The fact that Hasan is Muslim, he said, doesn't matter. A review would have been necessary whatever the perpetrator's religion, as a "preventative measure" to prevent a similar incident from ever happening again, he said.

And to be truly effective, he said, the review should go beyond Muslims, to help identify and weed out zealots of any kind who could become potential threats. "It would be most prudent to go across the military and leave no stone unturned," Uqdah said.

The world situation demands it, he said. "We have to recognize this for what it is: a war on several fronts, with no boundaries, and here on our own shores," he said. "So we have to be vigilant. If that requires all of us being examined, then so be it," as long as it doesn't overstep civil liberty boundaries.

"So long as it is not prejudicious, a review right now is necessary," Uqdah said.

While providing an important "litmus test," the Pentagon review will also help highlight the contributions Muslim servicemembers make to the U.S. military, and the sacrifices they have made, he said.

Full text below:

Muslim Leader Calls Fort Hood Review Critical to National Security
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19, 2009 - The director of a Muslim veterans organization said he welcomes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' announcement today of a Pentagon probe into the attacks at Fort Hood, Texas, calling it a matter of national security.

Qaseem Ali Uqdah, executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, and a retired Marine gunnery sergeant, credits military leaders with establishing a climate that's prevented any backlash against Muslims servicemembers since the Nov. 5 shooting.

Gates announced a sweeping review today that will look into events leading up to the rampage that left 13 people dead, and whether military officials should have been more aggressive in raising a red flag about the accused shooter, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan.

"This is not about Muslim," Uqdah said of the probe. "This is about national security. This is about an incident in which an individual committed a criminal act."

The fact that Hasan is Muslim, he said, doesn't matter. A review would have been necessary whatever the perpetrator's religion, as a "preventative measure" to prevent a similar incident from ever happening again, he said.

And to be truly effective, he said, the review should go beyond Muslims, to help identify and weed out zealots of any kind who could become potential threats. "It would be most prudent to go across the military and leave no stone unturned," Uqdah said.

The world situation demands it, he said. "We have to recognize this for what it is: a war on several fronts, with no boundaries, and here on our own shores," he said. "So we have to be vigilant. If that requires all of us being examined, then so be it," as long as it doesn't overstep civil liberty boundaries.

"So long as it is not prejudicious, a review right now is necessary," Uqdah said.

While providing an important "litmus test," the Pentagon review will also help highlight the contributions Muslim servicemembers make to the U.S. military, and the sacrifices they have made, he said.

More than 3,500 active-duty troops identify themselves as Muslim, with about half of them serving in the Army, Defense Department officials said.

"I think the takeaway [of the review] will be that there are a lot of servicemembers, men and women, across the board, serving very honorably," Uqdah said.

The Fort Hood incident was an isolated incident that casts an unfortunate shadow on the entire Muslim community, he said.

Uqdah's organization wasted no time in condemning the attack, extending condolences to the victims and their families, as well as the local community, in a statement posted on its Web site within hours of the incident.

"Islam holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin," the statement said. "This is a criminal act that is now best dealt with by the law enforcement community."

Uqdah serves as an ecclesiastical endorser, vetting Muslim chaplains in the Defense Department to ensure they meet religious standards. In that capacity, he communicates regularly with seven Muslim chaplains serving on active duty, in the Air Force Reserve or in seminary preparing to go into the military.

With his finger on the pulse of the Muslim military community, Uqdah reported he has yet to hear of a single incident of backlash against Muslim servicemembers that some had predicted after the Fort Hood incident.

"I attribute that to strong leadership positions, starting from the commander in chief on down, with establishing a 'zero tolerance' climate," he said.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr. set the tone quickly after the incident. "Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," he said. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy is our diversity becomes a casualty here."

"By saying that," Uqdah said, "he made certain to his commanders and everyone else that he wasn't going to tolerate [a backlash]. I think it's been a key factor in preventing it."

Uqdah said he's always experienced a climate of relative tolerance within the military. He recalled back to the mid-1990s, when he was assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., and overheard an allied officer attending classes there ask a U.S. field grade officer if he suspected the loyalty of Muslims serving in the military.

The officer responded that Muslims are no different than any other troops, and serve just as courageously and with the same dedication, he recalled. "Then he asked him, "'Is there any reason we should suspect them?'"

The events of 9/11 increased scrutiny of Muslims across the board, including in the military, he conceded.

But Uqdah said Hasan's alleged proselytizing while in uniform - if proven true - should never have been tolerated. Other questionable behavior should have been identified and reported, he said.

"This was a failure in terms of us as a whole,' he said, clarifying that all servicemembers, not just Muslims, share the blame. "We saw something suspicious and really didn't report it. It really wasn't taken seriously. As a whole, we have to get better at being vigilant in terms of our security."

Initial review 45 days, followed by a follow-on investigation "expected to last four to six months".

Full text below:

Pentagon Launches Review of Fort Hood Shooting
Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs
Story by John Kruzel

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Nov. 19 announced the Defense Department will conduct a broad review of the Nov. 5 Fort Hood, Texas, shooting that left 13 dead and dozens injured.

