Obama Admin. Suspends Aid To Pakistan: Zadari Friend Or Foe?

U.S. Is Deferring Millions in Pakistani Military Aid

The Obama administration is suspending and, in some cases, canceling hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Pakistani military, in a move to chasten Pakistan for expelling American military trainers and to press its army to fight militants more effectively.

Coupled with a statement from the top American military officer last week linking Pakistan’s military spy agency to the recent murder of a Pakistani journalist, the halting or withdrawal of military equipment and other aid to Pakistan illustrates the depth of the debate inside the Obama administration over how to change the behavior of one of its key counterterrorism partners.

Altogether, about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual American security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected, three senior United States officials said.

This aid includes about $300 million to reimburse Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border to combat terrorism, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in training assistance and military hardware, according to half a dozen Congressional, Pentagon and other administration officials who were granted anonymity to discuss the politically delicate matter.

Some of the curtailed aid is equipment that the United States wants to send but Pakistan now refuses to accept, like rifles, ammunition, body armor and bomb-disposal gear that were withdrawn or held up after Pakistan ordered more than 100 Army Special Forces trainers to leave the country in recent weeks.

Some is equipment, such as radios, night-vision goggles and helicopter spare parts, which cannot be set up, certified or used for training because Pakistan has denied visas to the American personnel needed to operate the equipment, two senior Pentagon officials said.



And some is assistance like the reimbursements for troop costs, which is being reviewed in light of questions about Pakistan’s commitment to carry out counterterrorism operations. For example, the United States recently provided Pakistan with information about suspected bomb-making factories, only to have the insurgents vanish before Pakistani security forces arrived a few days later.

“When it comes to our military aid,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a Senate committee last month “we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see certain steps taken.”

American officials say they would probably resume equipment deliveries and aid if relations improve and Pakistan pursues terrorists more aggressively. The cutoffs do not affect any immediate deliveries of military sales to Pakistan, like F-16 fighter jets, or nonmilitary aid, the officials said.

Pakistan’s precise military budget is not known, and while the American aid cutoff would probably have a small impact on the overall military budget, it would most directly affect the counterinsurgency campaign. The Pakistani Army spends nearly one-quarter of the nation’s annual expenditures, according to K. Alan Kronstadt of the Congressional Research Service.

While some senior administration officials have concluded that Pakistan will never be the kind of partner the administration hoped for when President Obama entered office, others emphasize that the United States cannot risk a full break in relations or a complete cutoff of aid akin to what happened in the 1990s, when Pakistan was caught developing nuclear weapons.



But many of the recent aid curtailments are clearly intended to force the Pakistani military to make a difficult choice between backing the country that finances much of its operations and equipment, or continuing to provide secret support for the Taliban and other militants fighting American soldiers in Afghanistan.

“We have to continue to emphasize with the Pakistanis that in the end it’s in their interest to be able to go after these targets as well,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told reporters on Friday en route to Afghanistan.

Some American officials say Pakistan has only itself to blame, citing the Pakistani military’s decision to distance itself from American assistance in response to the humiliation suffered from the American commando raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden, as well as rising anger from midlevel Pakistani officers and the Pakistani public that senior military leaders, including Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful army chief of staff, are too accommodating to the Americans.

Pakistan shut down the American program to help train Pakistani paramilitary troops fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the lawless border regions near Afghanistan, prompting the Americans to take with them equipment Pakistani troops used. The Central Intelligence Agency has been relying more heavily on flying armed drones from Afghanistan since Pakistan threatened to close down a base the C.I.A. was using inside the country.

But in private briefings to senior Congressional staff members last month, Pentagon officials made clear that they were taking a tougher line toward Pakistan and reassessing whether it could still be an effective partner in fighting terrorists.

“They wanted to tell us, ‘Guys, we’re delivering the message that this is not business as usual and we’ve got this under control,’ ” one senior Senate aide said.

Comments last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also reflected a potentially more confrontational approach to Pakistan. Admiral Mullen, who is retiring in two months, became the first American official to publicly accuse Pakistan of ordering the kidnapping, torture and death of the journalist, Saleem Shahzad, whose mutilated body was found in early June.

Besides the growing tensions, the slowdown in aid can also be attributed to tightening military budgets as lawmakers seek deeper cuts in Pentagon spending to help address the mounting government debt.

There is growing opposition on Capitol Hill to sending security assistance to Pakistan. Last week, the Republican-controlled House approved a Pentagon budget bill that limits the Defense Department from spending more than 25 percent of its projected $1.1 billion budget for training and equipping Pakistani troops next year, unless the secretaries of defense and state submit a report to Congress showing how the money will be spent to combat insurgencies.

The Pakistani military is the most important institution in the country. But it has been under intense domestic and international pressure because of the humiliation of the Bin Laden raid, an attack on Pakistan’s main navy base in Karachi weeks later, and continuing fallout from the arrest and subsequent release of a C.I.A. security contractor, Raymond A. Davis, who shot and killed two Pakistanis in January in what he said was a robbery.

The United States has long debated how hard it can push Pakistan to attack militant strongholds in the tribal area. Washington, however, depends on Pakistan as a major supply route into Afghanistan. American officials also want to monitor as closely as they can Pakistan’s burgeoning nuclear weapons arsenal.

The decision to hold back much of the American military aid has not been made public by the Pakistani military or the civilian government. But it is well known at the top levels of the military, and a senior Pakistani official described it as an effort by the Americans to gain “leverage.”

