test
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Creative Bube Tube | Health Canada Approves Natural Product, Insect Defend Patch
As the mosquito season approaches, many people search for effective insect protection which remains free from the harmful chemicals found in most insect defence products. This is the first spring where they can be assured by Health Canada's full approval of the natural solution Insect Defend Patch (IDP) and the Natural Health Product number which it was issued on November 27th, 2012.
IDP has generated momentum for this product for over 5 years with the help of top advertising agency Creative Bube Tube, and this approval is a landmark event in the history of insect defence. The Insect Defend Patch, now also known as NPN #80037826 is the only Health Canada approved Natural Health Product proven to help reduce mosquito bites.
As one of the most stringent health organizations in the world, Health Canada's full approval gives the public assurance that using Insect Defend Patch has a positive effect in safely reducing mosquito bites. While pending this status, IDP had a temporary exemption number, and after a full review of their field test results and safety protocols, Health Canada put their stamp of approval on the natural insect defence product.
Approximately 1.3 million patches were sold within Canada in 2012 and with this approval the company looks forward to a promising distribution future, providing the public with a safe and natural mosquito defence product. Insect Defend Patch would like to extend a special thanks to all their retailers who supported them by carrying the patch while they were awaiting Health Canada's full approval.
Insect Defend Patch would also like to thank their partners and associates for their vision and support in helping them get to this level. These partners include, Creative Bube Tube (who created their special effects and animated television commercials), AKM Services International, For the Ages, Impact Sales and Marketing, World Famous Distribution, Best Pak, DSA Consulting, ARTURUS Testing, KGK Synergize, Marketech, Italo Labignan and Canadian Sport Fishing, Ronnie Whittick and last but not least, the CBC's Dragons' Den where Brett Wilson and Jim Treliving offered them the biggest deal ever in the show's history.
Most importantly the principals at Insect Defend Patch would like to thank their customers. The fact that they kept supporting the product and buying the patch because it works, says it all!
Creative Bube Tube
With representation from east to west in both the United States and Canada, Creative Bube Tube is a television and social media agency serving medium to large clients from across the globe in sports, pharmaceutical, health and lifestyle, food and beverage, automotive and many other industries. From creative ideation to results, they have produced over 400 television campaigns since opening in 2006.
IDP has generated momentum for this product for over 5 years with the help of top advertising agency Creative Bube Tube, and this approval is a landmark event in the history of insect defence. The Insect Defend Patch, now also known as NPN #80037826 is the only Health Canada approved Natural Health Product proven to help reduce mosquito bites.
As one of the most stringent health organizations in the world, Health Canada's full approval gives the public assurance that using Insect Defend Patch has a positive effect in safely reducing mosquito bites. While pending this status, IDP had a temporary exemption number, and after a full review of their field test results and safety protocols, Health Canada put their stamp of approval on the natural insect defence product.
Approximately 1.3 million patches were sold within Canada in 2012 and with this approval the company looks forward to a promising distribution future, providing the public with a safe and natural mosquito defence product. Insect Defend Patch would like to extend a special thanks to all their retailers who supported them by carrying the patch while they were awaiting Health Canada's full approval.
Insect Defend Patch would also like to thank their partners and associates for their vision and support in helping them get to this level. These partners include, Creative Bube Tube (who created their special effects and animated television commercials), AKM Services International, For the Ages, Impact Sales and Marketing, World Famous Distribution, Best Pak, DSA Consulting, ARTURUS Testing, KGK Synergize, Marketech, Italo Labignan and Canadian Sport Fishing, Ronnie Whittick and last but not least, the CBC's Dragons' Den where Brett Wilson and Jim Treliving offered them the biggest deal ever in the show's history.
Most importantly the principals at Insect Defend Patch would like to thank their customers. The fact that they kept supporting the product and buying the patch because it works, says it all!
Creative Bube Tube
With representation from east to west in both the United States and Canada, Creative Bube Tube is a television and social media agency serving medium to large clients from across the globe in sports, pharmaceutical, health and lifestyle, food and beverage, automotive and many other industries. From creative ideation to results, they have produced over 400 television campaigns since opening in 2006.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
KINSELLA: Why Mulcair will never be Canada's PM
The precise moment at which Thomas Mulcair became unfit to be prime minister of Canada is hard to pin down.
It arguably came in 2005, when his party adopted what has become known as the Sherbrooke Declaration -- in which the federal New Democrats accept that is possible to break up the country with 50% plus a single, solitary vote. When the NDP's own constitution requires two-thirds to be amended.
