Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Using Time Wisely
I was having coffee with a former commander in Afghanistan this morning when I started talking to him about something that has been on my mind for the past week or so. Even if the president has made up his mind with respect to how he is going to resource this next phase of the war in Afghanistan, it might make sense to take his time before making an announcement. Furthermore, it might also make sense to make very public this open-ended debate about what the size and nature of our committment to Afghanistan should be.
Why?
Well, if the White House uses this time wisely, it should be putting pressure on Hamid Karzai at the same time in which signals are being sent that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is at a fork in the road. Our committment, we should be telling Karzai, is at least partially dependent on what his government does and fails to do. If, for example, he is certified the next president of Afghanistan, we Americans have a list of people we would like -- nay, need -- to see retained in key ministries and provincial governorships. Furthermore, we have a "black list" of those people whose presence in an Afghan government would endanger America's relationship with the Afghan government going forward.
If this looks like tampering in the affairs of another government ... it is. But the Karzai government is already dependent on U.S. and allied military muscle to stay in power in the face of a Pashtun insurgency -- an insurgency robustly supported by neighboring Pakistan. It is hardly radical that we then have a say in the behavior and composition of the government U.S. blood and treasure are being spent protecting.
Because as much as Tom Friedman expresses the frustration being felt by a lot of Americans in his column in the New York Times today, what he is feeling should not come as a surprise to any people fighting a counterinsurgency campaign on behalf of a third party. As Steve Biddle correctly notes (.pdf), for a state to be facing an insurgency, it is probably already facing a crisis of legitimacy. The trick comes when the host nation government is incompetent, corrupt or predatory toward its people. Then the nation or coaltion waging the counterinsurgency campaign has to step in with a plan designed to reform the government's composition or behavior with leverage. At this moment in time, we have some leverage. But it will go away once the president commits one way or another.
So take your time, Barack. Just make sure your lieutenants -- Holbrooke, Eikenberry -- are using this time wisely.
Do you know the president
Do you know the president well enough to address him by his first name?
What happens once Obama
What happens once Obama commits to a strategy and our leverage goes away, though?
I'm sure Karzai is making some wonderful promises to Holbrooke and Eikenberry. But he has a history of not keeping his promises.
I guess when you get your
I guess when you get your face on Nightline, you think you can call anyone by their first name?
I'm sure he calls Lexington Steele, "Lex" in public too....
"Furthermore, we have a
"Furthermore, we have a "black list" of those people whose presence in a South Vietnamese [Afghan] government would endanger America's relationship with the South Vietnamese [Afghan] government going forward.
"an insurgency robustly supported by neighboring North VietNam [Pakistan]. It is hardly radical that we then have a say in the behavior and composition of the government U.S. blood and treasure are being spent protecting."
Takes your breath away- don't it? Utter genius at work.
My Marine cousin died of wounds sustained in VietNam. Now my nephew is a Marine. To think we still have the same numbskull mentalities at work, behind the scenes, really really pisses me off.
OK, so why doesn't Mr.
OK, so why doesn't Mr. President tell him: "we will cut off your ammunition, take away all your supplies and firearms we've already provided you, if you don't allign the government the way we want"
Think that will get his attention? Should we tell him we will take away his FAV / SUV and Warlock Red and Green Systems riding on his rear? Think we would be Indian giver's then? Pardon the pun!
Sounds a lot like "Country Building" that's already being undertaken, if you asked me. People at the Truman Building and up the river already have these people in their pocket. What do you think they aren't doing now..... that they should be?
Or perhaps, don't you think the WH is looking for a easy way out?
Perhaps they want to deflect and end the war as soon as possible, so they can blame someone else.....or just say....it was out of our control???
Just wondering if you had
Just wondering if you had comments on the Pat Tillman book by Jon Krakauer... also the Frontline piece was great... i like the confrontation with the Pakistani ISI... here is some facts... bam! Lying liars!
Yeah, I reviewed that book
Yeah, I reviewed that book for the Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091102614.htmlThe public debate at least
The public debate at least makes it seem like the US doesn't have to be there for long if it doesn't have to--a point of leverage on Karzai as he thinks of himself hanging from a lamppost. But what about everyone else who is making the Afghan government, um, underperform? Haven't they, or at least most of them, been hedging for a while anyway?