A former Pakistani diplomat, Maleeha Lodhi, who served twice as ambassador to the United States, said the Pentagon action was short-sighted, and was likely to produce greater distance between the two countries.

“It will be repeating a historic blunder and hurting itself in the bargain by using a blunt instrument of policy at a time when it needs Pakistan’s help to defeat Al Qaeda and make an honorable retreat from Afghanistan,” Ms. Lodhi said of the United States.

Washington imposed sanctions on Pakistan in the 1990s, and in the process lost influence with the Pakistani military, Ms. Lodhi said. Similarly, the Obama administration would find itself out in the cold with the Pakistani Army if it held up funds, she said.

Within the Pakistani Army, the hold on American assistance would be viewed as “an unfriendly act and total disregard of the sacrifices made by the army,” said Brig. Javed Hussain, a retired special forces officer.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, NDTV, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Bob Gates Predicts Moammar Gadhafi's Fall; Taliban Talks (Videos)

View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Obama & Gates Clashed Over McChrystal, Obama Won

Gates Advocated Keeping McChrystal, Source Says


Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed keeping Gen. Stanley McChrystal on the job because he was vital to the war effort in Afghanistan, but Gates was overruled, a senior Pentagon official told CNN's Barbara Starr.

The official has direct knowledge of the events but declined to be identified because of the internal administration discussions.

President Barack Obama relieved McChrystal of command of the Afghan war on Wednesday, a day after Rolling Stone published critical comments about top White House officials by members of McChrystal's staff.

Gates was initially furious about the article, but said McChrystal had to stay in command because the war is at such a critical point, a second source -- who also asked not to be named on internal administration discussions -- told CNN.

But as it became clear the White House didn't feel same way and the issue was not going to fade, Gates shifted his position and agreed that keeping the general would be an untenable distraction.

Technically, McChrystal resigned.

It's still unclear whether Obama had made up his mind before sitting down with McChrystal, but CNN has learned that during their one-on-one meeting, Obama gave the general a chance to defend himself.

"The president asked him about the (Rolling Stone) article," said a senior administration official.

McChrystal "tried to explain the situation," the official said.

That senior administration official, who briefed reporters, said that once Obama accepted McChrystal's resignation, he wasted no time finding his replacement.

After McChrystal walked out of the White House following his 30-minute face-to-face meeting with the president, the president immediately huddled with a team of advisors to decide who would replace McChrystal.

That group included Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

For 45 minutes, they mulled over the president's options.

The White House earlier had asked for a list of possible replacements for McChrystal in the event the president replaced him.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, was one of those considered. The president chose Petraeus.

There is a continuity -- Petraeus is familiar with all the players in the region and he is familiar to NATO partners.

Then Obama called Petraeus, who was already in the White House Situation Room, into the Oval Office to ask him to take over the mission in Afghanistan.

The meeting lasted for 40 minutes, and Petraeus agreed.

The senior administration official said despite the fact that Petraeus was asked to give up Central Command, he did not consider it a demotion.

Obama acknowledged the move was not "the normal course" for a top general to go from being in charge of Central Command to taking command in Afghanistan.

The president also acknowledged it was "a sacrifice for Petraeus."

Obama then went to the Situation Room, where his national security team was waiting.

The senior administration official described the president as "stern" as he walked the team through his decision.

The official said the president told everyone, "We need to remember why we're doing this."

Obama went on to explain that it was understandable to have disagreements or tension within his security team, but when those disagreements turn petty, that does not serve the men and women fighting for the mission.

The president expressed "regret" and "sorrow", saying that "this was a sad day", the senior administration official said.

Then Obama wrapped up the meeting, and called Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai to explain his decision.

McChrystal and Karzai had been close, according to administration and Pentagon officials.

The president then went to the Rose Garden to face the cameras and announce his decision to the American people.

Since then, according to White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, Obama has talked to British Prime Minister David Cameron, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Sens. Harry Reid, Carl Levin and John McCain.

He is urging the Senate to follow his lead and to quickly confirm his nominee.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Google Maps

McChrsytal Fired? I Say No! Needed For Afghan War

Should The "Runaway General" Be Fired?


President Obama summoned his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to Washington on Tuesday after an article in Rolling Stone magazine portrayed the general and his staff as openly contemptuous of some senior members of the Obama administration.

In the article, “The Runaway General,” aides to General McChrystal are quoted making negative comments about Vice President Joe Biden, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. One of the general’s aides refers to James Jones, the national security adviser and a retired four-star general, as a “clown” who is “stuck in 1985.”

General McChrystal apologized for his remarks, saying the article was “a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.” In a statement, he said “I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

Should General McChrystal be dismissed for insubordination? Or do his remarks simply reflect a level of dissent that is not unhealthy and might be expected in a changing military culture?




McChrystal’s Fate In Limbo As He Prepares To Meet Pres. Obama


President Obama will confront the fate of his top commander in Afghanistan Wednesday after a firestorm over remarks the general and members of his staff made that were contemptuous of senior administration officials.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has prepared a letter of resignation, though President Obama had not made up his mind whether to accept it when they meet Wednesday morning.

“I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment,” Mr. Obama said after a cabinet meeting Tuesday. “But I also want to make sure I talk to him directly before I make final judgment.”

In an article in Rolling Stone magazine, General McChrystal and his aides spoke critically of nearly every member of the president’s national security team, saying President Obama appeared “uncomfortable and intimidated” during his first meeting with the general, and dismissing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as “Bite Me.”

