Several weeks ago, according to Western diplomats, the United Arab Emirates seized and inspected a ship that had stopped at a port in the UAE. What was found aboard the ship was interesting: North Korean weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades, that didn't quite match up with the ship's bill of lading. The ship's apparent destination was interesting, too: Iran.

The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, are touting the seizure as an example of success for new UN Security Council sanctions that were imposed after Pyongyang's May 25 nuclear test. The sanctions, among other things, prohibit North Korea from shipping conventional armaments.

The UAE's action shows that the sanctions "can have an impact, a serious impact," one diplomat said. This is "a warning to North Korea that they will be subject to these kinds of measures."

North Korea depends heavily on weapons sales for much-needed hard currency. No word on whether North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il, who's begun the latest of his "charm offensives" after throwing a missile-and nuke-filled tantrum earlier this year, protested the ship seizure. Probably not, given what was apparently in the cargo holds.

This is the second known incident involving North Korean ships since the sanctions were imposed. In June, the U.S. Navy shadowed a ship, the Kang Nam 1, that was believed to be headed to Burma. The North warned that stopping and inspecting the ship would be an "act of war." The Kang Nam 1 eventually headed back up the coast off of China toward North Korea.

This morning in eastern Afghanistan, the United States reached a grim milestone. A U.S. soldier conducting a patrol was struck by a roadside bomb and killed, making him the 45th U.S. serviceman killed this month and making August the deadliest month of this eight-year war.  And there are still three days to go in the month.

It’s the latest in a string of bad news to come out of Afghanistan. On Tuesday, 2009 became the deadliest year of the war and there are three months to go. And August surpasses July which at 44 was the deadliest month of the war.

As we wrote earlier this week, the U.S. public is growing skeptical of this war. For the first time since the United States entered Afghanistan, the majority of Americans no longer believe the war is worth fighting. And I believe a big reason for that is the growing death toll coupled with the lack of tangible results in Afghanistan. Indeed, even though more troops are dying, the security situation is worse, the government is just as shaky and Afghan faith in the coalition is quickly dwindling.

How much will all this impact the U.S. decision to send even more troops in Afghanistan? Next week, the Pentagon is expected to finally release the 60-asessment of the war. While the troop request will not be in that report, it will be our first window into where the leadership sees the war going. And it will force the Pentagon to begin having a serious discussion about future troop levels.

The recent death tolls will have to be a part of that discussion.

UPDATE: Here is a statement by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) about the August toll: “I am saddened by reports that for the second consecutive month, we’ve seen a record number of deaths of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  This grim milestone comes ahead of a potential request for even more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.  The current troop increase in Afghanistan could push members of the Taliban and other militants into Pakistan, further destabilizing a nuclear power.  After nearly eight years in Afghanistan, we continue to risk further loss of American lives and increased resentment among the Afghan people – all without a clearly focused mission. It is time we discuss a flexible timetable for withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan, along with a clear public strategy for achieving our counterterrorism and regional stability goals.”

I was reading this obituary about Sen. Edward Kennedy, and there was one line that jumped out to this war correspondent. Kennedy, the third-longest serving member of the Senate, once called his opposition to the resolution giving the president authority to enter Iraq “the best vote I’ve made in my 44 years in the United States Senate.”

Indeed, he was one of 23 senators who voted against the war. Some, like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have since said they regretted voting for the resolution. But of course, their words came too late to change the course of history of both the Iraqi people and the U.S. forces who went on to serve.

As the nations mourns Sen. Kennedy's passing, I thought it would be appropriate to share an impassioned Sept. 2002 speech he gave at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in which he outlined his opposition to the war. It is not only prescient, but a fitting reminder of the senator's legacy.  And I think it is somehow timely to revisit his call for caution as the nation debates its future in Afghanistan. Here is the speech below:

Text of speech by US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Friday, September 27, 2002
 
Thank you, Dr. Fukuyama for that generous introduction.

I'm honored to be here at the School of Advanced International Studies. Many of the most talented individuals in foreign policy have benefited immensely from your outstanding graduate program, and I welcome the opportunity to meet with you today.

I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. But I begin with the strongest possible affirmation that good and decent people on all sides of this debate, who may in the end stand on opposing sides of this decision, are equally committed to our national security.

