Thursday, April 30, 2015

Military Admits ‘Martial Law’ Test Runs Planned Throughout U.S. This Summer

Military Admits ‘Martial Law’ Test Runs Planned Throughout U.S. This Summer

Newly-leaked military documents reveal what the United States government is no longer denying: that elite branches of the military are currently preparing for “training exercises” throughout the U.S. southwest which simulate martial law scenarios.
The document reveals the training exercises are being conducted under the name “Operation Jade Helm.”
The exercises are scheduled to begin this July and continue for eight weeks. The operation will include the participation of 1,200 troops from the the Green Berets, Navy SEALS and Special Operations from the Air Force and Marines.
While the military acknowledges the leaked information is legitimate, they have termed the exercises “Realistic Military Training” and confirm that these exercises will be carried out in towns in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas as well as Utah. For whatever reason, the focus seems to be on the U.S. southwest in particular.
In the case of Texas, the military is being the most forthright about the exercises – admitting they are in the works and asking Texans living in close proximity to the operation to report anything which the military has characterized as “suspicious activity” during the exercises.
The leaked US military training document, was released by The Houston Chronicle. It perhaps overestimates the US military belief that Texans have been “historically supportive” of military exercises like these, as they believe them to be for the purposes of “fight[ing] the enemies of the United States.”
Army Special Operation Command spokesman Mark Lastoria acknowledged that the exercises are all about “covert warfare tactics and martial law.”
They are to develop “emerging concepts in special operations warfare,” he continued.
He told a US Army publication known as Stripes that the “notion” that this is training for martial law in the United States “was proposed by a few individuals who are unfamiliar with how and why USASOC conducts training exercises.”
He adds that Americans shouldn’t be worried, because they are really just training to impose martial law on cities around the world “at a moment’s notice.”
“This exercise is routine training to maintain a high level of readiness for Army Special Operations Forces because they must be ready to support potential missions anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.”
Skeptics, however, have asked why states like Texas and Utah, as well as a section of southern California?
Whatever the reason for the U.S. military conducting what they admit are “martial law” exercises in what they also call “realistic urban sites,” what we know for certain is that the Special Forces will be on the ground in cities and towns across the country. Whether this is for the purposes of training to oppress civilians abroad or in the U.S., it has a lot of people concerned and asking questions.
(Article by Jackson Mariana and Zeidy David; image via Wall321; map via US Army Special Operations Command)
Share this:
Share This!

Leave a Reply



Twitter Feed

South China Sea:Turning Reefs into Artificial Islands?

RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: for feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentary, Yang Razali Kassim. 

No. 104/2015 dated 30 April 2015
South China Sea:
Turning Reefs into Artificial Islands?
By Youna Lyons and Wong Hiu Fung


Large-scale reclamation work in the South China Sea using living coral reefs as building material is causing severe environmental damage. It is also against international law.


CHINA’S ONGOING reclamation activities in the South China Sea are a cause for environmental concern, given their potential to destroy the little-explored pristine coral reefs of the Spratlys. This development comes as a surprise coming at a time of loss of biological diversity on land and in the sea, and an acute concern for the degradation of the natural environment.

These marine features lie in contested waters. High resolution commercial satellite imagery shows mechanical dredgers and their circular trails operating on reefs in the Spratlys where substantial land reclamation work is being or has been undertaken by China. This is particularly visible on Fiery Cross Reef, Hughes Reef, Mischief Reef, Subi Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Gaven Reef and Johnson South Reef. Even unoccupied shallow features have been dredged to provide building material for nearby reclamations. Coral reefs that have been left untouched for centuries by virtue of their isolation are now gone.

Using living coral reefs as building material
Dredgers, such as cutter suction dredgers, are used to break up and remove hard substrates like coral reefs together with other attached organisms (molluscs, seagrass, etc) before compacting them onto the area being reclaimed. In addition to removing all coral reefs, these dredgers create sediment plumes that further threaten living coral fragments still alive and other photosynthetic organisms that need sunlight to live.

