mtanga

Two Minutes to Midnight?

America's march to a disastrous war in Iraq began in the media, where an unprovoked U.S. invasion of an Arab country was introduced as a legitimate policy option, then debated as a prudent and necessary one. Now, a similarly flawed media conversation on Iran is gaining momentum.

Last month, TIME's Joe Klein warned that Obama administration sources had told him bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was "back on the table." In an interview with CNN, former CIA director Admiral Mike Hayden next spoke of an "inexorable" dynamic toward confrontation, claiming that bombing was a more viable option for the Obama administration than it had been for George W. Bush. The pièce de résistance in the most recent drum roll of bomb-Iran alerts, however, came from Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic Monthly. A journalist influential in U.S. pro-Israeli circles, he also has access to Israel’s corridors of power. Because sanctions were unlikely to force Iran to back down on its uranium enrichment project, Goldberg invited readers to believe that there was a more than even chance Israel would launch a military strike on the country by next summer.

His piece, which sparked considerable debate in both the blogosphere and the traditional media, was certainly an odd one. After all, despite the dramatics he deployed, including vivid descriptions of the Israeli battle plan, and his tendency to paint Iran as a new Auschwitz, he also made clear that many of his top Israeli sources simply didn’t believe Iran would launch nuclear weapons against Israel, even if it acquired them.

Nonetheless, Goldberg warned, absent an Iranian white flag soon, Israel would indeed launch that war in summer 2011, and it, in turn, was guaranteed to plunge the region into chaos. The message: the Obama administration better do more to confront Iran or Israel will act crazy.

It's not lost on many of his progressive critics that, when it came to supporting a prospective invasion of Iraq back in 2002, Goldberg proved effective in lobbying liberal America, especially through his reports of "evidence" linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Then and now, he presents himself as an interlocutor who has no point of view. In his most recent Atlantic piece, he professed a "profound, paralyzing ambivalence" on the question of a military strike on Iran and subsequently, in radio interviews, claimed to be "personally opposed" to military action.

His piece, however, conveniently skipped over the obvious inconsistencies in what his Israeli sources were telling him. In addition, he excluded perspectives from Israeli leaders that might have challenged his narrative in which an embattled Jewish state feels it has no alternative but to launch a quixotic military strike. Such an attack, as he presented it, would have limited hope of doing more than briefly setting back the Iranian nuclear program, perhaps at catastrophic cost, and so Israeli leaders would act only because they believe the "goyim" won't stop another Auschwitz. Or as my friend Paul Woodward, editor of the War in Context website, so brilliantly summed up the Israeli message to America: "You must do what we can’t, because if you don’t, we will."

more from Tony Karon at TomDispatch

Lessons from the Weimar Republic

I decided to become a political scientist in the spring of 1976, while I was attending the Stanford-in-Berlin overseas study program. I had already declared an International Relations major, but was trying to decide between going to law school (the supposedly safe option) or pursuing a Ph.D. in Political Science (looked risky). While in Berlin, I took Professor Gordon Craig's course on German history, and one lecture -- on the role of intellectuals in the Weimar Republic -- finally tipped the balance for me.

In that particular class, Craig argued that one of the many forces that doomed the Weimar Republic was the irresponsible behavior of both left-wing and right-wing intellectuals. The German left was contemptuous of the liberal aspirations of the Weimar Constitution and other bourgeois features of Weimar society, while right-wing "thinkers" like Ernst Junger glorified violence and disparaged the application of reason to political issues. So-called "liberal" intellectuals saw politics as a grubby business unworthy of their refined sensibilities, and so many just disengaged from politics entirely. This left the field to rabble-rousers and extremists of various sorts and helped prepare the ground for Nazism. (You can read Craig's account of this process in his book Germany 1866-1945, chapter 13, on "Weimar Culture").