Former Army Secretary Togo West and retired Navy Adm. Vernon Clark, former chief of naval operations, will head the initial 45-day review, which will inform a follow-on investigation expected to last four to six months.

"The shootings at Fort Hood raise a number of troubling questions that demand complete but prompt answers," Gates said. "It is prudent to determine immediately whether there are internal weaknesses or procedural shortcomings in the department that could make us vulnerable in the future."

The department review is separate from both the criminal investigation of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- the soldier charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder -- and a review ordered by President Barack Obama to take a governmentwide look at all intelligence related to the incident. Initial findings of the president-mandated review are due Nov. 30.

The purpose of the department review is three-fold, Gates said, including targeting possible gaps in procedures for identifying dangerous servicemembers who could pose credible risks to other troops. The review also will assess how "adverse information" about troops is recorded and handled, and will gauge the level of security and emergency response capabilities at Defense Department facilities.

As part of the initial review, each military service branch will appoint a senior official to work with Clark and West on service-specific issues, Gates said.

"In light of the Fort Hood incident and unique challenges, the Army will conduct a more in-depth, detailed assessment of whether Army programs, policies and procedures reasonably could have prevented the shooting," he said. The Army's findings will be submitted as part of the Army's contribution to the departmental review, Gates added.

He noted the initial review represents only the beginning of the process, with preliminary findings leading into a follow-up investigation.

"Its results will inform and largely shape a departmentwide follow-on examination of any systemic institutional shortcomings, an examination I expect to be completed within four to six months," he said.

The more in-depth review will entail each service selecting an investigative panel that will report their findings up the chain of command to a department-level panel. The departmentwide group will assess the findings and identify changes needed in policy and procedure, as well as areas where additional resources are required, Gates said.

"Among other issues, this review will cover topics such as servicemember support programs, care for victims and families of mass-causality events, how we assess and sustain the performance of health-care providers, and overall stress on the troops and their families," he said.

The department will exercise "full and open disclosure" amid the review process, Gates said, speaking a day after he attended a memorial ceremony in the small Tennessee hometown of Army Spc. Fred Greene, one of 13 killed in the Fort Hood massacre.

"There is nothing any of us can say to ease the pain for the wounded, the families of the fallen, and the members of the Fort Hood community touched by this incident -- pain I saw vividly and firsthand yesterday in Mountain City, Tenn.," he said. "All that is left for us to do is everything in our power to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future."

As part of her media outreach following yesterday's inauguration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a brief but wide-ranging interview to Afghanistan's Azadi Radio (State Department, AFP). Maintaining a conciliatory tone towards the embattled president, Clinton expressed a wish for the presence of more professionals and technocrats in the Afghan government; when asked whether the U.S. would support a Karzai administration with warlords, she said, "Well, there are warlords and there are warlords."

However, the anti-Dostum campaign continues.

On one side of the cavernous room sat Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who's warned that the international community is losing patience with Karzai.

On the other side was Abdul Rashid Dostum, the Afghan warlord who's become a symbol of cronyism and government corruption. Dostum was stripped of his top military post after he was accused of war crimes and investigated for enacting vigilante justice on the streets of Kabul.

Although foreign leaders have demanded that Karzai sideline Dostum and other discredited political allies, the Afghan president is also under pressure to reward those, such as Dostum, who helped him win re-election.

That he (along with the rest of the "Northern Alliance" who are now delegated to "warlord" status) was once a key ally in America's war against the Taliban has become an inconvenient truth that doesn't fit the space allotted for modern media coverage.

As at a wedding, the guest list said a lot. Sitting in the second row was General Dostum, a military commander briefly exiled from Kabul with a reputation for viciousness even in a room of tough military men. His presence in a Karzai cabinet - yet to be announced - might prove a problem for the west.

And while betrayal of former allies is anything but rare in Afghanistan, his opposition could prove even more problematic. A brief introduction to "the unsavory characters surrounding the Afghan president and his new government" here.

LTG Freakley, USAAC CG. Lieutenant General Benjamin C. Freakley assumed command of U.S. Army Accessions Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia, on 18 May 2007, consisting of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, KY; U.S. Army Cadet Command, Fort Monroe, VA; and U.S. Army Accessions Support Brigade, Fort Knox, KY. http://www.usaac.army.mil/cg.html Kenny Gamble. Kenny is a Grammy-award winning, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductee and the co-creator behind such classics as "Aint No Stoppin' Us Now", and "Love Train". By collaborating with iconic soul singer Patti Labelle, and the Temple University's Choir and Orchestra, "I Am An American" seeks to bring a renewed sense of patriotism to this country. - James Hooker. Today, November 19th, James releases his third solo album in the last two years - this one,¨Hanging Out With The Boys¨ is a collection of the 11 songs that rose out of the September 11th attacks and the World War On Terror that James calls WWlV. He is, as you can tell from these songs, a true supporter of the men and women ¨up at the sharp end, who lay it on the line for our kids, and our otherwise worthless asses!¨ Larry Pratt will talk about the The Veterans Disarmament Act which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2008. This law places any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list. http://gunowners.org/a010808.htmhttp://gunowners.org/netb.htm Dudley Brown - Executive Director of National Association for Gun Rights to talk about the "Gun Free Zone" in our military that possibly contributed to the Fort Hood massacre. http://www.nationalgunrights.org

CJ and Troy have done a hellagood job putting this one together- their shows keep getting better and better. Listen online here tonight at 7PM Eastern. You'll be able to join the on-line chat or call in during the show.