It may have come in late 2012, when the NDP leader refused to defend the flying of the Canadian flag at ceremonies at Quebec's National Assembly. Instead, Mulcair sent out one of his crypto-separatist MPs, who snapped that the banning of the Maple Leaf was Quebec's "own business." Or, it may have happened earlier this year, when Mulcair approved a move to rescind the Clarity Act, the 2000 legislation that governs the rules surrounding secession of a province. The federal NDP want to clear up unity "fairy tales," he said at the time.
Most likely, however, Mulcair ceased to be a contender for prime minister sometime in April, when a book was published in Quebec suggesting the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada actually conspired against Quebec's then-separatist government. In the book,La bataille de Londres, Quebec journalist Frederic Bastien claims Chief Justice Bora Laskin passed secrets to the Canadian and British governments on discussions between high court justices about the legality of constitutional repatriation. Bastien also accuses former Justice Willard Estey of slipping confidential information to the British government in 1980. Never mind that an unprecedented Supreme Court investigation found no evidence whatsoever to validate Bastien's claims.
Forget that Laskin and Estey were not merely two great jurists -- they were two of the greatest Canadians to have ever lived, and that they are not here to defend their good names. Never mind any of that. No, note this: When Bastien's corrosive conspiracy theories were trotted out, Mulcair giddily seized on them, and demanded an inquiry. And, when he got one, he dismissed the results, because they favoured Canada.
Said Mulcair recently: "It's a clear indication that the Supreme Court had no intention all along of ever dealing with this issue seriously."
Take another look at those words. Those are the words of a man who aspires to be prime minister -- smearing the highest court in the land, suggesting that it is lawless. That it is engaged in cover-up. As I said at an Ottawa conference this week -- as one of Mulcair's most ardent defenders angrily sat beside me -- those comments are beyond the pale. They are disgusting and despicable. And they disqualify Thomas Mulcair to be prime minister.
Why did Mulcair pursue such a reckless course? Why did he so irresponsibly seek to reopen old wounds and divide Canadians?
Because he knows he will never be prime minister. Because he knows that his current post, leader of the opposition, is the best he can ever hope for. Because he is always prepared to cut a deal with the separatists to advance his career, and to hell with Canada.
There's been a pattern in Mulcair's public life. At those points where history is watching, at those moments where he has been called upon to choose Canada or Quebec, he chooses the latter. At every juncture where he could have promoted Canada, Mulcair declined. He put his partisan interest ahead of the national interest.
At a certain point in a politician's career, a picture reveals itself. Mulcair's portrait is one that depicts an angry, bitter old man, one who is literally prepared to put the country at risk to curry favour with separatists. Mulcair is a disgrace. He isn't fit to be a dogcatcher, let alone prime minister of Canada.
warren.kinsella@sunmedia.ca
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Canada must do its part to protect continent
If the U.S. is once again asking Canada to join its antiballistic missile shield on the West Coast to help defend North America against new, long-range, potentially nuclear-capable North Korean missiles - the answer from Ottawa must be yes.
It is plain wrong for Canada to expect Washington to pay all the freight to defend North America. Having Canada in the program would also plug a possible gap in the existing North American shield between airbases at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
Such a move by Canada would underscore the unity of Canadian and American security interests at a time when U.S. President Barack Obama is considering approving or denying permission to build the Canadian-owned XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. That is a project that is crucial to Canada's economic well-being in the 21st century.
Joining the missile defence shield would be in accord with the intense, little-known collaboration between Canada and the U.S. in the selection of drone targets in southern Afghanistan to defend combat troops when they were fighting there. Another not well known fact is that military relations between Canada and the U.S. are so seamless that three Canadian army generals serve in senior positions in major U.S. commands in the states of Washington, Texas and North Carolina. And a Canadian lieutenant-general is always the deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a bi-national organization responsible for defending Canada from airborne threats from Russia and China, and possibly North Korea and Iran. A Canadian rear-admiral was also the deputy commander of the world's largest naval exercise last summer off Hawaii, serving with two other Canadian one-leaf flag officers.
All this is to say that with little fanfare, Canada is already highly integrated into U.S. military planning. So why not include the missile shield, too?
It was eight years ago that Paul Martin's Liberal government and his foreign minister Pierre Pettigrew rejected the last formal U.S. request for Canada to participate in continental missile defence. It was supposed at the time that this had sent a strong signal south that Ottawa would not always do its neighbour's bidding, and that by refusing to join in this part of the defence of North America, it was refusing to join the U.S in a new international arms race.
But the missile shield has never been about an American military offensive overseas or the positioning of missiles with strike capability on Canadian soil. It has been solely about the defence of the continent.