The lesson I took from Craig's lecture was that when intellectuals abandon liberal principles, disengage from politics, and generally abdicate their role as "truth-tellers" for society at large, it is easy for demagogues to play upon human fears and lead a society over the brink to disaster. So I decided to forego a legal career and get a Ph.D. instead, hoping in some way to contribute to more reasonable discourse about issues of war, peace, and politics.

more from Stephen Walt at ForeignPolicy.com

XXX-rays

very clever marketing from a German medical imaging company, as they put together a full calendar composed of similarly amusing images!

view more at the excellent French blog pour15minutesdamour

Bruce Alexander's remarkable 'rat park' experiment

Bruce Alexander is best known - though deserves to be much better known - for the 'Rat Park' experiments he conducted in 1981. As an addiction psychologist, much of the data with which he worked was drawn from laboratory trials with rats and monkeys: the 'addictiveness' of drugs such as opiates and cocaine was established by observing how frequently caged animals would push levers to obtain doses. But Alexander's observations of addicts at the clinic where he worked in Vancouver suggested powerfully to him that the root cause of addiction was not so much the pharmacology of these particular drugs as the environmental stressors with which his addicts were trying to cope.

To test his hunch he designed Rat Park, an alternative laboratory environment constructed around the need of the subjects rather than the experimenters. A colony of rats, who are naturally gregarious, were allowed to roam together in a large vivarium enriched with wheels, balls and other playthings, on a deep bed of aromatic cedar shavings and with plenty of space for breeding and private interactions. Pleasant woodland vistas were even painted on the surrounding walls. In this situation, the rats' responses to drugs such as opiates were transformed. They no longer showed interest in pressing levers for rewards of morphine: even if forcibly addicted, they would suffer withdrawals rather than maintaining their dependence. Even a sugar solution could not tempt them to the morphine water (though they would choose this if naloxone was added to block the opiate effects). It seemed that the standard experiments were measuring not the addictiveness of opiates but the cruelty of the stresses inflicted on lab rats caged in solitary confinement, shaved, catheterised and with probes inserted into their median forebrain bundles.

Yet despite (or perhaps because of) their radical implications for the data that underpin addiction psychology, the Rat Park experiments attracted little attention. Alexander's paper was rejected by major journals including Science and Nature, and eventually published only in the respectable but minor Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. Although the experiments have subsequently been replicated and extended, they still inform the science of addiction only at its margins. The Globalisation of Addiction is Alexander's attempt to draw out their full implications for our understanding of addiction, and to chart a course towards forms of treatment that can transform their findings into practice.

His analysis begins with a radical reconception of addiction itself. Throughout the 20th century, as the science and treatment of addiction have developed into vast academic and professional industries, its underlying nature has stubbornly refused to coalesce into any sort of consensus. Is it a physiological condition marked by metabolic responses such as tolerance and withdrawal, a condition produced simply by exposure to 'addictive' drugs? Or is it a psychological affliction, the product of an 'addictive personality' - or, alternatively, a moral weakness, a failure of willpower and abrogation of social responsibilities? And how do these clinical views of addiction relate to the ever-expanding meanings of the term in the wider culture?

For Alexander, all these seemingly disparate accounts are united by their focus on the individual addict; but even a cursory historical and cultural survey reveals that the incidence of addiction is essentially a social phenomenon. Many historical and indigenous cultures have lacked even the concept of addiction - but many of these same cultures, once their traditional structures have been disrupted by conquest or colonisation, have been destroyed by it. All across the Americas, the Pacific and Australia, hundreds of 'demoralised' cultures have descended into vicious spirals of addiction, usually to alcohol, in many tragic cases wiping themselves out entirely. The root causes of addiction, then, must run deeper than any individual pathology: they must be sought in a larger story of cultural malaise and 'poverty of the spirit' that forces individuals, often en masse, into desperate and dysfunctional coping strategies.

Once addiction is recognised as a consequence of broader social currents, it becomes clear that the problem is far more widespread than the professional focus on drugs allows. Uncontrolled and chaotic appetites are extensively diagnosed across our culture not merely for illicit drugs, alcohol and nicotine but for other substances (food), other consumer activities (shopping, gambling), and other sources of emotional support such as romantic love. 'Addictive' is a slogan of enticement used to sell online gaming, exercise programmes and women's magazines. Even successful and high-functioning individuals can often be accurately described as addicted to money, power or status. Throughout the 20th century, these extensions of the concept of addiction were typically marginalised on the grounds that, unlike illicit drugs, these were mainstream activities that generated dysfunctional behaviour only in a minority of subjects. But alcohol has always been both mainstream and addictive, and it is increasingly clear that illicit drugs are used widely without necessarily generating addiction. Any attempt to get to the root of the problem must recognise that addiction is rampant not merely among a subculture of problem drug users but across society at large.

much more at the Transform Drug Policy Foundation site

The "Mosque" debate from a national SecuritY Perspective

The furor over the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero makes me think back to one of the most important lessons I learned from al Qaeda terrorists I interrogated--that they have a warped view of America. To them--and this they get from Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric--the U.S. is a country at war with Islam and Muslims, and so they had a duty to fight us.