The environmental impact due to past construction of military installations and destructive fishing methods on reefs has already been reported since the late 1980s. But such activities were of a smaller magnitude and did not involve the destruction of entire reef systems –as is being done now in the disputed waters of the South China Sea.

The geographic formations, generally known as the Spratlys Islands, are in fact isolated seamounts covered with coral reefs. These underwater mountains on the seabed are separated by deep and large canyons up to 50 km wide and several thousand metres high. Their summits are or were covered with living corals (and often with seagrass in shallowest areas). But only a dozen out of more than one hundred of them exhibit small cays or islands above water at all tides - altogether less than one square kilometre.

Their dramatic rise from the seabed causes an upward current, bringing up nutrient-rich deep water that feeds life developing in the top layers of the sea. Seamounts are remarkably productive as they create exceptional conditions for a variety of life to develop; both in the light of the top layers of the sea and below. However, their isolation also makes them vulnerable and slow to recover from large-scale disturbances.

Marine research studies carried out in the 1980’s by the Joint Oceanographic Marine Survey of the Philippines and Vietnam and more recently by independent scientists show the rich biodiversity in the shallowest parts of these seamounts - their richness in coral reefs, fishes, seabirds, migratory species and other coral reef associated species.

Potential impact on littoral States

Coral ecologists specialising in the Spratlys hypothesised in the 1990’s that the very high diversity of species in the Spratlys would provide critical larval sources for overharvested and stressed coastlines bordering the South China Sea and more generally for biodiversity reservoirs. This theory is based on a combination of factors. These include on-site sampling; the proximity of the Coral Triangle; and enhanced transport and dispersal of drifting larvae and juvenile fishes throughout the South China Sea by the ocean circulation pattern that reverses under monsoonal influence.

Recent research suggests that the biodiversity of the South China Sea may be comparable to or even richer than that of the Coral Triangle – the tropical marine waters, roughly triangular in shape, of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. It is therefore greater than the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Coastal and oceanic fisheries exploited by the littoral States of the South China Sea are also expected to benefit from these reefs.

These spawning and nursery grounds for reef fish can also be feeding grounds that support large population of oceanic and migratory fish such as several tuna species, including yellowfin and skipjack tunas. The disappearance of the reefs would offset most if not all of these benefits.

Coral reefs and international law

Under international law, it is the obligation of ‘building States’ to protect and employ sustainable management practices with respect to their construction activities in the Spratly seamounts. It is also their obligation to consult with other affected States. International law provides for clear obligations with respect to the protection and sustainable management of the Spratly seamounts, and the prevention and management of transboundary impacts from human activities:

Firstly, the Spratly seamounts and their associated species qualify for protection under a large number of hard and soft law international instruments because they meet the criteria for sensitive environments in need of protection.
Secondly, any State engaging in construction work that carries a risk of severe or irreversible damage to the local marine environment and risk transboundary damage to coral reefs and fisheries of States bordering the South China Sea must consult the affected States. They must also apply the precautionary approach and exercise due diligence in the conduct of their activities including the duty of vigilance and prevention. This would include the adoption of measures such as conducting a transparent environmental impact assessment.

Furthermore, the lack of full scientific certainty concerning the scope of potential negative impacts must not be used as a reason to defer these obligations. The existence of plausible indications of potential transboundary risks is sufficient to trigger the application of these positive obligations for any State undertaking land reclamations in the Spratlys.

States carrying out construction activities on coral reefs and seamounts in the Spratlys must avoid damaging the marine environment due to the far reaching risks to the States bordering the South China Sea. To ignore such risks could create broader complications for regional cooperation and political stability amongst the States of Southeast Asia and the southwestern Pacific.

Youna Lyons is a Senior Research Fellow and Wong Hiu Fung, Research Assistant, in the Ocean and Policy Programme of the Centre for International Law (CIL), National University of Singapore (NUS). They contributed this specially to RSIS Commentary.
Click HERE to read this commentary online.