The firestorm was fueled by increasing doubts — even in the military — that Afghanistan can be won and by crumbling public support for the nine-year war as American casualties rise. And the remarks also laid bare the disarray and enmity in a foreign policy team that is struggling with the war.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the general’s biggest supporter, released a statement criticizing General McChrystal for “a significant mistake” while Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was described by a senior aide as “deeply disappointed” by the comments.

Whether or not General McChrystal remains at the helm of the Afghan war effort, Mr. Obama will try to use Wednesday’s meeting to urge his fractious Afghanistan staff to pull together, said his press secretary, Robert Gibbs. The president, Mr. Gibbs said, will say that “it is time for everyone involved to put away their petty disagreements, put aside egos and get to the job at hand.”

But that may be easier said than done. At a time when violence in Afghanistan is sharply rising and several central planks of the president’s strategy to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” the Taliban and Al Qaeda have stalled, many of the president’s top advisers have continued to criticize one another to reporters and international allies alike, usually in private conversations, and almost always off the record.

“Yes, we do hear them disparage each other,” said a senior European diplomat who works closely with the United States on Afghanistan strategy. “It’s never good to hear that.”

Bruce O. Riedel, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution who helped the administration formulate its initial Afghan policy, added, “This flap shows once again that his team is not pulling together, but is engaging in backbiting.”

The many Afghanistan team conflicts include complaints from the American ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, about Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who has been portrayed by some as disruptive and whose relationship with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan chilled last year after difficult meetings following the August election. For his part, Ambassador Eikenberry has had his own tensions with the mercurial Mr. Karzai.

In one episode that dramatized the building animosities, Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, wrote to Ambassador Eikenberry in February, sympathizing with his complaints about a visit Mr. Holbrooke had recently made to Afghanistan. In the note, which went out over unsecure channels, officials said, General Jones soothed the ambassador by suggesting that Mr. Holbrooke would soon be removed from his job.

The Jones note prompted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to complain to Mr. Obama, and her support for Mr. Holbrooke has kept him in his job. In the article, which was posted on the magazine’s Web site on Tuesday, one of General McChrystal’s aides is quoted as referring to General Jones as a “clown.”

The infighting has been made more severe by the increasingly perilous situation on the ground. Violence in Afghanistan is on the rise. The mission to pacify Marja and Kandahar is far off track. And the effort to create a viable Afghan government is increasingly in doubt because of widespread corruption. Criticism is mounting on Capitol Hill, even among the president’s backers, and many allies have announced that they are looking for the exit, with others expected to do the same in the coming months.

As the administration struggles to manage its relationship with Mr. Karzai, General McChrystal has proved to be the one American official most able to successfully deal with him on a daily basis. Beyond that, Mr. Obama’s war strategy is in many ways a McChrystal strategy. The general devised the plan, which called for thousands of extra troops to fight the insurgency and, perhaps more important, create a sense of security for the Afghan people.

There has been vigorous debate within the administration about how to proceed in Afghanistan, but General McChrystal and his aides did not overtly criticize administration policy.

Rather, the differences were personal, and publicly aired. One administration official described Mr. Obama as being particularly furious at a McChrystal aide’s characterization of him as not seeming “very engaged” during their first White House meeting.

Over all, the magazine article depicted General McChrystal at the head of a small circle of aides engaged in almost locker-room trash talk as they discussed foreign policy, the French, their allegiance to each other and their own concerns about course of the war. The civilian communications adviser who set up the interview, Duncan Boothby, has resigned.

Even though many advisers fear changing commanders at this stage of the war, there was speculation at the Pentagon and the White House about who could replace General McChrystal.

Over all, the magazine article depicted General McChrystal at the head of a small circle of aides engaged in almost locker-room trash talk as they discussed foreign policy, the French, their allegiance to each other and their own concerns about course of the war. The civilian communications adviser who set up the interview, Duncan Boothby, has resigned.

Even though many advisers fear changing commanders at this stage of the war, there was speculation at the Pentagon and the White House about who could replace General McChrystal.

Potential successors were thought to include Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, commander of the NATO military corps headquarters in Kabul, which manages the day-to-day fight in Afghanistan. General Rodriguez is a confidant of General McChrystal and previously served as a senior military assistant to Mr. Gates. Another possibility is Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in charge of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, who has extensive experience in the Islamic world.

Another potential successor is Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, currently commander of the military’s Joint Forces Command. General Mattis is a respected war-fighter with experience in counterinsurgency missions. Some have even suggested Gen. David H. Petraeus, who leads the United States Central Command and General McChrystal’s boss and mentor, could take over the Afghan mission himself.

As the president considers his options, he must also face his own struggles with the military. By all accounts, he felt that his commanders tried to manipulate him into going along with their Afghan strategy, through leaks to the press and public comments.

The military leadership, meanwhile, continues to be frustrated by what it sees as an unrealistic deadline for completing the mission. Some have also complained that a president distracted by a health care overhaul, a flagging economy and an oil spill has not been a forceful advocate for rallying the public behind the war.

The author of the Rolling Stone article — Michael Hastings, a freelance journalist — appears to have been granted intimate access to General McChrystal’s inner circle. Most of the comments seem to have been uttered during unguarded moments, in places like bars and restaurants where the general and his aides gathered to unwind.

A McChrystal aide is quoted saying of Mr. Holbrooke: “The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to be fired, so that makes him dangerous.” On another occasion, General McChrystal is described as reacting with exasperation when he receives an e-mail message from Mr. Holbrooke. “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don’t even want to open it.”

The article also describes a conversation in which General McChrystal and an aide talk about Mr. Biden, who is known to have opposed the decision to escalate the war. “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” General McChrystal jokes.