The ground has shifted a lot since 2005. Russia, and especially China, have both continued to improve their long-rang missile capabilities while North Korea and Iran have been investing vast sums to develop intercontinental missiles that they could potentially marry with their nuclear weapon programs.
This is scary stuff, as are the latest bizarre and bellicose antics of North Korea's relatively new leader Kim Jong-un, whose forces have been testing new midrange missiles and have been openly developing the Unha-3 ballistic missile, which is designed to reach targets well inside Canada. It was because of this emerging threat that the U.S. announced a few weeks ago that it was deploying more anti-ballistic or interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and why scientists and engineers with the U.S.-based National Research Council reckoned that it would only take about 40 minutes for a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) to reach North American. The council recommended in a highly technical report last year that there should be a more a robust missile defence capability to cover the continent's western approaches and noted that much of Atlantic Canada was poorly defended if Iran ever achieves an ICBM capability.
While Canada received kudos for taking on a significant combat role for five years in southern Afghanistan, and without the caveats that hobbled most European NATO armies over there, in defence matters, as in politics at home or abroad, the question is usually not what did you do for me yesterday but what will you do for me tomorrow.
It got little attention in Canada but former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was dismayed last year when Canada rebuffed her request to continue its modest contribution to AWACs early-warning radar crews that operate under the NATO flag in Germany.
This decision was symbolic in all the wrong ways. It not only unnecessarily aggravated NATO and the U.S. at a time when every positive gesture counts as Washington considers a pipeline that will affect Canada's economy for years to come. It also killed a small operation in Germany that did not cost much money.
Furthermore, those couple of hundred Canadian air force pilots and radar operators based there represented Canada's last tangible military contribution to the alliance in Europe. When those crews leave in July it will mark the end of 74 consecutive years of a Canadian military presence in Europe.
Canada must do its part to protect its citizens and North America from North Korean or Iranian ICBM's by joining the anti-ballistic missile shield. It would be grossly irresponsible not to do so.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Canada+must+part+protect+continent/8280351/story.html#ixzz2RN9vJkFM
It is plain wrong for Canada to expect Washington to pay all the freight to defend North America. Having Canada in the program would also plug a possible gap in the existing North American shield between airbases at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
Such a move by Canada would underscore the unity of Canadian and American security interests at a time when U.S. President Barack Obama is considering approving or denying permission to build the Canadian-owned XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. That is a project that is crucial to Canada's economic well-being in the 21st century.
Joining the missile defence shield would be in accord with the intense, little-known collaboration between Canada and the U.S. in the selection of drone targets in southern Afghanistan to defend combat troops when they were fighting there. Another not well known fact is that military relations between Canada and the U.S. are so seamless that three Canadian army generals serve in senior positions in major U.S. commands in the states of Washington, Texas and North Carolina. And a Canadian lieutenant-general is always the deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a bi-national organization responsible for defending Canada from airborne threats from Russia and China, and possibly North Korea and Iran. A Canadian rear-admiral was also the deputy commander of the world's largest naval exercise last summer off Hawaii, serving with two other Canadian one-leaf flag officers.
All this is to say that with little fanfare, Canada is already highly integrated into U.S. military planning. So why not include the missile shield, too?
It was eight years ago that Paul Martin's Liberal government and his foreign minister Pierre Pettigrew rejected the last formal U.S. request for Canada to participate in continental missile defence. It was supposed at the time that this had sent a strong signal south that Ottawa would not always do its neighbour's bidding, and that by refusing to join in this part of the defence of North America, it was refusing to join the U.S in a new international arms race.
But the missile shield has never been about an American military offensive overseas or the positioning of missiles with strike capability on Canadian soil. It has been solely about the defence of the continent.
The ground has shifted a lot since 2005. Russia, and especially China, have both continued to improve their long-rang missile capabilities while North Korea and Iran have been investing vast sums to develop intercontinental missiles that they could potentially marry with their nuclear weapon programs.
This is scary stuff, as are the latest bizarre and bellicose antics of North Korea's relatively new leader Kim Jong-un, whose forces have been testing new midrange missiles and have been openly developing the Unha-3 ballistic missile, which is designed to reach targets well inside Canada. It was because of this emerging threat that the U.S. announced a few weeks ago that it was deploying more anti-ballistic or interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and why scientists and engineers with the U.S.-based National Research Council reckoned that it would only take about 40 minutes for a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) to reach North American. The council recommended in a highly technical report last year that there should be a more a robust missile defence capability to cover the continent's western approaches and noted that much of Atlantic Canada was poorly defended if Iran ever achieves an ICBM capability.
While Canada received kudos for taking on a significant combat role for five years in southern Afghanistan, and without the caveats that hobbled most European NATO armies over there, in defence matters, as in politics at home or abroad, the question is usually not what did you do for me yesterday but what will you do for me tomorrow.