The life and death issue of war and peace is too important to be left to politics. And I disagree with those who suggest that this fateful issue cannot or should not be contested vigorously, publicly, and all across America. When it is the people's sons and daughters who will risk and even lose their lives, then the people should hear and be heard, speak and be listened to.

But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives. There are Republicans and Democrats who support the immediate use of force – and Republicans and Democrats who have raised doubts and dissented.

In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents, or by assailing proponents as more interested in the cause of politics than in the merits of their cause. I reject this, as should we all.

Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. And let me say with the same plainness: Those who agree with that course have an equal obligation – to resist any temptation to convert patriotism into politics. It is possible to love America while concluding that is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line: We must ask what is right for country and not party.

That is the true spirit of September 11th — not unthinking unanimity, but a clear-minded unity in our determination to defeat terrorism — to defend our values and the value of life itself.

Just a year ago, the American people and the Congress rallied behind the President and our Armed Forces as we went to war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban protectors who gave them sanctuary in Afghanistan posed a clear, present and continuing danger. The need to destroy Al Qaeda was urgent and undeniable.

In the months that followed September 11, the Bush Administration marshalled an international coalition. Today, 90 countries are enlisted in the effort, from providing troops to providing law enforcement, intelligence, and other critical support.

But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda, before we know whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority.

No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

How can we best achieve this objective in a way that minimizes the risks to our country? How can we ignore the danger to our young men and women in uniform, to our ally Israel, to regional stability, the international community, and victory against terrorism?

There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.

Nor has the Administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation.

With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.

The President's challenge to the United Nations requires a renewed effort to enforce the will of the international community to disarm Saddam. Resorting to war is not America's only or best course at this juncture. There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort, not the first response. Let us follow that course, and the world will be with us – even if, in the end, we have to move to the ultimate sanction of armed conflict.

The Bush Administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority -- the war against Al Qaeda. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again.

Unfortunately, the threat from Al Qaeda is still imminent. The nation's armed forces and law enforcement are on constant high alert. America may have broken up the Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and scattered its operatives across many lands. But we have not broken its will to kill Americans.

As I said earlier, we still don't know the fate, the location, or the operational capacity of Osama bin Laden himself. But we do know that Al Qaeda is still there, and still here in America – and will do all it can to strike at America's heart and heartland again. But we don't know when, where, or how this may happen.

On March 12, CIA Director Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Al Qaeda remains "the most immediate and serious threat" to our country, "despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere."

Even with the Taliban out of power, Afghanistan remains fragile. Security remains tenuous. Warlords still dominate many regions. Our reconstruction effort, which is vital to long-term stability and security, is halting and inadequate. Some Al Qaeda operatives – no one knows how many – have faded into the general population. Terrorist attacks are on the rise. President Karzai, who has already survived one assassination attempt, is still struggling to solidify his hold on power. And although neighboring Pakistan has been our ally, its stability is far from certain.

We know all this – and we also know that it is an open secret in Washington that the nation's uniformed military leadership is skeptical about the wisdom of war with Iraq. They share the concern that it may adversely affect the ongoing war against Al Qaeda and the continuing effort in Afghanistan by draining resources and armed forces already stretched so thin that many Reservists have been called for a second year of duty, and record numbers of service members have been kept on active duty beyond their obligated service.

To succeed in our global war against Al Qaeda and terrorism, the United States depends on military, law enforcement, and intelligence support from many other nations. We depend on Russia and countries in the former Soviet Union that border Afghanistan for military cooperation. We depend on countries from Portugal to Pakistan to the Philippines for information about Al Qaeda's plans and intentions. Because of these relationships, terrorist plots are being foiled and Al Qaeda operatives are being arrested. It is far from clear that these essential relationships will be able to survive the strain of a war with Iraq that comes before the alternatives are tried – or without the support of an international coalition.

A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."

General Hoar advised the Committee on September 23 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat Al Qaeda. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against Al Qaeda." We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war.

In recent weeks, in briefings and in hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen no persuasive evidence that Saddam would not be deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority.

I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years.

And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq.