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say ‘Bite me?’ ”

Military officers interviewed on Tuesday noted that while the general’s statements could be viewed as inexcusable and disrespectful, he never indicated a decision not to carry out Mr. Obama’s orders or fulfill the president’s strategy.

That distinction may be too subtle in the current phase of poisoned relations between the White House and the military, but it is significant to military officers. For example, when Adm. William J. Fallon, then in charge of the Central Command, was forced into early retirement in March 2008, it was because his statements to Esquire magazine were viewed as directly at odds with White House policy on Iran.

White House officials sought to play down the infighting within the administration’s Afghanistan team, though one senior aide expressed dismay at what he described as “an undisciplined, jocular culture” that called into question whether General McChrystal and his advisers were able to execute an operation “charged with leading 150,000 in a war that is pretty serious.”

Still, said Denis McDonough, the National Security Council chief of staff and one of the president’s closest aides, “the challenge isn’t that we’re all on each other’s holiday card lists.”

“The challenge is to make sure that we’re all advancing the national interest by staying on the offense against Al Qaeda,” he said.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, NY Times, Google Maps

General McChrystal Apologizes After Slamming Obama During Interview

General McChrystal Apologizes But Recalled To Washington After Controversial Remarks About Pres. Obama


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, America's top military commander in Afghanistan, has been recalled to Washington amid his controversial remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, officials said.

McChrystal was summoned to attend a meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person rather than by video conference, a senior administration official said Tuesday.

"He has been recalled to Washington," another official said.

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which the general and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. The article is set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

In the profile written by Michael Hastings, the author writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered.

"'Are you asking about Vice President Biden?' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'"

"'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'"

McChrystal and his aides do not directly criticize President Barack Obama in the article, but Hastings writes that the general and Obama "failed to connect" from the outset after the president took office. Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the room full of top military officials, according to the article.

Later, McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op," Hastings writes, quoting an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed."

The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and National Security Adviser Jim Jones. Obama is not named as one of McChrystal's "team of rivals."

Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general said, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, "I told you so.'"

Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society.

"At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance."

"'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail."

The White House could not immediately be reached for comment on the article.

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing to his apology.


Sources: CNN

Pentagon Lays Framework For "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pentagon Makes Discharging Gays Tougher



Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday approved new rules that will make it harder to discharge gays from the military, calling the changes a matter of "common sense and common decency."

Gates announced new guidelines for how the Pentagon carries out the 1993 law banning gays from serving openly in the military — rules that essentially put higher-ranking officers in charge of discharge proceedings and impose tougher requirements for evidence used against gays.

The new guidelines go into effect immediately and will apply to cases already open. They are considered a stopgap measure until Congress decides whether to go along with President Barak Obama's call for a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law.

"I believe these changes represent an important improvement in the way the current law is put into practice, above all by providing a greater measure of common sense and common decency for handling what are complex and difficult issues for all involved," Gates told a Pentagon news conference.

The changes raise the level of officer authorized to initiate a fact-finding inquiry into a case, the level of officer who can conduct an inquiry and of the one that can authorize a dismissal.

Hearsay harder to use

To discourage the use of overheard statements or hearsay, from now on any evidence given in third-party outings must be given under oath, Gates said. Cases of third-party outings also have included instances in which male troops have turned in women who rejected their romantic advances or jilted partners in relationship have turned in a former lover.

Some kinds of confidential information also will no longer be allowed, including statements gays make to their lawyers, clergy, psychotherapists or medical professionals in the pursuit of health care.

The individual service branches will have 30 days to change their regulations to conform to the new rules.

Military officials, Republicans and even some conservative Democrats have been reluctant to embrace a change in the existing law. They say they support Gates' review of the policy but that no changes should be made if they might undermine military cohesion and effectiveness.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other Democrats say the time has come to repeal the ban and have called for an immediate moratorium on dismissals.

Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow with the Palm Center, which supports a repeal of the ban, said it is unclear how much of an impact the new guidelines would have because regulations already restrict third-party allegations.

"Anything that continues to allow the discharge of service members for something that research shows has no bearing on military effectiveness will not go far enough," Frank said.

An estimated 13,000 have been discharged under the law. The Pentagon didn't officially begin tallying discharges until a few years after the law was implemented, and official figures show roughly 11,000 discharged since 1997 with the peak in 2001 before the military became strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Sources: MSNBC

Robert Gates vs Obama: Dismantling U.S. Nuclear Program, Gates Disagrees

President Obama, Robert Gates Not Always Eye-to-Eye On New Nukes


President Barack Obama has been clear. He wants no new nukes.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates has been equally direct, advocating in recent years for a new generation of warheads.

And nearly 14 months into their bi-partisan-tinged partnership, Obama and Gates haven’t publicly reconciled their views. Some anti-nuclear activists suspect the pair still don’t see completely eye-to-eye and that Gates has never fully abandoned his goal of refurbishing the American nuclear arsenal with new weapons.

Now, the administration is on the verge of releasing a major nuclear policy review that could call attention to this disagreement between the Democratic president and his holdover Defense Secretary – just in time for a nuclear safety summit Obama is hosting for heads of state next month in Washington.

“Quite clearly,” said Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, “the secretary has been stating he sees a need for replacement warheads and new designs, and I’m not sure those are the words the president would want to use at this stage in the process.”

The Obama administration is acutely aware of perceptions that the Nuclear Posture Review has divided senior officials—with Vice President Joe Biden viewed as heading up an arms-control focused camp, and Gates perceived as speaking for a military and nuclear establishment that favors more funding and new weapons programs.