US Secretary of Defense to participate in the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue

US Secretary of Defense to participate in the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue
30 April: The US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, has confirmed his participation in the upcoming 2015 Asia Security Summit: the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue, taking place in Singapore from 29 31 May.
Now in its 14th year, the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue is the key forum for the discussion and analysis of defence and security concerns, in the region and beyond.
The Dialogue will bring together defence ministers, military chiefs, high-ranking defence officials, leading defence and security experts, and representatives of the private sector from the Asia-Pacific, North America, Europe and other regions.
Singapore's Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, will deliver the Keynote Address at the Opening Dinner on 29 May.
Confirmed key delegates at this year's IISS Shangri-La Dialogue include:
-         Kevin Andrews, Minister of Defence, Australia
        General Tea Banh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense, Cambodia
-         Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
        Jean-Yves Le Drian, Minister of Defence, France
-         Dr Ursula von der Leyen, Federal Minister of Defence, Germany
-         Rao Inderjit Singh, Minister of State for Defence, India
-         Ryamizard Ryacudu, Minister of Defense, Indonesia
-         Gen Nakatani, Minister of Defence, Japan
-         Han Min-Koo, Minister of National Defense, Republic of Korea
-         Dato' Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, Minister of Defence, Malaysia
-         Tserendash Tsolmon, Minister of Defense, Mongolia
-         Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Defence, New Zealand
-         Dr Fabian Pok, Minister for Defence, Papua New Guinea
-         Teo Chee Hean, Deputy Prime Minister, Singapore
-         Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Defence, Singapore
-         Pedro Moren�s Eulate, Minister of Defence, Spain
-         General Prawit Wongsuwon, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, Thailand
-         Cirilo Cristov�o, Minister for Defence, Timor-Leste
-         Le Muong Minh, Secretary-General, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Registration for the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue is now open. For more information, visit the summit’s website or contact the Shangri-La Dialogue Press Team at  Media registration will close on 1 May 2015.
Information for Editors:
A registered charity headquartered in London, the IISS also has offices in Washington DC, Singapore and Manama, Bahrain. The IISS is a non-partisan organisation, independent of government and other bodies. Its mission is to promote the adoption of sound policies to further global peace and security and maintain civilised international relations.

Senate Rejects Attempt to Make Iran Nuclear Agreement a Treaty


Senate Rejects Attempt to Make Iran Nuclear Agreement a Treaty

April 29, 2015 - 4:07 AM

bob corker
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., authored the compromise bill providing for congressional review of a final Iran nuclear agreement. (AP Photo, File)
( – The U.S. Senate on Tuesday evening voted down the first of a raft of amendments to legislation providing for congressional review of a negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran, with a majority of senators rejecting a bid to give a deal international treaty status.