To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Armed Services Committee on September 23 that Iran has had closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Iran has a nuclear weapons development program, and it already has a missile that can reach Israel.

Moreover, in August, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft wrote that there is "scant evidence" linking Saddam Hussein to terrorist organizations, and "even less to the September 11 attacks." He concluded that Saddam would not regard it as in his interest to risk his country or his investment in weapons of mass destruction by transferring them to terrorists who would use them and "leave Baghdad as the return address."

At the present time, we do face a pressing risk of proliferation -- from Russia's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. America spends only $1 billion a year to safeguard those weapons. Yet the Administration is preparing to spend between one and two hundred billion dollars on a war with Iraq.

I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous – that the risks of waiting are greater than the risks of war. Indeed, in launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing -- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists.

Some who advocate military action against Iraq, however, assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Experts have informed us that we do not have sufficient intelligence about military targets in Iraq. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed.

In the Gulf War, many of Saddam's soldiers quickly retreated because they did not believe the invasion of Kuwait was justified. But when Iraq's survival is at stake, it is more likely that they will fight to the end. Saddam and his military may well abandon the desert, retreat to Baghdad, and engage in urban, guerilla warfare.

In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan."

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Secretary of State James Baker met with the Iraqis and threatened Hussein with "catastrophe" if he employed weapons of mass destruction. In that war, although Saddam launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel, he did not use the chemical or biological weapons he had.

If Saddam's regime and survival are threatened, he will have nothing to lose, and may use everything at his disposal. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has announced that instead of its forbearance in the 1991 Gulf War, this time Israel will respond if attacked. If weapons of mass destruction land on Israeli soil, killing innocent civilians, the experts I have consulted believe Israel will retaliate, and possibly with nuclear weapons.

This escalation, spiraling out of control, could draw the Arab world into a regional war in which our Arab allies side with Iraq, against the United States and against Israel. And that would represent a fundamental threat to Israel, to the region, to the world economy and international order.

Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. Despite advances in protecting our troops, we do not yet have the capability to safeguard all of them.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are serving their country with great distinction. Just under 70,000 Reservists and National Guardsmen have been mobilized for the war against terrorism. If we embark upon a premature or unilateral military campaign against Iraq, or a campaign only with Britain, our forces will have to serve in even greater numbers, for longer periods, and with graver risks. Our force strength will be stretched even thinner. And war is the last resort. If in the end we have to take that course, the burden should be shared with allies – and that is less likely if war becomes an immediate response.

Even with the major technological gains demonstrated in Afghanistan, the logistics of such a war would be extraordinarily challenging if we could not marshal a real coalition of regional and international allies.

President Bush made the right decision on September 12 when he expressed America's willingness to work with the United Nations to prevent Iraq from using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The President's address to the General Assembly challenging the United Nations to enforce its long list of Security Council Resolutions on Iraq was powerful -- and for me, it was persuasive.

But to maintain the credibility he built when he went to the U.N., the President must follow the logic of his own argument.

Before we go to war, we should give the international community the chance to meet the President's challenge – to renew its resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein completely and effectively. This makes the resumption of inspections more imperative and perhaps more likely than at any time since they ended in 1998.

So this should be the first aim of our policy – to get U.N. inspectors back into Iraq without conditions. I hope the Security Council will approve a new resolution requiring the Government of Iraq to accept unlimited and unconditional inspections and the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction.

The resolution should set a short timetable for the resumption of inspections. I would hope that inspections could resume, at the latest, by the end of October.

The resolution should also require the head of the UN inspection team to report to the Security Council every two weeks. No delaying tactics should be tolerated – and if they occur, Saddam should know that he will lose his last chance to avoid war.

The Security Council Resolution should authorize the use of force, if the inspection process in unsatisfactory. And there should be no doubt in Baghdad that the United States Congress would then be prepared to authorize force as well.

The return of inspectors with unfettered access and the ability to destroy what they find not only could remove any weapons of mass destruction from Saddam's arsenal. They could also be more effective than an immediate or unilateral war in ensuring that these deadly weapons would not fall into terrorist hands.