“This is the big challenge of the Obama administration, that it has to find some common ground for those two relatively, I wouldn’t say contradictory, but what can be distant positions,” Kristensen said.

When Obama asked Gates to stay on, the move was widely hailed for bringing continuity to the Pentagon at a time of two wars, and for avoiding the temptation any president faces to purge all of his predecessor’s appointees.

But holding over a member of the Cabinet, especially one who served a president of the opposing party, inevitably means some awkward policy clashes.

It’s not merely that a president and one of his senior advisers might diverge on an important policy question. It’s that Obama’s call to move toward a world without nuclear weapons is one of the signature tenets of his foreign policy.

And liberal arms control activists worry that Obama’s 2011 budget – which would spend more on nuclear weapons labs and related activities than the United States did at the height of the Cold War, even adjusted for inflation—goes too far to assuage the concerns of the defense secretary and leaders of the nuclear weapons complex.

“Increasing funds for nuclear weapons appears to conflict with a vision of a world without them,” former Office of Management and Budget analyst Robert Civiak said.

Asked directly about whether Obama and Gates had squared up their past differences, White House officials dismissed the question as premature ahead of the release of the policy review.

“The NPR is still being worked,” National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said in response to questions from POLITICO.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the Obama administration’s overall approach is in line with Gates’ views. Gates “still believes in the fundamental goals of ensuring warhead safety, security, and reliability, and believes we need a modern infrastructure to support that. Those investments are in the budget,” the spokesman said. “The RRW [Reliable Replacement Warhead] program was killed by Congress, and isn't coming back. Sec. Gates recognizes that fact.”

However, Morrell said it was too soon to say how modernization of nuclear warhead stocks would be carried out. The Pentagon is "not going to say now what the policy will be on this issue," the spokesman said.

During the presidential campaign, Obama was unequivocal in his opposition to new designs. “I will not authorize the development of new nuclear weapons,” he told Arms Control Today in September 2008.

About a month later, while still working for Bush, Gates delivered a speech calling for “urgent attention” to the Bush administration’s call for a new Reliable Replacement Warhead and warning of a “bleak” outlook for the U.S. nuclear arsenal if the new devices weren’t pursued.

“Sensitive parts do not last forever. We can and do re-engineer our current stockpile to extend its lifespan,” Gates said. “With every adjustment we move farther away from the original design that was successfully tested when the weapon was first fielded…At a certain point it will become impossible to keep extending the life of our arsenal—especially in light of our testing moratorium.”

Gates might have been expected to keep mum on the point after Obama was elected, at least in public. He didn’t.

“It is clear, at least to me, that it is important for us to continue to make investments, and I think larger investments in modernizing our nuclear infrastructure, the labs and so on, the expertise in those places, to have the resources for life extension programs and in one or two cases probably new designs that will be safer or more reliable,” Gates said last September, fielding a question at an Air Force Association conference.

So it was no accident that when Biden delivered a policy address last month about nuclear disarmament and the need to boost funding for America’s atomic labs, Gates introduced the vice president—who quickly downplayed any divisions.

“This speech was a collaborative document,” Biden told the audience at the National Defense University, in an apparent ad lib. “Bob Gates could have delivered this speech.”

Unsurprisingly, Obama’s categorical opposition to any new nuclear weapons appears to have carried the day—at least on the surface. When the administration’s 2011 budget plan emerged last month, there was no mention of any new atomic weapons programs.

But the question of whether Gates is still pushing for new designs isn’t as clear-cut, despite Biden’s 22-minute speech and the public budget proposal.

Analysts say squaring the previously stated positions of the president and the Pentagon chief depends on what the definition of the word ‘new’ is. And, as is so often the case with the federal government, the Obama budget’s proposal for a huge injection of cash should help smooth over any hard feelings at the Pentagon and the nuclear labs.

“It comes down to what constitutes ‘new,’ ’’ Kristensen added. “Even very new concepts can be proposed that are not necessarily considered ‘new,’ but as modifications of existing types of warheads. It’s not a black and white thing.”

“A big part of the nuclear review was to assure Secretary Gates and others that we would be investing in all the tools and programs necessary to keep the arsenal safe and effective for the indefinite future,” said one longtime arms control advocate, Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund. “I believe the Secretary’s concerns have been met.”

Some say Gates, a veteran government official who served as CIA director under Bush’s father, also knows when he has to get on the team.

“My guess is that Gates’s bureaucratic instincts are on autopilot,” said John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. under the Bush administration. He said the Defense Secretary may be trying to adjust to the “overwhelmingly pro-arms control” Obama team.

No matter how the Obama administration irons out its differences, Bolton contends that the U.S needs new nuclear weapons, like bunker-busters and low-yield nuclear weapons. “It would be better, cleaner, safer and more reliable simply to design what are clean, new designs intended for that purpose, which is very necessary given countries like Iran and North Korea are doing to bury hardened targets,” he said.

If Gates were to publicly renounce his call for new warheads, he would be able to cite a new study released last fall in which scientists concluded the current arsenal could last for decades without all-new warheads. In his public comments, Gates has consistently said his sole concern was reliability and safety, not trying to seek a military advantage.

“We have no desire for new capabilities. That's a red herring,” Gates said last September. “This is about modernizing and keeping safe a capability that everyone acknowledges we will have to have for some considerable period into the future.”