While I was serving on the frontlines I found that this distorted view of America was common among ordinary Muslims too, and it was only by correcting this image did we encourage locals to help our investigations and turn against al Qaeda. Our efforts were helped by public statements, like from President Bush in the days after 9/11, declaring that America was at war with al Qaeda and not with Islam. I was in Sana, Yemen, on that day, and I remember our military and law enforcement group feeling encouraged that our leadership understood how to frame our battle.

But while we started off on the right note in dealing with the Muslim world, our leadership soon demonstrated that they failed to understand that our war against al Qaeda was not just a military fight, but an asymmetrical battle for the proverbial hearts and minds of Muslims across the world too. We should have been highlighting that al Qaeda has killed thousands of Muslims and blown up dozens of mosques around the world. But instead we failed to appreciate the importance of rebutting al Qaeda's propaganda and of turning ordinary Muslims against the terror network.

When we eventually did this, we had great successes. As commander in Iraq Gen. Petraeus reached out to local Sunni groups and convinced them that al Qaeda was their enemy and America their friend. That led to a remarkable turnaround in our fortunes in Iraq. He is now trying to do the same in Afghanistan. Just this weekend Meet the Press reported that when Gen. Petraeus learned that the Taliban attacked a mosque near the border with Pakistan, he ordered it to be publicized among the local population.

There are many reasons for supporting the Muslim community's right to build a cultural center and mosque on private property, not least of all the First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion. But from a national security perspective, our leaders need to understand that no one is likely to be happier with the opposition to building a mosque than Osama Bin Laden. His next video script has just written itself.

more from former F.B.I. supervisory special agent Ali Soufan at Forbes.com

Stephan Walt on the Cordoba House Issue

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going on here: All you really need to do is look at how the critics of the community center project keep describing it. In their rhetoric it is always the "Mosque at Ground Zero," a label that conjures up mental images of a soaring minaret on the site of the 9/11 attacks. Never mind that the building in question isn't primarily a mosque (it's a community center that will house an array of activities, including a gym, pool, auditorium, and oh yes, a prayer room). Never mind that it isn't at "Ground Zero": it's two blocks away and will not even be visible from the site. (And exactly why does it matter if it was?) You know that someone is engaged in demagoguery when they keep using demonstrably false but alarmist phrases over and over again.

What I don't understand is why critics of this project don't realize where this form of intolerance can lead. As a host of commentators have already noted, critics of the project are in effect holding American Muslims -- and in this particular case, a moderate Muslim cleric who has been a noted advocate of inter-faith tolerance -- responsible for a heinous act that they did not commit and that they have repeatedly condemned. It is view of surpassing ignorance, and precisely the same sort of prejudice that was once practiced against Catholics, against Jews, and against any number of other religious minorities. Virtually all religious traditions have committed violent and unseemly acts in recent memory, and we would not hold Protestants, Catholics, or Jews responsible for the heinous acts of a few of their adherents.

And don't these critics realize that religious intolerance is a monster that, once unleashed, may be impossible to control? If you can rally the mob against any religious minority now, then you may make it easier for someone else to rally a different mob against you should the balance of political power change at some point down the road.

Critics of the proposal are aware that their views contradict the principle of religious tolerance on which the United States was founded, so they have fallen back on the idea that building the community center here is "insensitive" to the families who lost loved ones back in 2001. (Presumably it's not "insensitive" that the same neighborhood contains strip clubs, bars, and all sorts of less-than sacred institutions). And notice the sleight-of-hand here: first, demogogues raise an uproar about a "Mosque at Ground Zero," thereby generating a lot of public outcry, and then defend this bigotry by saying that they're just trying to be "sensitive" to the objections they have helped to stir up.

more at ForeignPolicy.com

Drug firms hiding negative research

This week the drug company AstraZeneca paid out £125m to settle a class action. More than 17,500 patients claim the company withheld information showing that schizophrenia drug quetiapine (tradename Seroquel) can cause diabetes. So why do companies pay out money before cases get to court?