The seven years of inspections that took place until 1998 succeeded in virtually eliminating Saddam's ability to develop a nuclear weapon in Iraq during that period. Even with Iraq's obstructions, those inspections resulted in the demolition of large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. By the time the inspectors were forced out of the country in 1998, they had accomplished far more disarmament than the Gulf War itself. And before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now – and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What can be gained here is success – and in the event of failure, greater credibility for an armed response, greater international support, and the prospect of victory with less loss of American life.

So what is to be lost by pursuing this policy before Congress authorizes sending young Americans into another and in this case perhaps unnecessary war?

Even the case against Saddam is, in important respects, a case against immediate or unilateral war. If Prime Minister Blair is correct in saying that Iraq can launch chemical or biological warheads in 45 minutes, what kind of sense does it make to put our soldiers in the path of that danger without exhausting every reasonable means to disarm Iraq through the United Nations?

Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. Yes, we may reach the point where our only choice is conflict – with like-minded allies at our side, if not in a multilateral action authorized by the Security Council. But we are not there yet.

The evidence does not take us there; events do not compel us there – and both the war against terrorism and our wider interests in the region and the world summon us to a course that is sensible, graduated, and genuinely strong – not because it moves swiftly to battle, but because it moves resolutely to the objective of disarming Iraq – peacefully if possible, and militarily if necessary.

Let me close by recalling the events of an autumn of danger four decades ago. When missiles were discovered in Cuba – missiles more threatening to us than anything Saddam has today – some in the highest councils of government urged an immediate and unilateral strike. Instead the United States took its case to the United Nations, won the endorsement of the Organization of American States, and brought along even our most skeptical allies. We imposed a blockade, demanded inspection, and insisted on the removal of the missiles.

When an earlier President outlined that choice to the American people and the world, he spoke of it in realistic terms – not with a sense that the first step would necessarily be the final step, but with a resolve that it must be tried.

As he said then, "Action is required…and these actions [now] may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of…war – but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."

In 2002, we too can and must be both resolute and measured. In that way, the United States prevailed without war in the greatest confrontation of the Cold War. Now, on Iraq, let us build international support, try the United Nations, and pursue disarmament before we turn to armed conflict.
 

One of my favorite parts of this job is appearing on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR. In the last couple years, Diane has started a Friday News Round up that focuses strictly on international issues. Not only does the program draw fantastic listeners but it challenges the newspaper reporter in me to present the news in a completely different forum, tapping tools like my voice to reach the public.

Diane has also been a great supporter of McClatchy. All three members of N&S, as well as our editor, Roy Gutman, and several of our fellow reporters on the political desk have appeared on her program.

So given all that, you can imagine my great sadness when I appeared last Friday and learned that Diane broke her pelvis while dashing across the street and won’t be back for several weeks. She is recovering now, and her colleagues tell me she is doing remarkably well.

We here at McClatchy want to wish her a speedy recovery. Diane, we are so grateful for your support for what we do, and we can’t wait to see you back in the studio.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released today found that a majority of Americans – 51 percent—feel the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. This comes as the Obama administration asserted this week that the war there should be a priority, and as the top Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is giving his assessment of the war to the Pentagon.

There are the usual partisan breakdowns in the poll’s findings. More Republicans than Democrats feel the war can be won. Members of both parties have little faith that today’s presidential elections will yield an effective government (You can read our stellar coverage here).  And while 42 percent of Americans say the United States is winning in Afghanistan, another 36 percent say it is not.

So what to make of it?

I think some American are frustrated by the growing U.S. casualties; some don’t understand the war and why the United States is there; some don’t who is the U.S. enemy in Afghanistan.

I think any student of this war who has decided this is not worth fighting believes so because he/she can reconcile a basic problem. If, as Obama says, the United States is fighting in Afghanistan to eliminate the al Qaida threat—and most agree al Qaida’s leaders have fled to Pakistan—why is the United States in Afghanistan? The U.S. military says they are trying to stabilize Afghanistan so al Qaida can’t return. But al Qaida doesn’t need Afghanistan anymore. It operates out of Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Europe. And even if the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan, several military commanders told me during my visit there earlier this month that today’s Taliban does not pose an international threat; they are a threat to the Afghan people.

Put that way, it is not surprising that more Americans do not believe the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting. Perhaps the next poll should ask: Can you accept the risk that comes with leaving behind an unstable Afghanistan?