It got little attention in Canada but former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was dismayed last year when Canada rebuffed her request to continue its modest contribution to AWACs early-warning radar crews that operate under the NATO flag in Germany.
This decision was symbolic in all the wrong ways. It not only unnecessarily aggravated NATO and the U.S. at a time when every positive gesture counts as Washington considers a pipeline that will affect Canada's economy for years to come. It also killed a small operation in Germany that did not cost much money.
Furthermore, those couple of hundred Canadian air force pilots and radar operators based there represented Canada's last tangible military contribution to the alliance in Europe. When those crews leave in July it will mark the end of 74 consecutive years of a Canadian military presence in Europe.
Canada must do its part to protect its citizens and North America from North Korean or Iranian ICBM's by joining the anti-ballistic missile shield. It would be grossly irresponsible not to do so.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Canada+must+part+protect+continent/8280351/story.html#ixzz2RN9vJkFM
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Sweden's Norberg will not defend curling title at Sochi
Sweden's Winter Olympic gold medallist Anette Norberg will not defend her title at Sochi next year, the Swedish Curling Association said in a statement on Wednesday.
Norberg has decided to retire from curling, citing a lack of time and motivation to continue a career that saw her win 23 championship medals over almost 20 years.
Described by the Association as "one of the most successful curling players of all time," Norberg won three world championships and seven European titles in addition to Olympic gold medals in 2006 and 2010.
"Curling has been my life for so many years, so obviously I'm going to miss it a lot," Norberg said in the statement.
"But life as a curling player at elite level is very demanding, and I feel that I lack the time and the dedication necessary."
Despite cementing her place in Swedish sporting history when her team beat Canada in the 2010 final to defend their Olympic title, Norberg was by no means certain of a chance to represent Sweden at the Sochi games next year.
Sweden's curling association has recently preferred to send a team led by Norberg's rival Margaretha Sigfridsson to international competitions.
"Obviously it's sad for the curling world that a profile like Anette has decided to stop playing, but luckily we have other teams that can shoulder her responsibilities," curling association general secretary Stefan Lund said in the statement.
"Anette will not disappear from the curling arena. In some way she will be still here and a part of the exciting journey towards the future that Swedish curling is on."
Norberg has decided to retire from curling, citing a lack of time and motivation to continue a career that saw her win 23 championship medals over almost 20 years.
Described by the Association as "one of the most successful curling players of all time," Norberg won three world championships and seven European titles in addition to Olympic gold medals in 2006 and 2010.
"Curling has been my life for so many years, so obviously I'm going to miss it a lot," Norberg said in the statement.
"But life as a curling player at elite level is very demanding, and I feel that I lack the time and the dedication necessary."
Despite cementing her place in Swedish sporting history when her team beat Canada in the 2010 final to defend their Olympic title, Norberg was by no means certain of a chance to represent Sweden at the Sochi games next year.
Sweden's curling association has recently preferred to send a team led by Norberg's rival Margaretha Sigfridsson to international competitions.
"Obviously it's sad for the curling world that a profile like Anette has decided to stop playing, but luckily we have other teams that can shoulder her responsibilities," curling association general secretary Stefan Lund said in the statement.
"Anette will not disappear from the curling arena. In some way she will be still here and a part of the exciting journey towards the future that Swedish curling is on."
Monday, March 18, 2013
The most notorious health myths
We are bombarded with health tips every day, but some of those messages may be harmful if you don’t get the facts straight.
Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum, author of Real Cause Real Cure, spoke with Dr. Manny Alvarez, senior managing health editor for FoxNews.com, about some of the most notorious health myths.
Myth #1: Arthritis medication is the best treatment for arthritis.
According Teitelbaum, more than 30,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year from arthritis medications.
“If you take a look at things like ibuprofen or the standard arthritis medication, 16,500 bleeding ulcer deaths a year in the United States from those medications – and the doubling and tripling of heart attack and stroke risk.”
While Teitelbaum says it’s better to be on medication than to be in pain, there are natural remedies for arthritis that are much safer. End Pain, which is a mix of willow bark and boswellia, has shown to be twice as effective as ibuprofen in studies, Teitelbaum noted. Also, Curamin and boswellia were found to be more effective than Celebrex. And rather than getting side effects, the natural remedies provide side benefits – such as decreasing the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and the risk of cancer.
Myth #2: You need to take calcium to treat osteoporosis.
A very controversial claim Teitelbaum makes is that taking calcium is for osteoporosis can actually do more harm than good.