While the arms control community has generally been ecstatic about the repeated public calls from Obama and his administration to move towards a nuclear-free world, they are nervous that the large budget hike the White House proposed for nuclear programs pulls in the opposite direction, all but ensuring that the U.S. will have a large and growing nuclear weapons complex for the indefinite future.

Obama is proposing spending $7.3 billion in nuclear weapons-related activities in fiscal 2011, up 14 percent from this year, according to Civiak. The total 2011 request is the largest ever, and 40 percent higher, adjusted for inflation, than during the Cold War.

“Future administrations could use this new capacity to produce new nuclear weapons,” warned said Nickolas Roth of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability.

Administration officials are scrambling to wrap up the delayed nuclear posture review in advance of Obama’s nuclear safety summit in Washington and a Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty review conference set to take place in May at the United Nations.

Given Gates’s earlier statements in favor of new warheads, arms control advocates will be reading the U.S. strategy paper closely to see whether programs purportedly aimed at refurbishing the current nuclear arsenal could amount to new weapons programs in disguise.

“That’s a very fair concern,” Cirincione said. “People will be taking a very close look at what the posture review says about the Life Extension Program for exactly this reason…..I think this is mostly on the up and up.”

Speaking to reporters earlier this year, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher said she was keenly aware of suspicions that ramping up funding for the nuclear labs could be seen as undercutting disarmament efforts. She said the scientists have been given explicit instructions to avoid that. “You’re not going to do things that are going to cause people to think that we’re saying one thing and doing another. Because we don’t have enough time in the day to unwind that monster,” she said.

Tauscher also insisted that Gates was fully on board with the administration’s approach—notwithstanding his past statements. “A lot of people have morphed to where we are right now,” she said.

Sources: Politico, MSNBC

U.S. & NATO Forces vs Taliban Booby Traps; Who Will Win?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

U.S., Afghan Forces Face Bombs, Booby Traps In Push To Take Taliban Stronghold


Squads of Marines and Afghan soldiers slowly pressed deeper into the Taliban stronghold of Marjah on Sunday, painstakingly clearing out booby-trapped houses one by one.

Homemade bombs and mines slowed the advance of thousands of U.S., British and Afghan soldiers in NATO's most ambitious effort yet to break the militants' grip over their southern heartland.

Using metal detectors and sniffer dogs, U.S. forces found caches of explosives rigged to blow as they went from compound to compound. They also discovered several sniper positions, freshly abandoned and booby-trapped with grenades.

NATO said it hoped to secure Marjah, the largest town under Taliban control and a key opium smuggling hub, within days, set up a local government, and rush in development aid in a first test of the new U.S. strategy for turning the tide of the eight-year war. The offensive is the largest since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

At least two Shuras, or meetings, have been held with local Afghan residents — one in the northern district of Nad Ali and the other in Marjah itself, NATO said in a statement. Discussions have been "good," and more shuras are planned in coming days as part of a larger strategy to enlist community support for the NATO mission.

Afghan officials said Sunday at least 27 insurgents had been killed in the operation. Helmand government spokesman Daoud Ahmadi said troops found a large cache of bomb-making materials in one compound in Marjah.

Most of the Taliban appeared to have scattered in the face of overwhelming force, possibly waiting to regroup and stage attacks later to foil the alliance's plan to stabilize the area and expand Afghan government control in the volatile south.

Two NATO soldiers were killed on the first day of the operation — one American and one Briton, according to military officials in their countries.

More than 30 transport helicopters ferried troops into the heart of Marjah before dawn Saturday, while British, Afghan and U.S. troops fanned out across the Nad Ali district to the north of the mud-brick town, long a stronghold of the Taliban.

Maj. Gen. Gordon Messenger told reporters in London that British forces "have successfully secured the area militarily" with only sporadic resistance from Taliban forces. A Taliban spokesman insisted their fighters still controlled the town.

President Barack Obama was keeping a close watch on combat operations, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

The president will get an update from his national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones, later Saturday. Vietor said Defense Secretary Robert Gates will also have the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, brief Obama on Sunday morning.

In Marjah, Marines and Afghan troops faced little armed resistance. But their advance through the town was impeded by countless land mines, homemade bombs and booby-traps littering the area. Marine ordnance teams blew up several dozen bombs, setting off huge explosions that reverberated through the dusty streets.

On Sunday, most of the Marines said they would have preferred a straight-up gunbattle to the "death at every corner" crawl they faced, though they continued to advance slowly through the town.

"Basically, if you hear the boom, it's good. It means you're still alive after the thing goes off," said Lance Corp. Justin Hennes, 22, of Lakeland, Florida.

Local Marjah residents crept out from hiding after dawn Sunday, some reaching out to Afghan troops partnered with Marine platoons.

"Could you please take the mines out?" Mohammad Kazeem, a local pharmacist, asked the Marines through an interpreter. The entrance up to his shop had been completely booby-trapped, without anyway for him to re-enter his home, he said.

The bridge over the canal into Marjah from the north was rigged with so many explosives that Marines erected temporary bridges to cross into the town.

"It's just got to be a very slow and deliberate process," said Capt. Joshua Winfrey of Stillwater, Oklahoma, a Marine company commander.

Lt. Col. Brian Christmas, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, said U.S. troops fought gunbattles in at least four areas of the town and faced "some intense fighting."

To the east, the battalion's Kilo Company was inserted into the town by helicopter without meeting resistance but was then "significantly engaged" as the Marines fanned out from the landing zone, Christmas said.