An interesting feature of litigation is that various documents enter the public domain. This is how we know about the tobacco industry's evil plans to target children, the fake academic journal that Elsevier created for Merck's marketing department, and so on.

One of the most revealing documents ever to come out of a drug company emerged from an earlier quetiapine case: an email from John Tumas, publications manager at AstraZeneca. In it, he helpfully admits that they do everything I say drug companies do.

"Please allow me to join the fray," Tumas begins, in response to a colleague. "There has been a precedent set regarding 'cherry picking' of data." Cherry picking is where you report only flattering data, and ignore or bury data you don't like. The ears of lawyers prick up at any use of the word "bury" in relation to drug company data, as it implies something deliberate, and luckily John uses this word himself. The precedent, he explains, is "the recent … presentations of cognitive function data from trial 15 (one of the buried trials)".

In trial 15, commissioned by AstraZeneca, patients with schizophrenia who were in remission were randomly assigned to receive either AstraZeneca's quetiapine, or a cheap, old-fashioned drug called haloperidol. After a year, the patients on Seroquel were doing worse: they had more relapses and worse ratings on various symptom scales. These negative findings were left unpublished: to use Tumas's word, they were "buried".

But in among all these important negative findings, on a few measures of "cognitive functioning" – an attention task, a verbal memory test – Seroquel did better. This finding alone was published in a research paper in 2002. AstraZeneca kept quiet about the fact that patients on Seroquel had worse outcomes for schizophrenia. The research paper went on to become a highly influential piece of work, cited by more than 100 academic research papers. Many researchers can only dream of publishing such a well cited piece of work.

read more on this disgusting, and seemingly status quo behavior of drug companies in The Guradian (U.K.)

Andrew Bacevich

We persist in thinking that we can have what we want with somebody else footing the bill. We now live in a time in which war has become, in effect, a normal condition for the United States and yet we refuse to pay for the wars. So, on the one hand, these military adventures are said to be of extraordinary importance and, on the other hand, we pass off the responsibility for paying the bills to some future generation which will have had nothing to do with starting the wars. That, I think, is deeply irresponsible - and, in a very fundamental way, it's also simply immoral.

I think that we are also unserious in our willingness to really take stock of what our emphasis on military power has accomplished. One of the most commonplace aspects of our politics today revolves around widely shared respect for the American soldier and, by extension, for the American military. Now, I certainly have no problem with respecting the service and sacrifice of the American soldiers. But those expressions of support create obstacles to examining seriously what our emphasis on military power has wrought and from my point of view - especially in the period since the end of the Cold War when we have, under both Democrats and Republicans, engaged in a large number of military interventions abroad - taken together, all that military activity is not making us safer, is not making us stronger, is not making us richer. Indeed, I would say that, on balance, just the opposite is the case: we are creating instability, we are inciting greater anti-Americanism and we are rapidly depleting our wealth with minimal gain in return.

much more of interest on American militarism in an interview of former Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich at truthout.org

A great sequence from the brilliant Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky's film Stalker

Net Neutrality

Yesterday, Bloomberg reported that Verizon and Google have made a deal on network neutrality policy they'd like to see in America. That deal (surprise!) is Google can get special privileges on Verizon's network. The Huffington Post splash page mocks Google's slogan: "Don't Be Evil" with an asterisk. Asterisk: "unless it's profitable." Josh Silver called it the end of the Internet as we know it.

I want to explain why I think this deal matters, and why it doesn't. And it might not be for the reasons you think.

The Deal

Net neutrality is simply a proposed rule forbidding Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and other ISPs from engaging in special deals to block or favor certain content on the Internet; it's to keep the Internet an open general purpose network equally accessed by all innovators, speakers, and businesses. Like it is today. The carriers want to turn it into a controlled medium.

Among other things, according to the New York Times, the deal essentially says that Verizon will be able to cut special deals with any company--like, um, one called Google--to prioritize that company's traffic, giving that company an advantage online over any other content online. Google decided it could make more money getting special--or even exclusive--treatment on the Verizon network because few of their competitors could afford to get the same treatment.