“Osteoporosis is not calcium deficiency, and the calcium has very little benefit,” he said. “But recent studies show that it can increase heart attack deaths up to 31 percent – which is massive.”
Instead of taking unnecessary calcium, Teitelbaum says to simply drink more milk and other natural sources of the element. But more importantly, since the calcium isn’t exactly needed, individuals with osteoporosis can take minerals, such as Strontium – which has been shown to be almost twice as effective as medications. Magnesium, vitamin D, boron and other nutrients help increase bone density and the production of healthy new bone.
Myth #3: Antacids are necessary to treat indigestion.
Many Americans suffer from indigestion, and numerous medications purport to relieve symptoms from the embarrassing condition. However, Teitelbaum says that antacids don’t exactly treat the source of the problem.
“Indigestion is not too much stomach acid; it’s poor digestion,” Teitelbaum said. “If you don’t have what you need to digest your food, you eat this big mega-meal, and an hour later, it’s still sitting in your stomach.”
In order to aid digestion, Teitelbaum suggests taking digestive enzymes, such as Digest Gold. Whatever brand you use, make sure they are 100 percent plant-based enzymes. Probiotic culture found in yogurts and supplement are also helpful in the lower abdomen, relieving gas, bloating, diarrhea and constipation.
Myth #4: Avoid the sun.
Teitelbaum said the myth that people should avoid the sun at all costs probably results in tens of thousands of unnecessary cancer deaths each year.
“Most of the deadly skin cancers, called melanomas, are not in sun-exposed areas,” he said. “They’re increasing because of poor immune function, from poor sleep, poor nutrition and other factors.”
The skin cancers caused by sunshine are usually not the dangerous kinds, Teitelbaum said. Instead, sunshine is critical for vitamin D, an important hormone and vitamin. Without vitamin D, individuals can have an increased risk of breast cancer, autoimmune disease, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.
Also, Teitelbaum has simple advice to balance damage versus benefit when it comes to the sun: “Avoid sunburn, not sunshine,” Teitelbaum said.
Myth #5: Heart failure is a death sentence.
One of the biggest causes of death for many Americans is heart failure, but the condition does not necessarily mean a person’s time is up.
“It’s very easy to improve heart muscle function using natural remedies that play very well with the medication,” Teitelbaum said. “Certainly blood thinners that you want to get through doctors are okay before you add anything to those, but things like Coenzyme Q10, 200 mg a day will markedly improve heart function.”
Ribose, a simple energy nutrient, can help heart function, along with Acetyl Carnitine, magnesium and B-vitamins. Ultimately these supplements help improve muscle function.
“The heart beats more efficiently, and therefore the symptoms often go away,” Teitelbaum said.
Myth #6: Thyroid screenings are accurate.
When it comes to the thyroid screening methodology doctors use today, Teitelbaum says doctors don’t understand what ‘normal’ means. He says it means you’re not in the highest or lowest 2 percent of the population.
“You have to treat the person, not just the blood test,” Teitelbaum said. “People whose thyroid levels are in the low-normal range, versus high-normal, have a 69 percent increased risk of dying of heart attack. People with mild, low thyroid – where many doctors say we don’t need to treat it – if you do treat it, their heart attack risk goes down by more than 30 percent.”
Patients who are treated for mild to low thyroid often see increased energy levels, weight loss, and healthier skin and hair – among other benefits, Teitelbaum added.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Decision on Afghan Troop Levels Calculates Political and Military Interests
President Obama’s decision to remove 34,000 American troops in Afghanistan by this time next year represents a careful balancing of political interests and military requirements.
The decision, which administration officials disclosed on Tuesday and which Mr. Obama highlighted in his State of the Union address, enables the White House to say that slightly more than half of the 66,000-strong American force will be out of Afghanistan by the end of February 2014.
But Mr. Obama will also give the military commanders in Afghanistan flexibility in determining the pace of the reductions and will enable them to retain a substantial force until after the next fighting season, which ends in October. That, according to administration officials, satisfies one of the major concerns of Gen. John R. Allen, who recently left his post as the top commander in Afghanistan.
At the same time, officials said, it rebuffs arguments by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to pull out troops more quickly.
Administration officials said last year that they would determine the size and composition of the American presence after 2014 before determining the withdrawal schedule for the next two years. But on Tuesday, officials said that Mr. Obama had not yet made a decision on the post-2014 force, which is likely to number no more than 9,000 or so troops and then get progressively smaller.
“Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change,” Mr. Obama said. “We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces, so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of Al Qaeda and their affiliates.”
There still appears to be a debate within the administration about the plans for after 2014. Officials said there was also a reluctance to go public with a final number of troops and a description of their missions while still in the early stage of negotiating a security agreement with the Afghans over retaining a military presence after 2014.