Not sure I want to read that
Not sure I want to read that one. . .Krakauer kind of turned me off with "Into the Wild."
Yo Muq, spell out in one
Yo Muq, spell out in one clear sentence what "our leverage" is at the moment. I'm not convinced I agree/understand.
Not sure I want to read that
Not sure I want to read that book. . .Krakauer kind of turned me off with "Into the Wild."
Enjoyed watching the show
Enjoyed watching the show last night. You are a very bright young man. Wish we had people like you in charge when i was in Vietnam.
I have one question for you.
Do you believe the President may be brewing his own "Rose Garden" strategy and could repeat history like Jimmy Carter's malaise on the war on terror back 79-80? Do you believe he will make a positive choice or be too slow to react properly?
Thank you, do well at KC London and thank you for your service to your country.
Semper Fi,
Gunner B.
Speaking of time, it took 4
Speaking of time, it took 4 minutes for Gordon Brown to read out the names of the 37 British servicemen killed over the 82 day Parliamentary summer recess. It was pretty shocking. Unfortunately people get used to the weekly 'drip drip' count, really brought home the sacrifice.
Has the cat been let out of
Has the cat been let out of the bag? BBC Newsnight reports 'usually impeccable sources' and hints from Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup indicating decision made:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/
Paraphrasing that great
Paraphrasing that great American, Yosemite Sam: Cawlsarn it ! Time's a wastin'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eo0OY8GOuc
Yer pal,
Capt. Wm. Fetterman, late of the 18th
The trick comes when the
The trick comes when the host nation government is incompetent, corrupt or predatory toward its people. Then the nation or coaltion waging the counterinsurgency campaign has to step in with a plan designed to reform the government's composition or behavior with leverage. At this moment in time, we have some leverage.
Are there any historical cases for this kind of third-party-counterinsurgent-leveraging having actually worked?
I'm also not sure how troop levels translates into leverage. First you make the assumption that Karzai wants more troops in the first place. Then one has to assume that 40k more troops vs no additional troops is really leverage. I don't think so because even if we don't increase our troop presence at all we still have plenty of forces to protect Karzai's government. What does he have to fear? More importantly, we have already invested heavily in Karzai and kicking him to the curb would carry a heavy political price, a price that Karzai understands we are not likely to pay. Your leverage is an illusion.
More worrying, you have apparently bought into the idea that governance in Afghanistan is contingent upon which officials hold key ministries and governorships. I wonder if you realize this is a road we've been many times before the Coindinista's switched their gaze from Iraq to Afghanistan. The bigger problem in Afghanistan is structural - Kabul and the governors have almost all the authority (political, economic and military) land such top-down power structures don't work very well in Afghanistan since governance has always been at the local level (even during the monarchy for much of the 20th century). What we should be doing is forcing Karzai to empower the district and provincial shuras - at a minimum - or empower them ourselves. I suggest you look at the history of governorship in Helmand province to get a lesson on why replacing "bad" governors with "good" ones isn't going to work. The problem isn't really Karzai - the problem is the Afghan government is overly centralized. It's more centralized than our own government or even Europe for chrissakes. I don't see how anyone can seriously expect that level of centralization to work in a place like Afghanistan.
Heh, do I get credit for
Heh, do I get credit for making basically the same post a couple weeks back in your comment thread? :)
More seriously though, whether we're making a serious effort along the diplomatic and politica lines or just puttering around seems pretty easily verifiable. I tend to think that'd be pretty hard to keep quiet (given that we can't keep anything quiet, and we'd also see some sorts of fomentation going on amongst Afghan political circles too.