The memo ticks off numerous problems over the course of Hasan's training, including proselytizing to his patients. It says he mistreated a homicidal patient and allowed her to escape from the emergency room, and that he blew off an important exam.

According to the memo, Hasan hardly did any work: He saw only 30 patients in 38 weeks. Sources at Walter Reed say most psychiatrists see at least 10 times that many patients. When Hasan was supposed to be on call for emergencies, he didn't even answer the phone.
<...>
The memo does have a couple of qualifications that say something positive about Hasan. It says, "He is able to self-correct with supervision." And Moran writes, "I am not able to say he is not competent to graduate."

Officials at Walter Reed told NPR that those statements were very carefully worded. What they convey is that when Hasan's supervisors read him the riot act -- when they gave him intensive supervision -- he would improve just enough so that they had to tell their commanders: "Hasan is capable of doing better."

But officials say nobody has the time to supervise a doctor that closely.

That's accurate - "works well when supervised" is a classic damning term for a military performance evaluation. The full memo is linked from NPR's report. Anyone familiar with military writing would be hard-pressed to describe this passage...

He is able to self-correct with supervision. However, at this point he should not need so much supervision. In spite of all of this, I am not able to say he is not competent to graduate nor do I think a period of academic probation now at the end of his training will be beneficial. He would be able to contain his behavior enough to complete any period of probation successfully.

...as anything other than a recommendation that Hasan's "skills" were perhaps best utilized elsewhere.

Elsewhere, the Washington Post's headline "Senators press Obama on Fort Hood probes" is subbed with "White House wants lawmakers to slow their investigations".

Congressional Democrats have not been nearly as aggressive in their oversight of the Obama administration as they were during the Bush administration. The actions on Capitol Hill this week, however, demonstrate a growing impatience, particularly among senators, with the White House's preference that lawmakers slow down their inquiries.

Lieberman's hearing Thursday, the first on Capitol Hill regarding the Texas shootings, will start what potentially could be a more assertive approach to administration oversight, at least on matters of national security.

The report adds that "Even some of President Obama's most steadfast allies have questioned whether intelligence agencies crossed their signals" with regards to information-sharing on Hasan.

Meanwhile, President Obama concluded his Asia trip with a stop at Osan Air Base in Korea:

Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to snap pictures.

"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.

Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer, more prosperous world for all of us."

He got a huge cheer when he told them he was increasing military pay. "That's what you call an applause line," he said, before boarding his jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.

Mission accomplished.

Here's a look back at the history of the problem.

CBS - Obama: I'd Fire Afghan Decision Leakers.

"We have deliberations in the situation room for a reason; we're making life and death decisions that affect how our troops are able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing info in the course of deliberations is not appropriate."

"A firing offense?" Reid inquired.

"Absolutely," Mr. Obama responded.

In the same interview, "the president said it's still several weeks before he makes a decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan." He told CNN "we are very close to a decision" on Afghanistan, and "I will announce that decision, certainly in the next several weeks."

Earlier this month, sources revealed to ABC News that "as of now President Obama will likely announce his decision about a new strategy in Afghanistan at some point between the Afghan run-off election, November 7, and the president's departure for Tokyo, Japan, on Wednesday, November 11." But almost immediately afterward other sources revealed that it "appears increasingly likely that Obama will not announce his new Afghanistan strategy until after returning to the United States on Nov. 20." But late last week a leak from senior U.S. officials revealed that

Ambassador Eikenberry's memos expressed "deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior U.S. officials said."

...and that could be cause for further delay.

The Gates comparison from the CBS story ("Reid says he asked the president if he's as angry as Defense Secretary Robert Gates about all the leaks...") was in reference to a recent report headlined "Gates Lashes Out at Leakers" in which the secretary was quoted as saying "I am appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on."

"If I found out who" was involved, he said, "it would probably be a career ender."

He also expressed concerns over the complexity of the president's approach to Afghanistan: "How do we signal resolve, and at the same time, signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended?" However, the fact that those were actually administration concerns wasn't officially leaked until the following day:

One senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to reflect the details and tone of confidential deliberations, said these concerns had added to the president's insistence at a White House meeting on Wednesday that each military option include the quickest possible exit strategy.

As for possible troop numbers, while late October leaks had indicated the president was leaning towards a smaller number, ("...what one official described as "McChrystal Light''), in early November McClatchy declared Obama leaning toward 34,000 more troops for Afghanistan - but noted that "the officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss internal administration planning, cautioned that Obama's decision isn't final.

CBS quickly trumped that story with the dramatic announcement that "informed sources tell CBS News [Obama] intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for". That report prompted an administration response CBS described as "attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones":

Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false.