It is a sad weekend here in Washington as we mourn the passing of Ken Bacon, a former journalist and Pentagon spokesman who devoted the final years of his life to the plight of refugees around the world. He died Sunday at his family’s summer home in Block Island, R.I. He was 64.

You can read here and here and here about how Mr. Bacon decided to become Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs because he was so impressed with William Perry's work at DoD during the Carter administration that when Mr. Perry became the secretary under President Clinton, Mr. Bacon gladly agreed to be his spokesman. And how a trip to the Balkans with then Secretary of Defense William Cohen in the 1990s became an eye-opening experience about refugees for Mr. Bacon and lead him toward Refugees International, where he served as president. You may see a few references to the bow-tie he donned during briefings at the Pentagon.

Through it all you will read about a man who was honorable, distinguished and dignified throughout his life and his heroic battle against cancer. In a brief message he dictated days ago, he talked about how the haunting beauty of Mozart's Missa Brevis in F major sustained him. It was comforting message, indeed.

I never had the honor of meeting Mr. Bacon but I have felt the power of his character and what he brought to the Pentagon in the last few days as my fellow Pentagon correspondents and I have talked about his legacy and prayed for his family. Things have changed so much in the decade since he left. Talk to my colleagues at the Pentagon who worked with him, and you hear about a time when being a spokesman in the halls of the Pentagon was steeped in public service. Civilian spokesmen did not spend their days figuring out how to keep information from reaching journalists as they do too often now;they tried to inform. When Mr. Bacon briefed reporters he didn’t just read off ill-crafted talking points; he thoughfully answered questions. There was a professional relationship between the media and the three branches of government, not one where whoever shouts the loudest wins. Simply put, Mr. Bacon served the public, not his secretary, party, self interests or ego. It’s an era long gone, I am afraid.

Here is what Barbara Starr of CNN had about Mr. Bacon: “I first got to know Ken Bacon several years ago when he was the chief Pentagon spokesman. Ken did the job the way its supposed to be done: holding press conferences, answering questions, providing facts, information and context," said Starr. "I know he was often bemused to watch the new era of spin and message, since he so passionately believed that facts stand on their own merit.

My editor, John Walcott, had the honor of working with him during his days as a journalist and recognized his character and brilliance early on. "Ken Bacon was one of the two or three best editors I've ever had," said McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief John Walcott, who as The Wall Street Journal's national security correspondent worked with Bacon for three years in the 1980s. "He was one of the most decent, honorable, inquisitive and intelligent people I've ever known, and sadly, the qualities he possessed in abundance seem to be in increasingly short supply in Washington these days."

I just came back from a six-week tour in Afghanistan, where I felt the duty to public service amongst the military spokesmen there far more than I do among the civilians roaming the halls of the Pentagon. Perhaps it is because they are the ones ultimately serving – and dying – for their country. Mr. Bacon served before 9/11, before the nation was engulfed in two wars. So it was indeed a different time. But perhaps, precisely because the nation is waging two wars, the nation needs spokesmen to embrace Mr. Bacon’s approach now more than ever. I think it would be the greatest way to remember his life. And from what I hear from those who worked with him, it would be the kind of remembrance he would want most. That is what made him such a revered public servant.

UPDATE: Here is what our foreign editor, Roy Gutman, had to say about Ken Bacon:

"He was a prince of a colleague while a reporter; an incredibly helpful and reliable spokesman for the DoD, and then in his final position at Refugees International, a person who knew how to mobilize people in and out of government for the sake of those who had no homes, no power, no voice.  What I marvel at most was his engagement and effectiveness in everything he tackled. His passing is a huge loss for all of us."

It's been a long, hot uncomfortable summer for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and more and more, it seems as if her discomfort is showing.

Clinton's latest bout of pique came on Monday at a town hall-style meeting in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, a little more than half-way through her current 10-day trip to Africa. A Congolese student made the mistake of asking the SecState what her husband, the former president, thought about China's offer in billions in loans to the Congo.

Clinton, incredulous, snapped back. "Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the Secretary of State. I am. So you ask my opinion? I will tell you my opinion. I’m not going to be channeling my husband." Then she abruptly moved on to the next question.