Errhhh.... this whole theory
Errhhh.... this whole theory of yours that the President is trying to prolong the strategy review to gain leverage over Karzai means that we're supposed to discount *all* the reporting of the fierce debate going on within the administration over the way ahead in Afghanistan. If you're right, then it means that the military, the VP, State, DOD, and Obama's more domestically orientated advisors are all wrong in thinking that the overall policy is really up for grabs, and the massive amount of leaking and positioning they're engaged in is kinda pointless. Furthermore, since you seem to think that in the end, the President will go with a COIN-heavy approach (why would he need leverage with Karzai on the issues you're talking about otherwise?), then all the reporting we've had of people in the administration drawing comparisons with LBJ and Vietnam represent the losing side of a debate that's already been settled. All the supposed civil-military confusion over the meaning of COIN in Afghanistan, reported at length in the WaPost--all of this is just part of the President's master scheme of acquiring more leverage over Karzai.
I'm sorry, but where you see crafty cunning, I see strategic confusion--some caused, of course, by the inherent difficulty of the circumstances. But we still have no USAID director, the Kerry Lugar bill is becoming a public diplomacy catastrophe (has Amb. Holbrooke been paying as much attention to this as he should have, versus attending major DC strategy sessions?--I dunno), as far as I can tell, we have no real strategy or policy at the moment for dealing with Galbraith's accusations of massive vote fraud (although Galbraith himself may no longer be credible in the light of his oil investments in Kurdistan), the civilian surge into Afghanistan is still slow going (perhaps no big surprise), and the press reports that the SecDef and SecState feel they need to play their cards close to the vest to have maximum impact on the President. They certainly don't think the President's already made up his mind.
Radio Discussion with Prof.
Radio Discussion with Prof. M. Nazif Shahrani, One of the Few Real Experts on Afghanistan's History, Politics, Cultures, & Languages
Is this blog about Andrew
Is this blog about Andrew Exum or Counter-Insurgency?
Perhaps next time you appear in a PBS documentary, they should say "Andrew Exum, a blogger who hosts a blog where he tries to make himself appear important..."
PS: You know, if you turned off the comments, this blog would be even worse than it already is. If CNAS held open tryouts, you could easily be replaced by several of AM's readership.
I agree that you should have
I agree that you should have mentioned that you were featured in the Frontline piece.
On the topic of the Afghanistan strategy - you would presume that there was a debate going on within the government long before the debate went public. So presumably the United States has been doing what you suggest for months -- perhaps since the moment the election was done. I think that's a good thing.
But eventually debates have to end and the idea that we should indefinitely extend an internal debate the American people are excluded from doesn't sit quite right.
Andy's & Visitor@7:13 --
Andy's & Visitor@7:13 -- Pakistani Maj. Mehar Omar Khan, currently studying at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, provides grist for y'all's mill in his paper "Don't Try to Arrest the Sea." For a thumbnail, see last week's ForeignPolicy
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/08/this_week_at_war?page=0,1
while the full PDF of the Major's recommendation is at Oct. 2nd's Small Wars Journal
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/10/an-alternative-approach-for-af/
Regards,
Dwight Whayle
I get what you're saying
I get what you're saying about making the use of this time, but I have to agree with the Visitor of 7:08 that there is no way this is an intentional pause. We're hearing all of this rumor and innuendo about massive debates and confrontations going on inside the national security council and have yet to get a decision on a way forward (although one looks forthcoming by end of next week, right?)...I'm pretty sure it all means that we've been genuinely dazed and confused for the last couple of months of strategic dialogue. I'd love to believe that we're confused like a fox, but my guess is that Holbrooke and the administration's other emissaries have been effectively paralyzed while all this decision-making goes on back at the White House. I hope to god we're finally getting somewhere on that now.
Incidentally, this is the first Tom Friedman column in a long, long while where I haven't felt dumber for reading it. You know, in a lot of ways I think that an extreme lack of faith among the people of Afghanistan in the Karzai government's misrule is a better problem to have than an insurgency motivated purely out of a hatred for foreigners, because the first one we can do something about. As daunting a task as it will likely be, I can genuinely see how there might be a way forward in providing better governance rather than just banging our heads against the counterterrorism wall. That said, there was an insurgency in Afghanistan way before the Karzai government went full retard. The problem has got to be more complicated than just restoring people's faith in the government, right?
PS: You don't have to write "PS" on a post in a blog's comment section. For real, you can just start a new paragraph, because you aren't signing your name in pen, right? There's no need to add an addendum to a message that nobody knows you concluded, right?
