr. William Graham, who heads the panel, has noted that recent missile tests by Iran have been suspciously different from past ones. In a private conference last weekend, Dr. Graham outlined the evidence.  Among other issues, Iran has detoned warheads at the top of the missile’s vertical range, or apogee - where the curvature of the Earth would not block the maximum broadcast of an EMP signal.

According to Dr. Graham, the Iranians have "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude.  Why would they do that?”

Additional concern comes from where and how the missiles are actually launched - in some cases, from the Caspian Sea, which may be used to simulate any major body of water.  A fishing vessel or other innocuous-looking boat could be used for the launch without raising suspicion.

“They’ve got ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” said Dr. Graham. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”

Such an attack would be an immediate and sudden disaster for the United States, and likely lead to a nationwide humanitarian crisis, as so much national infrastructure relies on electricity.  A wide-scale chain of events would result in massive confusion and chaos.  Recovering from an EMP attack would likely take decades and require trillions of dollars.  A missile shield or other defense system could effectively stop such a threat.

However, there are some deterrents that exist today. United States military assets are still located all over the world, and we have many NATO allies who could be called upon to respond in such a crisis.  Most satellites would likely not have been affected by the EMP signal.  Many government buildings, and equipment relating to national security (including aircraft) are also shielded against EMP, so the effect would be limited and they might still be able to operate afterwards.

The most likely user of a weapon like this would likely be a terrorist group that does not fear reprisal, or as with al-Qaeda, one whose stated goal is to generate conflicts between the West and the rest of the world.  Of course, the military has been designing weapons to handle EMP for decades.  Civilians can also do this, if they so choose.  Click here for an Army manual on EMP shielding .

Additional material:
The Emerging EMP Threat to the United States , by Dr. Mark Schneider

Discussion in Congress by Representative Roscoe Bartlett, (R) Virginia

RP Eddy , from the Manhattan Institute, on the threat of EMP

During the call, Wilson and other McCain surrogates mainly continued to push the campaign’s standard critique against Obama –- that the Illinois senator has a rigid, politically driven timetable for withdrawal, while McCain will only pull troops if military commanders say the conditions in Iraq merit it. Also, they said, the improved security in Iraq that makes withdrawal feasible is due to McCain, who supported the surge, rather than Obama, who opposed it.

Although Obama opposed the war from the beginning, he has also publicly waffled on his “16 months” timeline, using similar “when conditions warrant” language.  Iraqi PM al-Maliki has all but supported Obama’s pullout ideas, although many Iraqis also fear for their security.

Timeline or not, the Iraqi government needs to be pressured to resolve their factional problems.  Not having the threat of US troops leaving greatly reduces the sense of urgency to be effective.  We’ve been there for over five years, have spent trillions of dollars and had thousands of soldiers killed on what seems like a neverending effort, and Iraq has given us…what?  Lots of news and higher gas prices?

As expected, the McCain campaign filed a response editoral to run this week.  However, the editors of the New York Times decided they didn’t care for what McCain had to say and refused to print his response, asking for a re-write.

“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,” NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain’s staff.  “I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.”

So, presented here is Senator McCain’s essay as it was originally submitted to the editors of the New York Times…

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

In case you’re curious, here is the music video…

Meehan appeared on CNN yesterday morning because of the controversy. He said that, “I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if we’d had a Republican president at the time.” Clearly he means if a Republican have been President during the 1990’s.

While he may be right on many points, this tasteless attempt at political expression should not be rewarded. Conservatives are better than this, and we should call for Meehan to pull down his billboards and not use the deaths of thousands at the World Trade Center to promote his lame music.

Florida Democrats have called the billboards a crass attempt at exploiting 9/11 for political and personal gain, and the Florida Republican Party issued a statement saying in party that “there are many ways to convey the importance of national security in this election without going to extremes.”

The song costs $5 to purchase from Meehan’s website. He’s also available for parties, meetings, and events.

By the way, a civilian version of this would be an awesome seller…especially with a folding stock.