From the start, the Afghan issue has been a double-edged sword for the White House. Mr. Obama campaigned for his first term on the premise that the conflict was a “war of necessity” to deprive Al Qaeda of a potential sanctuary in Afghanistan, and in 2009 he ordered a surge of more than 30,000 troops.
As the war dragged on, and the 2012 presidential election approached, Mr. Obama began to take troops out of Afghanistan on a more expedited schedule than his commander at the time, Gen. David H. Petraeus, had recommended. Mr. Obama’s talk of a war of necessity was supplanted by his refrain that the “tide of war is receding.”
But since his re-election, Mr. Obama has confronted the question of how to stay true to his pledge to wind down the war without undermining the still-fragile military gains. Presidents in their second terms often tend to think about their foreign policy legacy, and the conflict in Afghanistan, unlike in Iraq, has come to be known as Mr. Obama’s war.
The troop withdrawal question came to the fore last month after Mr. Obama met with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan in Washington, where Mr. Obama said he would accelerate the transfer of responsibility for security to the Afghans this year.
As he had done before, Mr. Obama set the parameters of the deliberations over the troop level by issuing planning guidance to the Pentagon. Operating on the basis of those presidential instructions, which the White House has not made public, General Allen prepared three options. Administration officials said that the White House had essentially endorsed the general’s preferred option — what Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said in a statement was General Allen’s “phased approach.”
According to the new withdrawal schedule, the number of troops is to go down to 60,500 by the end of May. By the end of November, the number will be down to 52,000. By the end of February 2014, the troop level is to be around 32,000.
The February 2014 number is less than some military officers had hoped would be on hand when the Afghan presidential election is held that April. But that seems to be more than offset by the decision to allow the military to keep the bulk of its force through the 2013 fighting season.
“The intensity of combat in the warmer months is twice what it is in colder months,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution. “For the next eight months, it is as good an outcome as proponents of the current strategy could have had.”
Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that withdrawing half of the American troops over a year would reduce the chances of success because insurgents would still have havens in the eastern part of Afghanistan, and it is not clear whether Afghan forces will be able to maintain control of the southern part of the country with an extremely limited coalition presence.
“But if the command really does have the flexibility to control the pace of the withdrawal and to bring about a short-term increase of specialized units, then a chance of campaign success remains,” Mr. Kagan said.
The decision, which administration officials disclosed on Tuesday and which Mr. Obama highlighted in his State of the Union address, enables the White House to say that slightly more than half of the 66,000-strong American force will be out of Afghanistan by the end of February 2014.
But Mr. Obama will also give the military commanders in Afghanistan flexibility in determining the pace of the reductions and will enable them to retain a substantial force until after the next fighting season, which ends in October. That, according to administration officials, satisfies one of the major concerns of Gen. John R. Allen, who recently left his post as the top commander in Afghanistan.
At the same time, officials said, it rebuffs arguments by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to pull out troops more quickly.
Administration officials said last year that they would determine the size and composition of the American presence after 2014 before determining the withdrawal schedule for the next two years. But on Tuesday, officials said that Mr. Obama had not yet made a decision on the post-2014 force, which is likely to number no more than 9,000 or so troops and then get progressively smaller.
“Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change,” Mr. Obama said. “We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces, so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of Al Qaeda and their affiliates.”
There still appears to be a debate within the administration about the plans for after 2014. Officials said there was also a reluctance to go public with a final number of troops and a description of their missions while still in the early stage of negotiating a security agreement with the Afghans over retaining a military presence after 2014.
From the start, the Afghan issue has been a double-edged sword for the White House. Mr. Obama campaigned for his first term on the premise that the conflict was a “war of necessity” to deprive Al Qaeda of a potential sanctuary in Afghanistan, and in 2009 he ordered a surge of more than 30,000 troops.
As the war dragged on, and the 2012 presidential election approached, Mr. Obama began to take troops out of Afghanistan on a more expedited schedule than his commander at the time, Gen. David H. Petraeus, had recommended. Mr. Obama’s talk of a war of necessity was supplanted by his refrain that the “tide of war is receding.”
But since his re-election, Mr. Obama has confronted the question of how to stay true to his pledge to wind down the war without undermining the still-fragile military gains. Presidents in their second terms often tend to think about their foreign policy legacy, and the conflict in Afghanistan, unlike in Iraq, has come to be known as Mr. Obama’s war.
The troop withdrawal question came to the fore last month after Mr. Obama met with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan in Washington, where Mr. Obama said he would accelerate the transfer of responsibility for security to the Afghans this year.