I don't think our leverage
I don't think our leverage is completely gone once the President makes a decision, as we have to make it clear to everyone - American citizens, Afghan citizens, Afghan government etc, that all the money and troops remain contingent on the Afghan government making good on promises to improve governance at a national and local level. This includes how money is spent - whether it goes directly through Afghans or internationals or with little or with extensive oversight. Karzai and his crew will break promises, they will continue to focus on lining their pockets and will use anything they can to make themselves out to be the only ones protecting the Afghan population from both the Taliban and the evil foreign military - see return of the conspiracy theory of Taliban fighters being flown up to Kunduz from Helmand by the British (and yes, the Afghans believe it - there were several TV debates on the issue, it has even come up in Parliament).
Where there is potential is at the local level - in the districts and in some provinces at the provincial level. Here you're rarely touching the Karzai crew directly by hitting key individuals, and have potential to get them to bend, and these changes can make a significant impact. What is required is a significant discussion by all players as to who the good, bad, and acceptable apples are first. Also, re-looking at the police reform and the vetting of senior officers done back in 2005 or 2006. Those people who were vetted out and have gotten back in need to be removed, and removed immediately. This will require a lot of cooperation, information sharing and trust amongst several players and at all levels.
Right, make lemonade
Right, make lemonade Forest.
Leverage? More than we have had in the past 8 years? Only if you think accepting the lie of a fair election will buy us anything after the first time we publicly say it. Which it won't. Karzai has the leverage, and he knows it. Because he knows POTUS doesn't have the balls to say "oops, I guess it really wasn't necessary after all, lets pack up and go home"
8 years and counting. They
8 years and counting.
They won't.
The U.S. national security
The U.S. national security establishment, from the executive to Congress to the military, not to mention all of the star-struck think-tankers and the ignorantly apathetic voters, approach complex problems like Afghanistan with the grace of the perverbial monkey fucking a football.
Whatever policies we get, it won't be due to diligent, careful, and reasoned study.
Eight years of nonsense, more to come.
Hard to beat a worse contingency to stumble into and out of than this one.
Let's see.... 1955 U.S.
Let's see....
1955 U.S. backs Ngo Dinh Diem to take control of S. Vietnam, defies U.N. mandate for Vietnamese unfication elections scheduled for 1956. Under U.S. pressure Diem holds highly suspect "elections" in 1959 to validate his presidency.
1963 U.S. determines Ngo Dinh Diem is so corrupt he is intolerable, he is assassinated and replaced with a U.S. backed hunta that installs Nguyen Van Thieu. Who turns out to be much worse than Diem.
1967 U.S. initiates Phoenix Program to "neutralize" Viet Cong shadow government officials in S. Vietnamese villages. Operatives are not too picky about who they pop. Somewhere around 1969 "rogue" Phoenix operatoratives are alledged to have determined that the real problem was the corrupt local S. Vietnamese government officials and start popping them instead.
1973 After 11 years of killing U.S. leaves Vietnam in disgrace and defeat. Many wonder why we ever went their and especially why we stayed so long. Many veterans claim "the politicians lost that war, we were never beaten in battle!" Not all is lost, war was a big boost for careerist miltary types, journalists and defense contractor profits.
2002 U.S. installs Karzi who turns out to be highly corrupt. 2009 Karzi holds highly suspect "elections" to validate his presidency.
20?? Karzi is assassinated and replaced with ??? ??? who turns out to be much worse than Karzi?
20?? U.S. inintiates ???? Program to "neutralize" growing Taliban shadow government officials in Afghan villages?
20?? "rogue" operatives from the ???? program determine the real problem is corrupt Afghan government officials start popping them instead?
20?? After ?? years of killing U.S. leaves Afghaninam in disgrace and defeat. Many wonder why we ever went their and especially why we stayed so long. Many veterans claim "the politicians lost that war, we were never beaten in battle!" Not all is lost, war was a big boost for careerist miltary types, journalists and defense contractor profits. And many bloggers' careers.
Yeah, Kabul's gettin' to be a mighty rough town again. Wouldn't be at all surprised if Karzi becomes a martyr for Democracy soon...
apologies to ma ex, and
apologies to ma ex, and against my don't drive angry principles but
"Is this blog about Andrew Exum or Counter-Insurgency?"