The amendment to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, proposed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), failed by 39 votes to 57.
If the agreement was deemed a treaty, ratification would require the support of 67 of the 100 senators – a threshold the Obama administration would struggle to achieve, judging from the deep misgivings expressed on both sides of the aisle over the emerging nuclear deal. (SOL: Because of pressure from BIBI threats) 
Instead, under compromise legislation crafted by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), lawmakers wanting to reject an Iran deal would need to pass a resolution of disapproval in both chambers. A presidential veto would almost certainly follow, requiring just 34 senators to be upheld.
Johnson argued on the Senate floor that this would in effect give 34 senators the ability to approve a “bad deal.”
He said he believed that the Iran nuclear agreement “is so important to the security of this nation and world peace, that it rises to the level of a treaty.” (SOL: Yes, sounds like BIBI wrote the script)
His amendment would require the president to come to the Senate, in line with the Constitution, for its advice and consent – “so that 67 senators would have to vote affirmatively that this is a good deal.”
“Basically the American public would be involved in the decision through their elected representatives,” Johnson said.
“The American public is not being given the opportunity right now. What is happening right now under this Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is we have turned advice and consent on his head. We have lowered the threshold to what advice and consent means as relates to this Iran deal.”
Republicans opposing Johnson’s amendment included Corker, who said it would bring an inevitable presidential veto, thus depriving Congress the ability to weigh in on the nuclear agreement at all.
“Let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” he said. “Let’s ensure that we have the ability to see the details of this deal.”
GOP senators who did not heed Corker’s appeal and voted in favor of Johnson’s amendment included Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential aspirant Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Two other declared Republican presidential candidates, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), did not vote.
Cruz and Rubio have amendments of their own to offer as the Senate continues to consider the Corker bill this week.
Rubio wants the legislation to include a provision requiring Iranian leaders publicly to recognize Israel’s right to exist, while Cruz’ proposal would require Congress to vote to approve any nuclear deal, rather than to vote to disapprove it, thus placing the burden on the agreement’s backers rather than on its detractors. Neither looks likely to succeed.
Corker’s bill in current form requires the president to submit the text of a final nuclear agreement to Congress within five days of its conclusion.
Congress would then have 30 days to review the deal, and will be able to vote on “a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does favor the agreement” or vote on “a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does not favor the agreement.” It could also take no action, allowing the deal to go ahead.
Corker announced Tuesday that he was submitting an amendment too, requiring not just the English-language text of the agreement to be submitted to Congress but a Farsi-language one as well.
He said this was designed to clear up any dispute between the U.S. and Iran over exactly what had been agreed upon.
After a “framework” deal was announced on April 2, laying out the parameters for a final agreement to be concluded by the end of June,major differences emerged between the two sides’ depictions of its contents, centered on the timing of the lifting of sanctions, and the question of access to military sites for foreign inspectors.
“We all saw the controversy surrounding the discrepancies between the American fact sheet and the Iranian fact sheet,” Corker said in explanation of his amendment. “This agreement is too important to rely on secondhand interpretations of the text.”

Forty years after fall of Saigon, Vietnam now directs anger at China


Forty years after fall of Saigon, Vietnam now directs anger at China

Vietnamese national flags — with a gold star on a red field — fly everywhere in the run-up to today’s big parade marking the fall of Saigon, now called Ho Chi Minh City, on April 30, 1975. However, this country is no longer obsessed with the “American war” or the regime in Saigon that Washington worked very hard to support until the end of the war. Admiral Tran Thanh Minh, deputy chief of Vietnam’s small navy, says the stronger memory today is of Vietnam’s border war with China in 1979 and the current threat posed by China’s claim to control a large portion of the South China Sea.
For thousands of years, the Vietnamese people have been fighting invasions from China. We defeated China with endless spirit.
Admiral Tran Thanh Minh, deputy chief of Vietnam’s navy
Vietnam now looks to the U.S. as a partner and potential source from which to buy weapons to modernize the country’s military, says the admiral. The two countries have also hosted high-level visits, and Vietnam has welcomed military cooperation and visiting U.S. naval ships. China continues to spar with Hanoi and other neighbors over disputed islands in the South China Sea in what is viewed as a growing maritime threat in the region.
U.S. companies have invested billions here, integrating Vietnam into the global supply chain, creating quality jobs for Vietnamese workers.
Ted Osius, U.S. ambassador to Vietnam

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

ALERT: Out of Control Unmanned Russian Cargo Spacecraft is Falling to Earth (+Video)

ALERT: Out of Control Unmanned Russian Cargo Spacecraft is Falling to Earth (+Video)

This is a developing story...
Out of control Russian spacecraft plunging back to Earth:
  • Official reveals unmanned cargo craft has ‘started descending’
  • Progress M-27M will fall to Earth in a matter of days, experts have said
  • The ISS-bound spacecraft suffered a glitch after launching yesterday April 28, 2015.
  • It is now spinning out of control with ‘nowhere to go’ except down
  • The Progress is carrying about 2.5 tons of cargo, including fuel, equipment, oxygen and food, to the space station, which currently has a six-person crew from Russia, the United States and Italy
ESA director Thomas Reiter:
The spacecraft is 160 miles high and travelling at more than 16,000mph. That altitude is sufficiently below the space station to pose the crew no problems, but some satellites might need to take evasive manoeuvres. 