Marine commanders had said they expected between 400 and 1,000 insurgents — including more than 100 foreign fighters — to be holed up in Marjah, a town of 80,000 people that is the linchpin of the militants' logistical and opium-smuggling network in the south.

The offensive, code-named "Moshtarak," or "Together," was described as the biggest joint operation of the Afghan war, with 15,000 troops involved, including some 7,500 in Marjah itself. The government says Afghan soldiers make up at least half of the offensive's force.

Once Marjah is secured, NATO hopes to quickly deliver aid and provide public services in a bid to win support among the estimated 125,000 people who live in the town and surrounding villages. The Afghans' ability to restore those services is crucial to the success of the operation and in preventing the Taliban from returning.
















International, Afghan Forces Uncover Munitions Stockpiles In Marjah


Members of the Afghan National Security Force and the International Security Assistance Force discovered stockpiles of IED making materials while clearing a compound in Marjah, Helmand province, Sunday, according to a press release by the ISAF Joint Command in Afghanistan.

Acting on a tip from a local resident, another joint patrol by members of the ISAF and ANSF discovered a weapons cache and destroyed the munitions on Sunday, according to the press release.

An Afghan-international combined force captured a Taliban commander responsible for planning and leading IED attacks against Afghan and coalition troops in Logar province Saturday night, the ISAF press release said.

The discoveries came as thousands of U.S. troops and Afghan soldiers fought for a second day in NATO's most ambitious effort yet to break the militants' grip on Afghanistan's dangerous south.

It could take weeks to reclaim the Taliban stronghold of Marjah, a top Marine commander said Sunday.

"That doesn't necessarily mean an intense gun battle, but it probably will be 30 days of clearing," Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said. "I am more than cautiously optimistic that we will get it done before that."

Squads of Marines and Afghan soldiers occupied a majority of Marjah, but sporadic gun battles erupted as pockets of militants dug in and fought. Sniper fire forced Nicholson to duck behind an earthen bank in the northern part of the city where he toured the tip of the Marines' front line held by Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines.

"The fire we just took reflects how I think this will go — small pockets of sporadic fighting by small groups of very mobile individuals," he said.

Afghan officials said Sunday that at least 27 insurgents have been killed in the operation. NATO reported two troop casualties from the first day of the offensive — an American and a Briton. Seven civilians have been wounded but there were no reports of deaths, Helmand provincial spokesman Daoud Ahmadi said.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The offensive, called "Moshtarak," or "Together," is the biggest joint operation since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, with 15,000 troops involved, including some 7,500 in Marjah itself.

Between 400 and 1,000 insurgents — including more than 100 foreign fighters — were believed to be holed up in Marjah, a town of 80,000 people that is the linchpin of the militants' logistical and opium-smuggling network in the south.

The second day of the massive NATO offensive was marked by painstaking searches from compound to compound as Marines and Afghan troops used metal detectors and sniffer dogs to locate explosives rigged to blow.

They also encountered pockets of resistance, fighting off sniper attacks, as they moved deeper into the town.

"We're in the majority of the city at this point," said Lt. Josh Diddams, a Marine spokesman. He said the nature of the resistance has changed from the initial assault, with insurgents now holding ground in some neighborhoods.

"We're starting to come across areas where the insurgents have actually taken up defensive positions," he said. "Initially it was more hit and run."

Meanwhile, thousands of other British, Afghan and U.S. troops fanned out across the Nad Ali district to the north of the mud-brick town.

Explosions from controlled detonations of bombs and other explosives were being heard about every 10 minutes in the area.

"There's really a massive amount of improvised explosive devices," Nicholson said. "We thought there would be a lot, but we are finding even more than expected."

NATO forces uncovered 550 pounds of ammonium nitrate and other bomb-making materials while clearing a compound in Marjah, a coalition statement said. They also found a weapons cache in Nad Ali that included artillery rounds, pressure plates and blasting caps.

NATO said it hoped to secure Marjah, the largest town under Taliban control, set up a local government and rush in development aid in a first test of the new U.S. strategy for turning the tide of the 8-year-old war.

The United Nations said an estimated 900 families had fled the Marjah area and were registered for emergency assistance in the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah, about 20 miles away.

At least two shuras, or council meetings, have already been held with local residents — one in Nad Ali and the other in Marjah itself, NATO said in a statement. Discussions have been "good," and more are planned in coming days as part of a larger strategy to enlist community support for the NATO mission, it said.

President Barack Obama was keeping a close watch on combat operations, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan was to brief Obama on Sunday.

In Marjah, most of the Marines said they would have preferred a straight-up gunbattle to the "death at every corner" crawl they faced as they made their way through the town.

"Basically, if you hear the boom, it's good. It means you're still alive after the thing goes off," said Lance Corp. Justin Hennes, 22, of Lakeland, Florida.

Local Marjah residents crept out from hiding after dawn Sunday, some reaching out to Afghan troops partnered with Marine platoons.

"Could you please take the mines out?" Mohammad Kazeem, a local pharmacist, asked the Marines through an interpreter. The entrance to his shop had been completely booby-trapped, without any way for him to re-enter his home, he said.


View Larger Map


Sources: Fox News, MSNBC, Google Maps

McCain Accuses Gates Of Disrespecting Law; Usurping Congress’ Authority

John McCain: Robert Gates Disrespecting Law On "Don't Ask"


Two top Pentagon officials told Congress on Tuesday that they are moving ahead with plans to dismantle the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces — drawing a sharp rebuke from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who accused Defense Secretary Robert Gates of trying to usurp Congress’s authority over the military.