Last week, McClatchy revealed that according to their sources (no less than six military and administration officials who had requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly), those leaks had "deprived Eikenberry and other officials of the ability to tell Karzai that no more American troops will be forthcoming if he doesn't agree to implement reforms." And worse...

The Obama administration's internal debate over Afghan policy has escalated into a battle of media leaks that's straining relations between officials who're seeking a major troop increase and those who want a more limited approach and a greater focus on domestic priorities.

The feud also has poisoned ties between the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan and the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, and left the administration struggling for leverage to press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to appoint untainted officials to his new government, attack corruption and share power with the parliament and provincial officials.
<...>
A U.S. defense official said the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, feels he was "stabbed in the back" by Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan...

However, they added in perhaps unintentional hilarity, "The official, like others who were interviewed for this article, requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. However, according to a half-dozen U.S. military and administration officials..."

So that might explain why the president is starting to get upset about leaks.

Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman recently described a dramatic scene inside the White House...

It was a tense meeting this morning at the White House, as Ambassador Karl Eikenberry addressed the National Security Council by teleconference from Kabul just hours after the media got hold of his dissent on the crucial question of sending more troops to Afghanistan. "He is very unpopular here," said a National Security Council staffer who described the meeting.

No one was happy to read in The Washington Post that Eikenberry, who commanded the war himself from 2005 to 2007, thinks that the Karzai government needs to demonstrate its commitment to anti-corruption measures before the administration can responsibly authorize another troop increase. The prevailing theory is that "he leaked his own cables" because "he has a beef with McChrystal," the staffer said.

...however, unlike most reporters who have been recipients of leaks, Ackerman later retracted the story: "My original source for the post stands by the account provided. The individual, a National Security Council staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity, has provided truthful and verified information on past stories, and so I trusted the source for this one..." But "White House spokesman Tommy Vietor says he checked with Amb. Eikenberry's office and the teleconference call reported in this post did not occur."

[Woodward] said he was given the McChrystal report for use in a book about the administration that he plans to publish next year, but he realized that its blunt assessment of Afghanistan, as President Obama is deciding whether to send more troops, "would have been overtaken by events."

"I went back to the source or sources and said, 'This definitely belongs in the newspaper,' and they agreed," Woodward said.

The president, one adviser said, is "taking a very deliberate, rational approach, starting at the top" of what he called a "logic chain" that begins with setting objectives, followed by determining a methodology to achieve them. Only when the first two steps are completed, he said, can the third step -- a determination of resources -- be taken.

"Who's to say we need more troops?" this official said. "McChrystal is not responsible for assessing how we're doing against al-Qaeda."

Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he'd stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

One Pentagon source said that the leak of the assessment probably came from McChrystal's staff and represented an increased effort by counterinsurgency-focused officers in theater to pressure the administration to raise troop levels, in light of what they see as Obama's wobbling on the issue.

"The secretary of defense does not believe that General McChrystal or his team was responsible for leaking this sensitive information," Morrell continued. "Nor are we wasting our time playing Washington parlor games trying to figure out who did it. ... We have better things to do."

Meanwhile, in an attributed quote, Hillary Clinton announced "there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite." Unfortunately, she didn't name them.

Shortly after, a 'leak' from 'officials' revealed Joe Biden* as head of the opposition (a role he would never confirm or deny):

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden's suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence.

There were actually multiple 'leaks' in this story before the McChrystal report was 'leaked', but that leak was required to really get people's attention. In August, a leak revealed the due-date of McChrystal's report was changed in a secret meeting:

The timing of Gen. McChrystal's primary assessment remains in flux. It was initially due in mid-August, but the commander was summoned to a secret meeting in Belgium last week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told to take more time. Military officials say the assessment will now be released sometime after the Aug. 20 vote.

A separate leak revealed that "President Barack Obama next month will send Congress a new plan for measuring progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in an effort to build confidence among wavering Democrats and give sharper direction to a costly and increasingly bloody war, White House officials told POLITICO on Saturday." The same story predicted additional leaks could follow:

The document will include specific metrics under nine broad objectives -- some of them classified, and divided roughly half for Afghanistan and half for Pakistan. The list has not been released, but is likely to leak after it goes to lawmakers.

Shortly thereafter, the London Times revealed that "The United States should send up to 45,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, a senior adviser to the American commander in Kabul has told The Times." His name was actually given in the report, however, other reports suggested that "several officials who have taken part in Gen. McChrystal's 60-day review of the war effort said they expect him to ultimately request as many as 10,000 more troops". But according to sources, McChrystal had been told to separate the troop request from his assessment explaining how the numbers were determined.

Regardless of how he resolves the internal debate on troop numbers, Gen. McChrystal's coming report won't include any specific requests for more U.S. troops. Those numbers would instead be detailed in a follow-on document that is set to be delivered to Washington a few weeks after the assessment.

So following the leak of the assessment, as September came to an end "General McChrystal's troop request, which has not been made public, was given to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the general in a meeting in Germany on Friday." Actually, a secret meeting in Germany that was revealed to Fox News (and other sources) via a leak. The story also repeated previous leaks that McChrystal's request would include a large number, a medium number, and a small number of troops, with each figure tied to a probability of success.