What’s Next for US-Philippine Military Ties?

What’s Next for US-Philippine Military Ties?

As I reported previously, the United States and the Philippines are now carrying out this year’s iteration of the Balikatan exercises, which have been expanded significantly. But with those exercises soon coming to a close on April 30, there have been some discussions about what we might expect from U.S.-Philippine military relations in the near future.
One evolving issue is what the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) signed last year between the two countries might mean specifically in terms of the U.S. access to Philippine bases. In mid-April, Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario had already said that the Philippines welcomed the U.S. plan to deploy air and naval assets to the country as part of the next phase of Washington’s rebalance to the region. While del Rosario said he had not discussed specifics with his U.S. counterparts, he noted that handling such equipment “will require U.S. presence.” Department of National Defense (DND) spokesman Peter Galvez also added that Manila had planned and looked at where some of these new capabilities “may be appropriately deployed,” including Subic and Clark which the United States had access to up till 1991.
On April 24, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Gregorio Catapang offered a bit more clarity on this question when he disclosed to ABS-CBN News that US troops would have access to at least eight Philippine military bases under EDCA. These are: Fort Magsaysay in Neuva Ecija; Crow Valley in Tarlac; Basa Air Base in Pampanga; Naval Station San Miguel in Zambales; Antonio Bautista Air Base in Palawan; Benito Ebuen Air Base in Cebu; and Naval Base Rafael Ramos in Cebu. Two of those bases face the South China Sea.
The list of bases is not new – it was agreed upon during a meeting between Catapang and Admiral Samuel Locklear, the chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, last October. Catapang was also careful to emphasize that the list would only be formalized once the Philippine Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of EDCA, which is still yet to occur. And while media reports have stressed that some of these bases face the South China Sea (which Manila calls the West Philippine Sea), Catapang himself noted that the Philippines recognizes that this does not solve its problems in disputed areas and Manila cannot expect Washington to defend its ally if an armed conflict erupts.
“EDCA will not solve our problem. We understand the treaty, it does not include the West Philippine Sea. So we want to develop our own capabilities,” he said.
In that vein, the Philippines is also looking to boost its own capabilities in this respect in the coming months with the help of several countries including the United States. On 27 April, Galvez, the DND spokesman, reportedly told IHS Jane’s that the Philippines is preparing to submit a request to the U.S. government to procure additional military equipment – especially those that could boost the country’s offshore military capabilities in the face of rising Chinese assertiveness – in line with official meetings between the two sides.
“We will be requesting to acquire equipment that can improve our military capabilities, particularly in the maritime domain,” Galvez said. “We have a list of priorities but we will not be specific with our requirements until we know what is available from the U.S.”
As IHS Jane’s notes, stated requirements by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) include additional transport aircraft, long-range patrol aircraft, close-air support aircraft, anti-submarine warfare helicopters, light frigates, amphibious assault vehicles, and communications and surveillance systems.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Two Stories in the Same Day Show That the U.S. Is Rotten to the Core