(Note: Google is denying the Times report through a Tweet. I'll spell out the implications assuming the Times is right.)

Business Examples

So, as a business matter, let's say you use a Verizon mobile wireless card (an EVDO card) for your laptop (in addition to having a a Verizon mobile computer).

Google's products can get priority on your laptop based on commercial deals.

Google's Youtube may get Verizon-special treatment denied any competing video site, from Blip.tv to Netflix. (This is the example given by the New York Times today.)

Google's Orkut, a social network once known only for being big in Brazil, gets better treatment than Facebook. ?

Google's Blogger--a blogging technology--gets the Verizon-special preference denied WordPress.

Google's Chrome browser happens to work a lot better than Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox.

Google's GChat video gets special treatment compared to video phone services like Video Skype.

Google's Gmail, an email service, gets better treatment than Hotmail or Yahoo!

Google Books gets special treatment denied any competitors.

Google's domain name service gets preferred treatment denied competitors like OpenDNS, which could even be blocked under the deal.

Google's advertising network can get Verizon network priorities.

Google's Froogle site gets special treatment denied everything from Groupon to Ebay to all those random "deal of the day" sites.

Google Voice could get special treatment compared with those other online phone services.

Google's Picasa could get special treatment over Flikr, for photo albums.

Google's Buzz could somehow get special treatment over Twitter.

Even Google Wave could get priority... Really.

So, as a business matter, the deal is important. And, yes, it may be the end of the Internet as we know it, if the FCC blessed such deals. The deal yesterday announces that Verizon and Google open the door to all of this.

more from Marvin Ammori at Balkanization

Wikileaks

In her essay discussed in the second part of this series, Hannah Arendt argues that what we commonly call obedience cannot, in the political context, properly be regarded as obedience at all. In fact, it is support -- for a country's constitution, its laws, and its panoply of requirements concerning how we act.

By creating Wikileaks and utilizing it in the manner he does, Julian Assange has withdrawn that support, and he has chosen to act in the manner condemned by those who insist on obedience to authority: he acts "irresponsibly" (the term used by critics of those who disobey, as Arendt notes). When obedience means that one supports a system of brutality, oppression, cruelty and death, to act "irresponsibly" is the only way to express one's loyalty to the values of freedom, truth and the sanctity of life.

The power of Wikileaks does not lie in the fact that it challenges a particular authority or only one system of obedience; its power arises from its rejection of authority and systems of obedience as such.

The startling effectiveness of the challenge represented by Wikileaks can be witnessed repeatedly in the reactions of those who condemn Assange and his work with such heated vehemence. I discussed a typical reaction from the conservative side of the political spectrum in the last section of this article. As I noted there, the tone and specific terms of Tunku Varadarajan's violent condemnation reveal someone who is profoundly unnerved by Wikileaks' actions, and by the fact that Wikileaks exists at all. I also pointed out -- and this bears emphasis for purposes of the present analysis -- that what finally undoes Varadarajan utterly is that he sees no way to stop Assange and Wikileaks.

This is further testament to Assange's brilliance -- and it is also testament to what I call "the power of 'No'": finally, the only weapon held by those who insist on obedience to authority is your own willingness to comply. If you refuse to comply, if you say "No," if you act "irresponsibly" and withdraw your support, there is nothing they can do. Those who represent and uphold authority understand this. Many other people do not. Wikileaks may help many people to see finally the enormous power they have, if only they will use it.

more from Arthur Silber

and Philip Weiss excerpts a petition created by Tom Hayden (and others):

We believe that WikiLeaks and those whistleblowers who declassify documents in a time of secret war should be welcomed as defenders of democracy, not demonized as criminals. We support their First Amendment rights and welcome their continued disobedience in response to a long train of official deception.

Our government and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan have stretched the labels “national security” and “secrecy” beyond all reasonable definitions, because they wish to keep the realities of these wars hidden from the American people. “National security” is becoming the last refuge of scoundrels. Only consider –

- Our government prohibited the media from photographing the returning remains of our dead soldiers, until public pressure forced a change in policy;

- The Abu Ghraib torture scandal only came to public attention when photographs were leaked by an MP;

- The war in Pakistan is shrouded in secrecy because it violates that country’s sovereignty, results in the killing of innocent civilians, and is deeply unpopular;

- According to the new information from WikiLeaks, our Special Operations Task Force 373 operates outside the ISAF mandate to kidnap and kill targeted insurgents in a repeat of the discredited Phoenix program of the Vietnam era.