The New York Times would credit multiple sources ("officials", "people briefed on the discussion", "White House aides", "some advisers", "other officers", "an Army official, who asked not to be identified because General McChrystal's troop request had not been made public", and "others") for its story headlined "Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Obama Advisers", a story that also said "General McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 40,000 additional troops" for Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, "officials" leaked additional details of what other officials claimed was the Biden* plan:

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden's suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

And "...a senior defense official said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates now worries that counterinsurgency might no longer be a viable approach for countering the Taliban violence roiling once-stable parts of north and west Afghanistan."

As October began, the Washington Post headlined that according to leaks they'd received, "White House Eyeing Narrower War Effort".

Senior White House officials have begun to make the case for a policy shift in Afghanistan that would send few, if any, new combat troops to the country...

In a three-hour meeting Wednesday at the White House, senior advisers challenged some of the key assumptions in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's blunt assessment...

But White House officials are resisting McChrystal's call for urgency... One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, "A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day."

Among them, according to three senior administration officials who attended the meeting, is McChrystal's contention...

However, in a report on General McChrystal's London speech, the UK's Telegraph would attempt to break the Guiness record for number of vaguely-sourced leaks in one story:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
<...>
An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
<...>
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
<...>
A military expert said: "They still have working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."

Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination.
<...>
White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.
<...>
As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.

Within days, a New York Times headline declared "Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force". They identified their source for that leaked information from a closed-door meeting between the president and congressional officials as "White House officials".

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there...

Meeting with leaders from both parties at the White House, Mr. Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to "dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan," as White House officials later described his remarks.

The story also cited "several people in the room", "one administration official, who, like others quoted in this article, requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting", "participants", and "those in attendance".

Meanwhile, back at the Washington Post, Rajiv Chandrasekaran revealed that "With the costs now clearer, some officials at the National Security Council and the State Department who voiced support for counterinsurgency in March have started to consider other options."

"It was easy to say, 'Hey, I support COIN,' because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes," said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.

Shortly thereafter the president won the Nobel Peace Prize. The following day, the London Times quoted a "senior official" who said that "President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander".

Mr Obama, the official said, is now inclined to send only as many more troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Downing Street said that the US President had discussed Afghanistan with Gordon Brown yesterday during a 40-minute video conference call.

Sending far fewer troops than the 40,000 being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal would mean that Mr Obama is willing to ignore the wishes of his ground commander.

And while George Stephanopoulus might have thought his leak (describing "key questions tied to any troop recommendation" revolved around the future of the Afghan Government) was a scoop...

Several Administration officials tell me that President Obama's national security team will generate new military and strategic options for Afghanistan beyond the recommendations already presented by General Stanley McChrystal...

Several of the principals involved in Obama's strategy review have told me that their ultimate position on troop levels will depend on whether a plausible government, newly committed to reform, emerges when the Afghanistan election process is finally completed.

However, Martha Raddatz had quite a bombshell: "The troop request on the desks of the president and his national security team outlines three options, according to a source familiar with the document." That was hardly news, but the newly-leaked numbers were:

One path is not to send anymore troops to Afghanistan, considered a "high risk option." The second is to send 40,000 troops, and the third calls for a major increase in troops, far more than 40,000.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, according to the source, recommends the "middle" option of 40,000 as the minimum number needed to have a chance of success in Afghanistan...

And "Other sources who have seen the request say the high number of troops requested is 80,000."

That was certainly different than Klein's (and everyone else's) earlier report: "...the military's all-in option, a request for 40,000 more troops, is just that: an option. It is the upper end of three options that McChrystal has offered the President, I'm told; the low option was 10,000 troops, and the middle one was 25,000."

Meanwhile, Newsweek reported (in a long cover story on Joe Biden*) that everything you'd heard about "his" plan for Afghanistan ("Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence... American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan") was wrong:

Biden has been incorrectly characterized as a dove who wants to pull out of Afghanistan. In fact, according to his "Counterterrorism-Plus" paper, he wants to maintain a large troop presence. He also favors a greater emphasis on training Afghan troops--and defending Kabul and Kandahar--than on chasing the Taliban around the countryside, and he wants more diplomatic efforts to try to peel away those Taliban who can be bought with money or other inducements (like political power).

However, they did not reveal their source for (or publish) "his Counterterrorism-Plus" paper".

In England, leaks had become so confusing that The Guardian would report "Obama quietly deploying 13,000 more US troops to Afghanistan" - a story based on original leaks to the Washington Post, but completely wrong.

As the end of October neared...

President Obama's advisers are focusing on a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.

Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision and has other options available to him, but as officials described it, the debate is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed.
<...>
One administration official said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, had briefed Mr. Obama's advisers on how he would deploy any new troops under the approach being considered by the White House. The first two additional combat brigades would go south, including one to Kandahar, while a third would be sent to eastern Afghanistan and a fourth would be used flexibly across the nation, said the official, who like others insisted on anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

A "senior administration official who has participated in the Afghanistan policy review and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it" told the Washington Post that Obama had requested data on provincial governments. ...the Post reports the request for detail "reflects the administration's turn toward Afghanistan's provincial governors, tribal leaders and local militias as potentially more effective partners in the effort than a historically weak central government that is confronting questions of legitimacy after the flawed Aug. 20 presidential election".