Cult of personality you are a fucking dick - what do you think a blog is but a forum to express personal views?
As far as i can see Exum has been saying the same things when he was 'outside the establishment' and railing against the bush incompetence engine and now that he is 'inside the establishment' and advising those in charge- ie he has a job at CNAS.
turn the comments off? these are an intergral part of the discourse.
if you don't like it, don't read it. put it another way FUCK OFF
i know i'm going to regret this post when i sober up.
sigh.
I am sure that I am
I am sure that I am extrapolating beyond any acceptable level of meaningful trope, but when I briefly passed through Qatari Customs early yesterday morning I thought I had an epiphany. As I approached the metal detector, I forgotten about the mags from my IBA when I turned in my weapon to the armory prior to going through customs. I waved at the gentleman on the other side of the equipment holding up the magazines and said "I'm going to take these to the armory". He held up his palm, motioned for the mags and ran off (really, he ran) with my ID and the mags. Then he came back and took me outside. I held out my hands for the mags so I could take them to the armory and he turned to the amnesty box next to us and dumped the mags down the chute. Then he beckoned me inside and inspected my duffels where he found a Gerber of questionable length and opined "very small" as he stuffed it back in and released me.
My takeaway: How can we expect to craft and execute a cogent policy in this area if we can't communicate our objectives in a timely fashion?
Galaxy
Galaxy Song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk&feature=channel
Diabolic Diablo you are
Diabolic Diablo you are slightly abrasive to Marine Corps standards, but I was thinking the same thing when you posted that comment about "Cult". You slammed the door on him pretty good, but you Jack Ryan type's need to get your frustrations out. I completely understand. Thank you for your comment. It made me smile.
Perhaps you should take up Rugby? :)
Can you have COIN Operations
Can you have COIN Operations without a USAID Director?
Where is Henrietta H. Fore when you need her? Is she taking a Rose Garden approach on this war also?
Why hasn't someone been selected?
Why doesn't USAID take someone from Bosnia, Herzegovina or even Liberia (obvious success stories for USAID) and place one of those Directors in Afghanistan?
Would make sense and take the obstructionist "perception", the public is observing, at the top of the chain of command....
TGM - cheers for that. but
TGM - cheers for that.
but its rugby which made me this way,
in fact i'm watching a live game right now. canterbury vs hawkes bay
American fingerprints are
American fingerprints are ALL OVER the Kabul government as it is. The fact that that that government is FUBAR should tell you something about the effectiveness of Western lecturingabout 'good governance' and the 'comprehensive networked approach'. We've been there EIGHT YEARS already. What is it that people don't get about this situation?
sorry - tvm
sorry - tvm
Using double-time in
Using double-time in Tangiers (Wind and the Lion)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaql3QNa9_Q&feature=related
My Name is David Jon
My Name is David Jon Sponheim and I am running for President in 2012 under America's Third Party. Clearly the dialogue has reached an impasse. Let's take a sober look at the evolution of this insanity. "1 Tin Soldier" is right, this War is like a repeat of Vietnam and the "Quagmire" that ensued there. The failed policy of Henry Kissinger's "Low intensity conflict" has perpetuated the War machine to destroy economies. The situation on the ground with M-4s jamming is a primary dilemma that can only be corrected with new weapons. It is impractical to get 500,000 weapons swapped out in the next few weeks, so, we need to act quickly with a new strategy that will protect our troops from ambush. The distance and terrain in the southern 'fish hook' area of Afghanistan makes it impossible to clear and contain. The interdiction policy of the Bush administration has also failed. Preventing the flow of people and insurgents over the border is impossible without targeted air strikes. The hope of the Afghan people
to resist the Taliban is all but a wish concocted in some think tank. The reality is, these people will go wherever the Taliban tells them to go. They will continue growing poppy and marijuana as their cash crop and it will be used against us in an economic way. Hamid Karzai and his Cabinet will turn over the weakest Warlord to the DEA as an appeasement. Corruption is the norm in Afghanistan. Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people is a lofty goal also shared by the Taliban. So, our best efforts at governance, interdiction, and containment fall short of what our enemy has achieved historically. There is no potential in fighting this War on our enemies terms. Therefore, a completely new strategy must now be revealed.