Hayden's full petition

and from the comments section on Weiss' blog:

Everyone, who has a bit of conscious, shall honor Wikileaks and it’s sources -the deserves respect and champion medals of humanity.

Wikileaks put out all the data to make the invisible war of Afghanistan visible. See the values of the Wikileaks war event data summed up per year:

Year__EVENTS__FKIA__FWIA__HKIA__HWIA__CKIA__CWIA__EKIA__EWIA__ED
2004_____500____21___121___218___297___219___207___333____90___623
2005_____887____62___397___173___482___132___423___890___200___664
2006____2182___125__1031___587__1348___758__1687__2688___243___559
2007____3138___170__1468___924__1934___644__1773__4027___369___888
2008____2465___240__1204___674__1646___766__1895__2771___284___754
2009____4616___425__2606__1116__2344__1144__2443__4434___617__1573

Explanation of columns:
KIA: killed in action
WIA: Wounded in action
F: Friendly (coalition) forces
H: Afghan forces (ANA & ANP)
C: Civilians
E: Enemy (Taliban, resistance & other militia not loyal to Karzai)
ED: Enemies detained

And, yes, 2009, that’s the report of the US military data on the change provided by Obama. Something like 60% more bloodshed in Afghanistan on all sides, that’s what’ result of Obamas new war policies and that’s what the leak is all about.

Glenn Greenwald adds further important perspective

Porfirio Rubirosa: Playboy Extraordinaire

Much has been written, speculated and whispered about the man, Porfirio Rubirosa. One thing is for sure, he led a life that few can imagine, let alone rival. Truth is always stranger and more interesting than fiction, especially in this case– the infamous and always dapper diplomat, skilled sportsman and legendary lothario. Pass the (eh-hem) pepper grinder, please.

continue to read this excellent and lively recounting (also chock full of photos) of a remarkable life at The Selvedge Yard

The Elizabeth Warren Nomination

Charles Fried, who among other things was Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan (as well, of course, as a distinguished professor at the Harvard Law School and a former member of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) has a terrific piece in the Boston Globe endorsing Barney Frank's suggestion that Obama should give Elizabeth Warren a recess appointment to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Fried, who is somewhat libertarian in his politics, describes Warren as an "enemy of dishonesty, abuse, and just plain fraud," and he notes that capital (and capitalist) markets can't operate effectively if there is no adequate protection against these ills.

I must say, incidentally, that the stupidest argument in Prof. Warren's favor is that she invented the idea of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Talented academics have good ideas all the time, and that's generally not an argument for putting them in charge of complex agencies. What makes the appointment of Elizabeth Warren essential is not only that she had a very good idea several years ago, but, far, far more importantly, she has consistently fought for the idea at the highest level of politics, that she has demonstrated a remarkable, even charismatic, persona with regard to the ability to make complex ideas accessible, and, as Prof. Fried notes, she is passionately committed to making this idea work. By definintion, no one has the relevant prior experience in running this kind of regulatory agency, since it hasn't existed before and the existing regulatory structures, prior to the new bill, were systematically dismantled by recent administrations (including, of course, the Clinton Administration and Robert Rubin). I have no doubt she'll be a superb administrator, but if there are any problems in pushing the paper, she can always hire a deputy. The fact is that much of the job will involve informing the public as to what the Agency will be doing, and why in fact it serves their (rather than the banks') interests, and there is literally no one better in the country (including, I suspect, Barack Obama) in doing that.

One final note: I had a conversation today with a colleague who was reporting on a conversation he had had with a Washingtonian who was bewailing what has happened to the OLC as the result of the Administration's abject cowardice in selecting a head who might have expressed, at one time or another, controversial views about presidential power, etc. It will be shattering if on top of this he punts on Elizabeth Warren.

The above was written by Sandy Levin, who contrbutes to the excellent Balkinization blog, and I couldn't agree more with his perspective. Obama has been a deep disappointment in many respects, but if he blows this one, he'll be thoroughly exposed.

The Toxic Legacy of an Unnecessary War

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.

[snip]

The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".

Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.

Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.