Earlier in the month, Republicans had begun earnestly attacking the president for what they considered "dithering" on Afghanistan.

And that brings us to November, where our story began with reports of 40,000 troops approaching Afghanistan, according to officials. Last week the New York Times reported:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama has not made a decision about his new military strategy for Afghanistan. And the White House is happy to say so.

It's been 22 days since Mr. Obama was first accused by former Vice President Dick Cheney of "dithering" as he decides about sending more troops to Afghanistan. An announcement is still very likely at least two weeks away -- perhaps more -- and White House officials have purposely made no apologies for the extended timetable.

"Contrary to published reports," an administration official said late Wednesday, "the president has not made a decision about the options presented."

Officials said that in the meeting, the eighth in the Situation Room on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last two months, Mr. Obama pressed for clarifications on a series of questions.

As far as that "series of questions" goes, Bob Woodward (who you may recall started all the fun in the first place) "revealed that the President has no fewer than 32 issues on the table that need answers before he can decide how to go forward on Afghanistan. We're not sure who he heard that from.

And while we've barely scratched the surface of leak reports over the last few months, now that the leaking has stopped perhaps the president will get on to the other 31.

Update - the Washington Post today:

President Obama will not announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the Thanksgiving holiday, senior aides said Thursday.
<...>
Obama said in interviews Wednesday that he would reveal his decision within the next several weeks. On Thursday, aides clarified that there would be no announcement before Thanksgiving, one week away. Senior administration officials said Obama intends to meet with his national security team again before going public with his plans.

*Footnote: Joe Biden is Vice President of the United States.

But this time the game didn't go into overtime. The Associated Press: "Somali pirates attacked the container ship Maersk Alabama today for the second time in seven months."

Four pirates in a skiff attacked the ship again today at about 6.30am local time, opening fire with automatic weapons from about 300 yards away, a statement from the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain said. A security team repelled the attack by using evasive manoeuvres, small-arms fire and a Long Range Acoustic Device, which can beam earsplitting alarm tones.

Here in Mudville we believe non-lethal methods are best, but more effective when lethal options are also readily available.

Reactions:

The wife of the Maersk Alabama's captain, Paul Rochford, told WBZ-AM radio in Boston that she was "really happy" there were weapons on board for this attack.

"It probably surprised the pirates. They were probably shocked," Kimberly Rochford. "I'm really happy at least it didn't turn out like the last time."

A self-proclaimed pirate told The Associated Press from the Somali pirate town of Haradhere that colleagues out at sea had called around 9 a.m. -- 2 1/2 hours after the attack.

"They told us that they got in trouble with an American ship, then we lost them. We have been trying to locate them since," said a self-described pirate who gave his name as Abdi Nor.

Perhaps they're suffering permanent hearing loss.

"It's not the first vessel to have been attacked twice, and it's a chance that every single ship takes as it passes through the area," said Cmdr. John Harbour, a spokesman for the EU Naval Force. "At least this time they had a vessel protection detachment on board who were able to repel the attack."

However, not all piracy experts agree.

Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the Chatham House thinktank in London, said the international maritime community was solidly against armed guards, but that American ships have taken a different line.

"Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards," he said. "Lots of private security companies employ people who don't have maritime experience. Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatising security of the shipping trade."

Four pirates boarded the ship last April, starting a multi-day hostage standoff that ended dramatically with the ship's captain rescued, one pirate captured and three killed. The event prompted some discussion of the feasibility of shipboard armed guards, but the Obama administration expressed preference for other approaches to the piracy problem.

The captured pirate is awaiting trial in New York.

"Do you trust President Karzai?" CNN's Ed Henry asked U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to Beijing, China. "President Karzai has served his country in important ways," Obama responded. " When he first came in, there may not have been another figure who could have held that country together. He has some strengths, but he has some weaknesses. I'm less concerned about any individual than I am with a government as a whole that is having difficulty providing basic services to its people in a way that confers legitimacy on them."

And that change from when he first came in is the official position of the United States of America. You can see a bit of that reflected in this MSNBC story on Karzai's second-term swearing in.

As Hamid Karzai is again sworn in as Afghanistan's president on Thursday, the mood about the man could hardly be more different from when he first emerged to lead the country.

Instead of being celebrated as a person with the stature and credentials to unify and lead, he steps back into office after a fraud-tainted election, to head a government that is steeped in corruption and apparently incapable of halting the Taliban insurgency and violence.

On the eve of the ceremony Kabul is a place of appalling gloom, we are told in this LA Times report: "The mood is glum, fueled by disappointment in the government." They even found one local whose opinion sounded amazingly like... Barack Obama's.

Mahmood Barakzai still remembers the rush of pride and optimism he felt when Hamid Karzai was sworn in for his first term as Afghanistan's president. This time around, the Kabul shopkeeper wasn't even going to bother switching on the television.

"Here in our country, everything has become more sad, more uncertain and more dangerous," Barakzai said, shaking his head as he wrapped his hands around a cup of hot sweet tea, trying to ward off a penetrating early-winter chill.