Two Stories in the Same Day Show
That the U.S. Is Rotten to the Core

By Ted Rall

April 25, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - Still think the United States is governed by decent people? That the system isn't totally corrupt and obscenely unfair?
Two stories that broke April 23 ought to wake you up.
Story 1: President Obama admitted that one of his Predator drones killed two aid workers, an American and an Italian, who were being held hostage by al-Qaida in Pakistan. As The Guardian reports, "The lack of specificity [about the targets] suggests that despite a much-publicized 2013 policy change by Barack Obama restricting drone killings by, among other things, requiring 'near certainty that the terrorist target is present,' the U.S. continues to launch lethal operations without the necessity of knowing who specifically it seeks to kill, a practice that has come to be known as a 'signature strike.'"
"Lack of specificity" is putting it mildly. According to a report by the group Reprieve, the U.S. targeted 41 "terrorists" — actually, enemies of the corrupt Yemeni and Pakistani regimes — with drones during 2014. Thanks to "lack of specificity," a total of 1,150 people were killed. Which doesn't even include the 41 targets, many of whom got away clean.
Obama's hammy pretend grief was Shatner-worthy. Biting his lip in that sorry/not sorry Bill Clinton way, the president summed up mock sadness for an event that happened back in January. Come on, dude. You seriously expect us to believe you've been all weepy for the last three months — excluding all those speeches and other public appearances in which you were laughing and cracking jokes?
And the same exact day when he pretend-sadded, he also yukked it up with the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots. "That whole story got blown a little out of proportion," he jibed. (re: "deflate-gate.") While sad. But laughing.
So confusing.
I swear, the right-wing racists are right to hate him. But they hate him for totally the wrong reasons.
Anyway, what took so long for the White House to admit they killed one of our best citizens? "It took weeks to correlate [the hostages'] reported deaths with the drone strikes," The New York Times quoted White House officials. But in his prepared remarks, Obama said "capturing these terrorists was not possible" — thus the drone strike.
How stupid does the administration think we are?
The fact that it is possible to find out who dies in a drone fact (albeit after the fact) indicates that there is reliable intelligence coming out of the targeted areas, presumably provided by local police and military sources. If there are cops and troops there who are friendly enough to give us information, then it obviously is possible to ask them to capture the targeted individuals.
Bottom line: The U.S. government is blowing up people with drones willy-nilly, without the slightest clue who they're blowing up. Which, as political assassinations, are illegal. And which they specifically said was what they were no longer doing. Then they have the nerve to pretend to be sad about the completely avoidable consequences of their actions. They're disgusting and gross and ought to be locked in prison forever.
Story 2: David Petraeus, former hotshot media-darling general of the Bush and early Obama years, received a slap on the wrist — probation plus a $100,000 fine — for improperly passing on classified military documents to unauthorized people and lying about it to federal agents when they questioned him about it.
Here we go again: more proof that, in the American justice system some people fly first-class while the rest of us go coach.
In this backwards world, people like Petraeus, who ought to be held to the highest standard because they were entrusted with immense power and responsibility, walk free while low-ranking schlubs who committed the same crime get treated like Al Capone. Private Chelsea Manning, who released war logs documenting U.S. war crimes in Iraq to WikiLeaks, rots in prison for 35 years. Edward Snowden, the 31-year-old systems administrator for a private NSA outsourcing firm who revealed that the U.S. government is reading all our emails and listening to all our phone calls, faces life in prison.
Two years probation. Meanwhile, teachers who helped their students cheat on standardized tests got seven years in prison. To Petraeus, who went to work for a hedge fund, $100,000 is a nice tip for the caddy.
Adding insanity to insult is the fact that Petraeus' motive for endangering national security was venal: he gave the documents to his girlfriend, who wrote his authorized biography. Manning and Snowden, heroes who in a sane society would receive ticker-tape parades and about atrocities committed in their name, and about wholesale violations of their basic  presidential medals of freedom, weren't after glory. They wanted to inform the American people freedoms, including the right to privacy.
Before he was caught and while he was sharing classified info with his gf, Petraeus had the gall to hypocritically pontificate about a CIA officer who disclosed sensitive information. Unlike Petraeus, the CIA guy got coach-class justice: 30 months in prison.
"Oaths do matter," Petraeus pompously bloviated in 2012, "and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws that protect our fellow officers and enable American intelligence agencies to operate with the requisite degree of secrecy."
If you're a first-classer, the consequences are very small.
Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for The Los Angeles Times, is the author of the new critically-acclaimed book "After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan." Subscribe to Ted Rall at Beacon.