As he had done before, Mr. Obama set the parameters of the deliberations over the troop level by issuing planning guidance to the Pentagon. Operating on the basis of those presidential instructions, which the White House has not made public, General Allen prepared three options. Administration officials said that the White House had essentially endorsed the general’s preferred option — what Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said in a statement was General Allen’s “phased approach.”
According to the new withdrawal schedule, the number of troops is to go down to 60,500 by the end of May. By the end of November, the number will be down to 52,000. By the end of February 2014, the troop level is to be around 32,000.
The February 2014 number is less than some military officers had hoped would be on hand when the Afghan presidential election is held that April. But that seems to be more than offset by the decision to allow the military to keep the bulk of its force through the 2013 fighting season.
“The intensity of combat in the warmer months is twice what it is in colder months,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution. “For the next eight months, it is as good an outcome as proponents of the current strategy could have had.”
Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that withdrawing half of the American troops over a year would reduce the chances of success because insurgents would still have havens in the eastern part of Afghanistan, and it is not clear whether Afghan forces will be able to maintain control of the southern part of the country with an extremely limited coalition presence.
“But if the command really does have the flexibility to control the pace of the withdrawal and to bring about a short-term increase of specialized units, then a chance of campaign success remains,” Mr. Kagan said.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Senators ask Obama for legal opinions OKing drone strikes
A bipartisan group of 11 senators is appealing directly to President Barack Obama to give lawmakers his administration's legal justification for using armed drones or other counterterrorism operations to kill American citizens.
The eight Democrats and three Republicans are also making a not-so-veiled threat that the nominations of officials like CIA director-designate John Brennan and perhaps even Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel could be held up if Obama doesn't fork over the classified memos.
"We ask that you direct the Justice Department to provide Congress, specifically the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, with any and all legal opinions that lay out the executive branch's official understanding of the President's authority to deliberately kill American citizens," the 11 senators wrote in a letter sent to Obama Monday (and posted here). "The executive branch's cooperation on this matter will help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate's consideration of nominees for national security positions."
The senators' missive notes that in a May 2009 speech, Obama seemed to endorse the idea that Congress should be permitted to get such information even if the public is denied it.
"Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions—by Congress or the courts," Obama said in remarks at the National Archives.
The Justice Department and other government agencies have rebuffed lawmakers' prior requests for such opinions. Last month, a federal judge in New York rejected Freedom of Information Act lawsuits the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union brought trying to force disclosure of the same legal memoranda.
The Obama Administration has also argued strenuously against any role for the courts in overseeing the use of lethal force against Americans, even though wiretapping U.S. nationals anywhere in the world requires some authorization from the judiciary branch.
White House spokesmen had no immediate reply to a request for comment on the letter, which was signed by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Al Franken (D- Minn.)
Wyden signaled a few weeks ago, in another letter, that he intends to make the legal issues surrounding the use of lethal force against Americans a central issue at Brennan's confirmation hearing. That hearing is now set for Thursday afternoon.
In September 2011, a drone strike in Yemen killed Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was a U.S. citizen. The strike was reportedly carried out by the U.S. Other Americans, including Al-Awlaki's teenage son, have reportedly been killed in drone attacks executed by the U.S. However, the Americans killed in those strikes are believed to have been collateral casualties and not the intended targets.
The eight Democrats and three Republicans are also making a not-so-veiled threat that the nominations of officials like CIA director-designate John Brennan and perhaps even Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel could be held up if Obama doesn't fork over the classified memos.
"We ask that you direct the Justice Department to provide Congress, specifically the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, with any and all legal opinions that lay out the executive branch's official understanding of the President's authority to deliberately kill American citizens," the 11 senators wrote in a letter sent to Obama Monday (and posted here). "The executive branch's cooperation on this matter will help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate's consideration of nominees for national security positions."
The senators' missive notes that in a May 2009 speech, Obama seemed to endorse the idea that Congress should be permitted to get such information even if the public is denied it.
"Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions—by Congress or the courts," Obama said in remarks at the National Archives.
The Justice Department and other government agencies have rebuffed lawmakers' prior requests for such opinions. Last month, a federal judge in New York rejected Freedom of Information Act lawsuits the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union brought trying to force disclosure of the same legal memoranda.
The Obama Administration has also argued strenuously against any role for the courts in overseeing the use of lethal force against Americans, even though wiretapping U.S. nationals anywhere in the world requires some authorization from the judiciary branch.
White House spokesmen had no immediate reply to a request for comment on the letter, which was signed by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Al Franken (D- Minn.)
Wyden signaled a few weeks ago, in another letter, that he intends to make the legal issues surrounding the use of lethal force against Americans a central issue at Brennan's confirmation hearing. That hearing is now set for Thursday afternoon.