Not only is that a far cry from five years ago, it's a far cry from reports on the announcement of Karzai's victory just two weeks ago: "In the capital, a sense of relief was instant and palpable. Kabul residents honked horns and exchanged celebratory text messages as the news spread." We won't be seeing reports like that any more.

Times have changed:

The United States was represented at the last swearing-in by then-Vice President Dick Cheney. This time, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the highest-ranking American official in attendance. Clinton landed in Kabul late Wednesday, her visit not announced in advance because of security concerns.

Of course, there are many good reasons why the current Vice President couldn't attend - an earlier meeting with Karzai ended when he threw his dinner napkin onto the table and stomped out of the room, hardly the ground work for future diplomacy.

But on the flight over Clinton was able to issue additional instructions to reporters:

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are asking that they follow through on much of what they have previously said, including putting together a credible anticorruption governmental entity - a commission, an agency, something that truly can deliver on the concerns that we and the people of Afghanistan have about corruption. They've done some work on that, but in our view, not nearly enough to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose to tackle corruption. And it is going to be one of the principled requests that we make. But it is reflective of what members of the government and others tell us they want to see happen as well.

QUESTION: But what if it doesn't happen? Then what?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are concerned about corruption and we obviously think it has an impact on the quality and capacity of governing. So we're going to be persistent, asking for the kinds of outcomes that we think reflect that they are serious about this. But I can't predict what will or won't happen at this point.

QUESTION: Sorry. He's appointed already a vice president that has had some allegations of corruption surrounding him. He's made alliances during the campaign and with General Dostum. That doesn't bode very well.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it certainly raises questions, and whether those two problems are dealt with directly or whether there are other approaches that create confidence in the government's commitment to not only fight corruption, because that's only part of the equation, but to actually deliver results that work to stand up the Afghan national security force, to recognize the necessity for a new compact with the people of Afghanistan, and the recognition of the commitment that the international community is willing to make if we can see clear and effective results. We just have to continue to press for that and to try to achieve it.

"Karzai in May sparked controversy when he chose Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a former rebel leader accused of war crimes, as his running mate for the August election," UPI reported in their Clinton story. "In another move, Karzai has embraced Uzbek militant leader Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, who faces a wide range of charges of abuse and aggressive tactics."

MSNBC likewise eagerly detailed those two problems...

In August, in what appeared to be a deal to gain support for his election, Karzai allowed the return of notorious warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum to Afghanistan from his exile in Turkey. Dostum is accused of allowing his men to kill up to 2,000 prisoners captured during the U.S. invasion in 2001 and then hiding evidence of the crime.

Karzai also selected Mohammad Fahim, a former militia chief with a reputation for human rights abuses and corruption, to be his running mate in the presidential race, to the chagrin of many Afghans and Western officials who had urged him to choose someone less controversial.

Their names had appeared in an earlier report as potential human sacrifices following Karzai's victory:

Administration officials declined to provide the names of people they wanted to see arrested and acknowledged that such arrests were a long shot. The international community's wish list of potential defendants includes Mr. Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade; Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is accused of involvement in the killings of thousands of Taliban prisoners of war early in the Afghan conflict; and one of Mr. Karzai's running mates, Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, a former defense minister who is also suspected of drug trafficking.

"A couple of high-profile heads on a platter would be nice," said one European diplomat

It's rarely convenient to mention Fahim (a Tajik) and Dostum (an Uzbek), as leaders of the Northern Alliance, were the principal allies of the United States during the initial phases of the war in 2001. How those two problems are dealt with now could prove problematic on many levels. It's arguable who would appreciate their "heads on a platter" more, Barack Obama, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden.

However,

Attorney General Mohammed Ishaq Aloko told SPIEGEL ONLINE in Kabul that his office has prepared indictments against five high-ranking politicians. "We have indictments with sufficient proof against five ministers," Aloko said. "Two of them are in the current cabinet and three are former ministers." The indictments have been submitted to President Karzai. "The president only has to grant his approval, then the trials can proceed," Aloko said.

"They've done some work on that," Secretary Clinton said regarding corruption, "but in our view, not nearly enough to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose."

Citing Afghan law, the attorney general declined to name the politicians involved until the trials begin. He said he was confident that the legal proceedings would result in "stiff penalties."

"If he doesn't say anything concrete, or even names names, he will feel the wrath," said one European diplomat of Karzai. "And he knows that."

"There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a new compact with the people of Afghanistan to demonstrate clearly that they're going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people who live throughout this magnificent country," Clinton announced to the world after she stepped off the plane.

"Are all commanders bad, even those who fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda and have disarmed?" General Dostum asked elsewhere, "They are demanding unicorns in Kabul."

More to follow.

In Shanghai, a CNN correspondent says she was detained for two hours by Chinese security guards after she held a banned T-shirt in front of the camera. The shirt showed so-called "ObaMao"--U.S. President Barack Obama looking like Mao Zedong.

The incident took place while CNN correspondent Emily Chang was filming in a Shanghai market.

The AP has the story, too.