Since the Taliban is pushing deeper into Northern Pakistan as we press our forces deeper into Northern Afghanistan, we are in a lose lose position. Our futile efforts of containment in this region is affecting the security of the Pakistan Army in the SWAT region. The federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan are completely infiltrated with armed Taliban. They are 50 miles from Islamabad and 50 Nuclear weapons! We need to give our enemy an area in order to flee our weapons. The best solution is to allow them to live in Northern Afghanistan.
Therefore, at this point, American must create a "Line in the Sand" Policy, much like we had with Libya in the early 1980s. The Northern Region of Afghanistan should be assigned to the Taliban. Whether they agree or not to these terms, we can enforce this with a battery of Patriot missile defense systems. We need to protect our supply lines and shore up our weapons capabilities. By creating impervious strongholds around major population centers, we can contain peace through strength. These policy changes are laid out in our strategy, we call "Safe Zones". Feel free to visit our site at www.americasthirdparty.com.
Wow, I'd forgotten how
Wow, I'd forgotten how powerful that film sequence was. Many thanks. Pure fascism in action!
pure fascism in
pure fascism in action?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s
"American fingerprints are
"American fingerprints are ALL OVER the Kabul government as it is. The fact that that that government is FUBAR should tell you something about the effectiveness of Western lecturingabout 'good governance' and the 'comprehensive networked approach'."
Indeed. Our own government and military apparatus are not nearly as focused, knowledgeable, or fundamentally in control of events as we like to pretend to ourselves. Hence, the noted focus on big ministers and the general top-down approach, in a country that does not lend itself to this. Managing big-wigs in Kabul provides an illusion of control and knowledge that would shatter if we focused instead on the micro and macro political developments in the rest of the country.
Or more succinctly, I guess,
Or more succinctly, I guess, "the best and the bright" aren't nearly as bright and great as they think they are.
So, the other day, when I
So, the other day, when I said that AM going on TV would have attracted all of the crazies by now and that we didn't have to worry any longer? I was totally wrong.
"Our own government and
"Our own government and military apparatus are not nearly as focused, knowledgeable, or fundamentally in control of events as we like to pretend to ourselves. "
Oh I don't know. I think they're pretty damn good at what they do. It's just that what they do is not bring peace and security, which is not in thier interest. You used to hear all the time that the military was "the only occupation that tries to put itself out of business." Maybe they are really, really focused on expanding the fight and keeping it going indefinitely. God knows we don't want the horror of another military drawdown, do we?
The Obama administration
The Obama administration will need to find a way to get Karzai's attention. I do hope they are doing everything they can to come up with a good and effective strategy. Have you heard of Asia Chronicle News? Their site provides some in-depth news analyses on the situation in Afghanistan. Worth a read I think. www.asiachroniclenews.com
The Obama administration
The Obama administration will need to find a way to get Karzai's attention. I do hope they are doing everything they can to come up with a good and effective strategy. Have you heard of Asia Chronicle News? Their site provides some in-depth news analyses on the situation in Afghanistan. Worth a read I think. www.asiachroniclenews.com
And I thought that when Ex
And I thought that when Ex went on Maddow's show the crazies came out of the woodwork. Raymond, you were utterly wrong, unfortunately.
By the way, Sponheim, You don't Have to Capitalize every Other word (!!!).
Sorry, David Jon Sponheim,
Sorry, David Jon Sponheim, but we're all voting for Flavored Dip Guy in 2012.
Mr. Exum, Please walk down
Mr. Exum,
Please walk down the hall at CNAS and tell Tom Ricks what you think about the "deliberative process." Cuz apparently he "doesn't know ANYONE" who like the way it's being handled.
Mr. Exum, Please walk down
Mr. Exum,
Please walk down the hall at CNAS and tell Tom Ricks what you think about the "deliberative process." Cuz apparently he "doesn't know ANYONE" who like the way it's being handled. (apologies if this is a double post.)
Add your comment