In September 2011, a drone strike in Yemen killed Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was a U.S. citizen. The strike was reportedly carried out by the U.S. Other Americans, including Al-Awlaki's teenage son, have reportedly been killed in drone attacks executed by the U.S. However, the Americans killed in those strikes are believed to have been collateral casualties and not the intended targets.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Obama's Gitmo, Four Years Later
At around 8 a.m., a civilian airplane chartered by the military and full of lawyers, human rights representatives and journalists will depart Andrews Air Force Base in route to the Guantanamo Bay Navy Base in Cuba. Family members of victims of the September 11th attacks arrived yesterday.
This wasn't the way it was supposed to be.
Four years ago last week, a newly elected President Barack Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay's prison facility by January 22, 2010. "We are going to win this fight, we are going to win it on our terms," Obama said at the time.
Three years past his self-imposed cut-off date, the military trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four fellow prisoners accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks continues at the facility Obama pledged the shut down.
I'll be reporting from Gitmo's Camp Justice all this week. There are a few interesting issues to be resolved in court, but I'll also be reporting more broadly on how Guantanamo has changed -- and hasn't -- since Obama took office.
Anything you'd like to learn about how Guantanamo operates? Email me at ryan.reilly@huffingtonpost.com. Meanwhile, here's a list of what I'm reading to prepare for the trip:
This wasn't the way it was supposed to be.
Four years ago last week, a newly elected President Barack Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay's prison facility by January 22, 2010. "We are going to win this fight, we are going to win it on our terms," Obama said at the time.
Three years past his self-imposed cut-off date, the military trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four fellow prisoners accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks continues at the facility Obama pledged the shut down.
I'll be reporting from Gitmo's Camp Justice all this week. There are a few interesting issues to be resolved in court, but I'll also be reporting more broadly on how Guantanamo has changed -- and hasn't -- since Obama took office.
Anything you'd like to learn about how Guantanamo operates? Email me at ryan.reilly@huffingtonpost.com. Meanwhile, here's a list of what I'm reading to prepare for the trip:
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Iran blasts Obama for Latin America law
Iran has blasted US President Barack Obama for enacting a law aimed at countering Tehran's alleged influence in Latin America, saying it was an overt intervention in the region.
"It is an overt intervention in Latin American affairs... that shows they are not familiar with new world relations," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters on Tuesday.
The United States, he said, "still lives in the Cold War era and considers Latin America as its back yard".
"We recommend that they respect the nations' right in today's world... world public opinion does not accept such an interventionist move."
Mehmanparast said Tehran's relation with all nations, in particular with Latin American countries, was "friendly" based on "mutual respect and interest".
On Friday, Obama enacted the law which through a new diplomatic and political strategy to be designed by the State Department is aimed to counter Iran's alleged influence in Latin America.
The Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act, passed by legislators earlier in 2012, calls for the department to develop a strategy within 180 days to "address Iran's growing hostile presence and activity" in the region.
The text also calls on the Department of Homeland Security to bolster surveillance at US borders with Canada and Mexico to "prevent operatives from Iran, the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), its Quds Force, Hezbollah or any other terrorist organisation from entering the Untied States".
However, senior State Department and intelligence officials have indicated there is no apparent indication of illicit activities by Iran.
Iran, placed under a series of international sanctions because of its suspect nuclear programme, has opened six new embassies in the region since 2005 - bringing the total to 11 - and 17 cultural centres.
"It is an overt intervention in Latin American affairs... that shows they are not familiar with new world relations," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters on Tuesday.
The United States, he said, "still lives in the Cold War era and considers Latin America as its back yard".
"We recommend that they respect the nations' right in today's world... world public opinion does not accept such an interventionist move."
Mehmanparast said Tehran's relation with all nations, in particular with Latin American countries, was "friendly" based on "mutual respect and interest".
On Friday, Obama enacted the law which through a new diplomatic and political strategy to be designed by the State Department is aimed to counter Iran's alleged influence in Latin America.
The Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act, passed by legislators earlier in 2012, calls for the department to develop a strategy within 180 days to "address Iran's growing hostile presence and activity" in the region.
The text also calls on the Department of Homeland Security to bolster surveillance at US borders with Canada and Mexico to "prevent operatives from Iran, the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), its Quds Force, Hezbollah or any other terrorist organisation from entering the Untied States".
However, senior State Department and intelligence officials have indicated there is no apparent indication of illicit activities by Iran.
Iran, placed under a series of international sanctions because of its suspect nuclear programme, has opened six new embassies in the region since 2005 - bringing the total to 11 - and 17 cultural centres.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)