“The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” Gates said in his opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee session. “We’ve received our orders from the commander in chief and are moving out accordingly.”

But McCain said Gates was disrespecting the statute Congress passed in 1993 setting the gays-in-the-military policy into law.

“I’m deeply disappointed with your statement, Secretary Gates,” McCain said. He charged Gates with treating repeal of the law as a fait accompli. “Your statement obviously is one that is clearly biased without the view of Congress being taken into consideration. … I’m happy to say that we still have a Congress of the United States to repeal 'don’t ask don’t tell,' despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat.”

Gates said he recently ordered a 45-day review on measures the military might take prior to repeal of the law to modify some of the policy’s impact. He said one possibility is increasing the amount of evidence needed to discharge a gay service member from the force. The secretary also said he was considering ending discharges based on third-party complaints, rather than on claims that a service member publicly disclosed his or her sexual orientation.

However, Gates said only a change in the law would permit a moratorium on all discharges based on sexual orientation. “The advice that I have been given is that the current law would not permit that,” the secretary said.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.” In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama used the same language in calling for a repeal of the ban, saying: "It’s the right thing to do."



“We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals, and ours as institutions,” Mullen said.

Gates said he was asking two top officials, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, to oversee a yearlong review of how a repeal of the 'don’t ask, don’t tell' policy would be implemented in areas such as housing, fraternization rules, unit cohesion and recognition of same-sex relationships.

Views on the policy broke largely along party lines, with Republicans saying it should be kept in place or expressing concerns about repeal and Democrats urging the Pentagon to press forward. Maine Sen. Susan Collins was the only Republican who expressed willingness to consider repeal.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) asked Gates and Mullen to respond to a legislative proposal that would repeal the policy at the end of the Pentagon’s study. “Language like this would make me much more comfortable, since I want a clear path to repeal,” Udall said.

Gates said while it’s critical that Congress settles the matter, the Pentagon would still need at least another year to implement the change. “We would feel that it would be very important that we be given some period of time for that implementation.”

“As urgently as some would like this to happen, it's just going to take some time,” Mullen added.

Gates and Mullen said that while advocates on both sides of the debate have claimed to know the general views of rank-and-file military personnel on the issue, there have been no reliable surveys indicating what soldiers or their families actually think.

However, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said gathering that kind of information from gays currently in the service who have not made their sexual orientation public will be very problematic.

“You have a real challenge in getting some of the most important input you may need,” she said.


Sources: Politico

Obama Admin., Pentagon Reviews "Don't Ask", Seeks Repeal

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gates: Fewer Gay Troops Will Be Dismissed


Defense Secretary Robert Gates is promising to try to spare more gay troops from being dismissed from the military while the Pentagon takes a year to study revising its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

An announcement of the study, expected Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, marks a measured step toward President Barack Obama's goal of eliminating the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is based on a 1993 law.

Obama has called on Congress to repeal the law, but Democrats say they want more guidance on how to allow openly gay service members to serve without causing a major upheaval.

The yearlong study could pave the way for the biggest social change to the military since the 1948 executive order for the racial integration of units.

While his promise is being hailed as a good start by gay rights' activists, Obama is finding resistance in several corners. Some high-ranking military officers are reluctant to embrace the change while troops are stretched thin at a time of two wars.

For their part, Democrats in Congress are unlikely to press the divisive issue until after this fall's midterm elections.

Needs to be done very, very carefully

This will probably satisfy Gates, who has long suggested that change shouldn't come too quickly. In a speech last year at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, he noted that the executive order for racial integration took five years to implement.

"I'm not saying that's a model for this, but I'm saying that I believe this is something that needs to be done very, very carefully," he said.

According to U.S. officials, the senior-level study will be co-chaired by a top-ranked civilian and a senior uniformed officer.

It would recommend the best way to lift the ban, starting from the premise that the goal will take time to accomplish but that it can be done without harming the capabilities or cohesion of the military force, officials said.

A more lenient standard

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the emerging Pentagon plan ahead of Gates' announcement during his Senate appearance alongside Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

One U.S. official said Gates and Mullen will outline a more lenient standard for enforcing the current ban, as Gates had said last year he would consider. The interim policy would make it harder for a third party to turn in a gay service member and would raise the standard for evidence that the service member is gay before the person could be dismissed.

Under the 1993 law, engaging in homosexual conduct — even you don't tell anyone — can been enough to qualify a person for dismissal.

The law was intended as a compromise between then-President Bill Clinton, who wanted to lift the military's ban on gays entirely, and a reluctant Congress and military that said doing so would threaten order.

According to figures released Monday, the Defense Department last year dismissed the fewest number of service members for violating its the policy than it had in more than a decade. Overall, more than 10,900 troops have been fired under the policy. The 2009 figure — 428 — was dramatically lower than the 2008 total of 619.

End of a dream

David Hall, a former Air Force sergeant, said he was discharged in 2002 after someone else reported that he was gay.

"That ended it," said Hall, who now works for a gay rights advocacy group. "Just like that, based off what one person said, ended my dream of getting to fly planes."

In addition to addressing the military's policy on gays, Gates and Mullen planned to outline the military's $768 billion budget for 2011 and another $33 billion requested in war spending this year.

Both Gates and Mullen were expected to underscore the importance of succeeding in Afghanistan, where Obama has ordered 30,000 more troops.

"Our future security is greatly imperiled if we do not win the wars we are in," Mullen said in prepared remarks.

Further, he added, "the outcome of today's conflicts will shape the global security environment for decades to come."


Sources: MSNBC, NY Daily News, Zimbio