Hello readers: Over Memorial Day weekend, a friend pointed me toward a new blog that tracks the death of every soldier, airman, sailor and Marine who has served in Afghanistan and Iraq, from every coalition country no less, and places a marker on the map in that person’s hometown.

When you click on the figure, a box comes up with all the public information available about that person – like where that person was killed, his/her age and links to pages about that serviceperson.

It’s a breathtaking site. Each little figure – so often counted as statistic – comes to life as soon as you click and read that person’s story, however brief. The numbers from the United States are staggering but it is helpful to spin the globe, as only Google Earth can let you, and see the impact on other nations.

According to the site, the map began as a personal project for San Francisco resident Sean Askay while he was in graduate school. Four years later, the now web designer posted it just before Memorial Day.
He acknowledges that even this phenomenal amount of information sorting doesn’t capture the full scope of the losses endured by these wars. Here is in part what Sean’s posts about his effort: “I recognize that this map is just a slice of the story in these conflicts. The Iraqi and Afghan people have incurred substantial civilian losses through these wars; there are also U.S. and Coalition civilians, contractors, and reporters who have died as well. For this project, I've chosen to focus on the U.S. and Coalition military casualties, but I recognize that the losses extend beyond what is mapped in this project.”

As someone who spent years watching the war unfold in Iraq and now as a Pentagon reporter who travels to both Iraq and Afghanistan, the site was moving to me, an acknowledgment that every loss counts and that no community in the United States is spared, however distant the wars may feel.

So if you so inclined, check out the map. To download it, look to the top right hand corner of the web page. You will need Google Earth 5.0 to see it.

Dear readers: Today's blog is by our Justice reporter, Marisa Taylor:

The former Bush administration lawyers who helped come up with the justification for enhanced interrogation techniques could lose their law licenses if two anti-war groups have their way.

The groups filed complaints with the D.C. Bar and with four other states, accusing former Justice Department lawyers John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury of colluding “to facilitate the abuse and torture of prisoners”, resulting in deaths at overseas U.S. military facilities.

The complaints also allege former Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft and Michael Mukasey should be held responsible for supporting the legal reasoning that justified the interrogation techniques.

Former Bush administration officials have argued they should not and cannot be held liable legally for policy decisions made in good faith.

Holding former administration officials accountable by pursuing ethics violations has gained traction among some groups in part because the Obama administration has expressed little interest in launching a criminal investigation into their conduct.

The complaints were filed Monday by VotersforPeace.US and Velvet Revolution and can be found here.

You can imagine the overwhelming joy that comes over reporters when budget time rolls around. Actually, that is not true at all. The budget is literally binders thick with numbers, numbers, numbers. And the potential for mistakes is daunting. But budgets are important in Washington because they really are mission statements for the departments they represent. The Defense Department’s $663.8 budget, for example, moves more money toward irregular warfare because Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes that is where the wars of the future (indeed the current conflicts) are headed.

There were two numbers that stood out to me. First, the FY 10 budget is the first to allot more money for the war in Afghanistan than Iraq, $65 billion and $61 billon, even though the military estimates that more troops will be based in Iraq. That brings me to the second interesting number. The budget assumes there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq and 68,000 in Afghanistan, even as the United States draws down in Iraq and ramps up in Afghanistan. So while more troops will be in Iraq, more resources are going to Afghanistan. What the budget tells me is that FY 10 will mark the official transition from one war zone to the next.

You can read more about the budget here.

The following video caused quite a stir around the Pentagon today after al Jazeera reporter asked Adm. Michael Mullen about it at a press conference. It shows soldiers at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan collecting Bibles translated in Pashtun and Dari to distribute to the local population.

Here is the chairman’s response:
QUESTION: Al Jazeera has broadcast footage of U.S. servicemen at Bagram with Bibles printed in Pashtu and Dari, and those servicemen talking about distributing those Bibles to Afghans. We don't know if any of them were distributed.
 
What's your reaction? And what is the military going to do about this?
 
MULLEN: My reaction is two-fold.
 
One is that I'm not aware of the details of this, and certainly want to know more about it. Secondly, it certainly is, from the United States military perspective, not our position to ever push any specific kind of religion. Period.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday and told lawmakers that the department has begun discussing where to put Guantanamo Bay detainees if they cannot be released, tried or sent to other nations. That is, what should happen to detainees that have no where else to go but the United States?

As many as 100 detainees at Guantanamo fall under that category, Gates said. And in one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama vowed to close the controversial facility. But one of the conundrums has always been where to put them if the facility is closed. Indeed, as the United States has debated this very issue, many of the 241 being held there now have lived in legal limbo.

But on Thursday, members of the Appropriations Committee came back when an answer – not in my state. They pleaded, ranted, argued and tried to cajole Gates to not put the detainees in their state. 

They are worried that the facility would endanger the community (if one escapes anyway), bring down property values and the reputation of communities.

Gates decided to save that argument for later. "I fully expect to have 535 pieces of legislation before this is over saying: 'Not in my district. Not in my state.' And we'll just have to deal with that when the time comes," he told them.