Note to American entrepreneurs:

This may be the report that generated the incident.

The president also met his half-brother, a pianist in China, and following a brief discussion of his Nobel Peace Prize told CNN that

"I think that we've restored America's standing in the world, and that's confirmed by polls," he told CNN's Ed Henry in a wide-ranging interview this week during his trip to China.

"I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people -- maybe less than 40 percent of the people -- thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it's up to 75 percent."

Kabul--U.S. President Barack Obama aims to bring the Afghan war to an end before he leaves office, he said on Wednesday...

In an interview with CNN, Obama said he would soon announce the results of a long-awaited review, which would include an exit strategy to avoid "a multi-year occupation that won't serve the interests of the United States".

"The American people will have a lot of clarity about what we're doing, how we're going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost, what kind of burden does this place on our young men and women in uniform and, most importantly, what's the end game on this thing," he said.

"My preference would be not to hand off anything to the next president. One of the things I'd like is the next president to be able to come in and say I've got a clean slate."

When asked "do you trust President Karzai?" Obama responded that "President Karzai has served his country in important ways. When he first came in, there may not have been another figure who could have held that country together. He has some strengths, but he has some weaknesses. I'm less concerned about any individual than I am with a government as a whole that is having difficulty providing basic services to its people in a way that confers legitimacy on them." The president added "we are very close to a decision" on Afghanistan, and "I will announce that decision, certainly in the next several weeks."

Daily Kos: "Today, I noticed an odd-seeming photo of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska in a recently posted feature at Runner's World, which was linked to by the Huffington Post..."

Andrew Sullivan: "I'm not a stickler for this kind of thing, and don't think it's that big a deal, but..."

Readers of both were treated to explanations of how this sort of thing wouldn't play well with their fellow Runner's World subscribers (presumably that's how this came to their attention - no one else was likely to see these pictures) who might also support Sarah Palin and tend to get outraged at pictures like this one:

I'm not sure how large that demographic is, but for whatever reason (her resignation as Governor of Alaska, perhaps - an obvious cover-up!!!) no outrage on any significant scale materialized, the story was forgotten. In this case, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals ("Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.") didn't really come through.

But this week Newsweek recycled that very same Runner's World photo for its cover story on Palin.

And before the ink could dry "media watchdog" Media Matters for America was expressing outrage at the media's refusal to condemn the former Governor's shocking disrespect for Old Glory:

If the press is going to robotically follow the lead of the right-wing media and spend time actually dissecting Obama's bow over the weekend before Japan's Japan's Emperor Akihito, and if the press is going to legitimize the notion that perhaps all kinds of (evil) motives can be interpreted by the common act of protocol, and that maybe Americans can learn all sorts of things about how Obama views America's role in the world from the passing action, than why hasn't the press turned its attention to this week's Newsweek's cover which features Sarah Palin in an apparent breach of protocol?

Yes, that was all one sentence. This is another: "The fact that it featured her apparently disrespecting the flag is of no concern." This is another: "But so far, crickets from the right-wing press regarding the fact that Palin trampled etiquette and inappropriately used the United States flag as a photo prop."

Elsewhere, Palin and others on the right are shocked, shocked I tell you, that Newsweek would use a picture of an attractive and obviously healthy woman in short pants to sell magazines. And that's part of the point Media Matters was trying to hint at so subtly. You see, they ignored the fact that she disrespected the flag. See? See it? That's why that photo was chosen, hypocrites!!. Now stop ignoring it or we'll call you hypocrites again!

What's any of that got to do with anything that matters? Nothing, really. I'm more amused than anything else over the cottage industry that's sprung up around Sarah Palin. (Yesterday I visited the Indianapolis Star web site to get the local version of the Colts/Pats game and actually found a headline above the game-of-the-year on the front page - it seems Sarah would be visiting Indy-suburb Noblesville for a book signing...) And honestly I enjoy watching people tremble at the mention of her name.

And strangely enough, when I first saw the Newsweek cover I recognized the months-old Runner's World photo immediately. I actually am a runner but don't have much time to read about running. So I was aware of the Runner's World photo only because my email inbox filled up last July with messages alerting me to the horror Palin had perpetrated against America's symbol of right, might, and purity. I was less than impressed then, I'm even less so now.

But I also noticed something slick Newsweek had done with the cover layout:

The other item you might notice in the original picture is a Blue Star flag, symbol of a family member overseas. (In this case, Track Palin.) It's clearer still in the original, but you won't be noticing that on the cover of Newsweek.

It didn't get any big media attention, but Palin's unit rotated out of Iraq in September, so perhaps Newsweek's goal was to hide the age of this particular recycled photo. More likely, no one involved at Newsweek had any idea what that thing she had hanging in the window was. They aren't exactly common in America these days.

But for the record: I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Aghast even. Stunned at Newsweek's callous disregard for the symbol of sacrifice on the part of all military families on the home front with a loved one risking everything in an overseas contingency operation half a world away.

Outraged.

Update: disgusted.

Update: This blast from the past reminds me why so many people fear Sarah Palin more than anything in this world:

Previously: Michael Jackson is still... oh look! It's Sarah Palin!