NEW YORK (The Osgood Files) -- Sorting through the Aghanistan debate
On the eve of the eighth anniversary of America's military mission in Afghanistan, President Obama has invited a group of Congressional leaders to the White House today to talk about that country --- and the decision he has to make: about whether or not to give General Stanley McChrystal --- the commander there --- the 40,000 or so additional troops he says he'll need to win the war there --- and if not, what the something else should be.
There are strong feelings about that in Congress and in the nation, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "the President has discussed wanting to hear from all of those that are involved in this, and certainly Congress plays a big role in that."
President Obama does not want the issue of Afghanistan to be defined as: do we stay there --- or get out.
"I don't think we have the option to leave --- I think that's quite clear," Gibbs said.
"That's not something that has ever been entertained, despite the fact that people still get asked, 'What happens if we leave Afghanistan?' That's not a decision that's on the table to make," Gibbs said.
But everything else --- from troop strength to defining objectives --- awaits Mr. Obama's decision.
"I believe the decisions that the President will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency," Robert Gates, Defense Secretary said.
"It is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right. And in this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations --- civilians and military alike --- provide our best advice to the President candidly, but privately," Gates said.
That's seen as a rebuke to General McChrystal for publicly lobbying for his own recommendation. But among the civilians who will not keep their opinions private are members of Congress --- they will not keep their opinions to themselves...
Fighting the evolving Taliban
In reassessing the situation in Afghanistan, where the war is not going well, one theory being put forth is that we should redefine what it's all about: continue the war against al-Qaida, but not try to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban.
But our Chief CBS News Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan says the Taliban love al-Qaida.
"Al-Qaida fighters were the ones who lifted the Taliban from the ashes of their defeat --- arming, funding, and training them. Now, the two share the same goal: seeing the U.S. fail. And the two cannot survive with each other. That's why the fight against the Taliban cannot be separated from the war against al-Qaida," Logan said.
If anybody thinks we can go after al-Qaida and make nice with the Taliban --- they're wrong, says Lara Logan.
"The Taliban today are nationalists, fighting for a return to power. Most come from Afghanistan's biggest tribe, the Pashtuns. Their closest allies are the Arabs of al-Qaida, and they have no intention of sharing power with Afghanistan's other ethnic groups. Their willingness to stand and fight, their ability to mass in great numbers, and their small unit tactics show that they're not mostly poor villagers, looking to make easy money. They're a dedicated militant force, capable of taking on the U.S," Logan said.
Maybe we made a mistake in focusing so much on Iraq --- and certainly made one in allowing Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora, says Logan.
"But perhaps the biggest mistake of all: allowing Pakistan to provide a safe haven for the Taliban, bin Laden, and al-Qaida," Logan said.
These are not the Taliban who liked us during what's now called "Charlie Wilson's War."
"The new generation of Taliban are different, driven by a deep hatred of the U.S. Both old and new Taliban want to see the U.S. defeated."
Make way for the Anti-Cocaine Vaccine
What if you could be vaccinated against substance abuse?
Don't laugh. The Food and Drug Administration has fast-tracked an experimental NicVAX vaccine against nicotine addiction, and research is being paid for out of federal stimulus money.
And an experimental cocaine addiction vaccine has been developed at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston by a professor there, Dr. Thomas Kosten. He says the idea would work with any abused drug, except one.
"Except alcohol --- that is, it's applicable to nicotine, to cannabinoids, to opiates, to heroin, to methamphetamine. And we've made vaccines already in the animals to all these different drugs of abuse," Dr. Kosten said.
Dr. Thomas Kosten's anti-cocaine vaccine marries cocaine with a cholera toxin.
"The body makes antibodies to the cholera --- but at the same time, it sees cocaine attach to the cholera --- so it makes antibodies to the cocaine, as well as the cholera," Dr. Kosten said.
So then you'd get "no kick from cocaine"?
"The antibodies will blind that cocaine. It will keep the cocaine from getting out of the blood and into the heart or lungs, because the antibodies are very large proteins that simply can't diffuse through," Dr. Kosten said.
There are side effects --- good ones, says Dr. Kosten.
"Well, it does block the cocaine from getting into your heart, so that would help with not producing heart attacks. It also prevents the cocaine from getting into your brain, so that the strokes and things that have been associated with heavy cocaine use would not occur," Dr. Kosten said.
In the new studies, the cocaine-fighting antibodies would prevent users from getting the euphoric high. If there's no high, what's the point? 40% of the subjects either quit or cut back substantially. They haven't perfected it yet.
"Treatment would require repeated vaccinations every two to three months, to keep these antibody levels high --- and to keep them blocking," Dr. Kosten said.
"Plain English" in the World of Finance
Do you get the feeling sometimes that in the fine print mailings you get from banks and brokers --- which they urge you to read carefully --- that they don't expect you to read them at all? That, in fact, they don't want you to read them at all?
Because, even though you go get a magnifying glass for close inspection, they are written so obtusely that you still can't tell what they're trying to say. Deep down, you suspect that they are really saying this --- that, in every circumstance: they win, you lose.
There is a "Plain English" crusader in England --- a 71-year-old grandmother of 11, by the name of Chrissie Maher --- who is fighting back.
There's a story about her in the papers under the headline "Crusader for Syntactic Disambiguation Exprobates Banks' Labored Locutions."
A few months ago, Chrissie Maher got a mailing from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC titled "Personal and Private Banking, Keeping You Informed" --- which contained such a blizzard of terms such as "account facility limit" --- that she wrote back saying, after critiquing the pamphlet's tortuous and ambiguous language: "This leaflet needs much more thought, if it is to be understood by your customers.
As it stands, it should be renamed 'Keeping You Confused.'"
The bank may have picked the wrong woman to target with the financial mumbo-jumbo. Mrs. Maher is founder of the Plain English Campaign, a 30-year-old group whose stated goal is to stem "the ever-growing tide of confusing and pompous language" that "takes away our democratic rights."
Over the years, Mrs. Maher and her group have battled police agencies, expansion planners at Heathrow Airport, and the frequently bizarre English language of The European Union.
At issue, phrases such as: "unlock clusters," "subsidiarity," and "sector-specific benchmarking." She's blasted local government on the use of "worklessness" to refer to unemployment, and once attacked the president of the U.K. Spelling Society over his claim that the apostrophe is "a waste of time."
Nice going, Mrs. Maher...
E-Mail Story
Print Story