Not exactly diplomatic. Turns out that the unfortunate student meant to ask her about President Obama's opinion, not President Clinton's, according to news accounts. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, explaining the remark the next day, told reporters that Clinton reacted the way she did partly because a major theme of her Africa trip is empowering women.

"As the question was posed to her, it was posed in a way that said I want to get the views of two men (Bill Clinton and former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo, with whom she shared the Kinshasa stage), but not you, the Secretary of State. And I think it – obviously, she reacted to that," Crowley said. He said he didn't know if Clinton regretted her reaction.

The optics, as they say, of the incident weren't helped by the fact that Bill Clinton had just returned from successfully rescuing two American journalists from North Korea, where they were looking at 12 years in a labor camp--a news event that overshadowed his wife's first major Africa trip as  SecState.

But more may be at work here than Clintonian family drama. Several well-placed former US officials tell us that Hillary Clinton is increasingly discomfited by the role she finds herself playingas Secretary of State visa vis the White House. On one front, we're told, Obama aides have nixed some of her personnel choices. There is still no nominee to head the U.S. Agency for International Development, a post that Clinton sees as highly important to her policy goals, and as N&S previously reported, Clinton let fly with her frustrations on that score last month.

Clinton's rough patch began in mid-June, when she fractured her elbow in a fall at the State Department, a painful injury that put her on the injured reserve for a few weeks. Then followed a spate of stories questioning whether she was making much of a mark as Secretary of State. Pundit Tina Brown wrote that "It’s time for Barack Obama to let Hillary Clinton take off her burqa."

Clinton tried to reintroduce herself with what was billed as a major policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, but the speech got (and we're being diplomatic here) luke-warm reviews.

She's scheduled for some much-needed downtime after she returns to Washington from Africa at week's end, and then it will be time to tackle a bunch of simple little diplomatic issues -- the Middle East conflict, Iran, North Korea, climate change -- that will determine if she can put her summer blues behind her.

Why did the United States invade Iraq, really? A large, populous Arab country, stitched together from three provinces of the old Ottoman empire, with fractious Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites, Chaldeans and a third-rate military and bumbling intelligence service, it seemed like both a bad place to get involved in, and not much of a threat to us to boot.

So what was it? Was it those WMDs? Nope, they didn't exist. Was it the ties to al Qaida? Ditto. Was it the oil? Spreading democracy through the Middle East? Because he tried to kill Bush's daddy? Was it the neocons? Ahmed Chalabi? An elaborate Iranian con game? No, no, no, no. no and no.

As The Church Lady (aka SNL's Dana Carvey) would say, "Who was it? Who could it possibly be? Was it, oh I don't know, SATAN???"

Satan? Now we're getting somewhere.

According to former French President Jacques Chirac, President George Bush called him in early 2003 and urged the French leader to join the United States in invading Iraq. The Leader of the Free World, the 43rd president of these United States, the Decider himself, said the following: 

Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.

That's the account Chirac gave to French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice, as published in a book released earlier this year,  Si Vous Le Repetez, Je Dementirai (If You Repeat It, I Will Deny).

Gog? Magog? Gog and Magog? Huh?

That's exactly what Chirac said, more or less, and as the tale goes (and we're not vouching for every last bit of it here), the befuddled and mystified Gaul asked a theologian by the name of Thomas Romer at Switzerland's University of Lausanne to do some biblical investigation.

Biblical scholars we are not here at Nukes and Spooks, but a quick check confirms that Gog and Magog appear both in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 38-39) and the New Testament (Revelation 20:8). In both citations, they seem to be bad dudes, maybe the chief bad dude.

"Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Ma'gog, the chief prince of Me'shech and Tu'bal, and prophesy against him ... And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws," says Ezekiel. We're not precisely sure what that means, but we like the "hooks into ... jaws" bit.

 Maybe more to the point, Revelation talks about a final battle between good and evil, involving G and M: "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Ma'gog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."

Skeptical, right?. We were, too, when we first received word of Bush, Chirac, the G-man and the M-guy, figuring it was just one more viral Internet conspiracy tale.  We're journalists, so we did a little bit of investigating. While we haven't talked to Bush or Chirac firsthand, there is a Thomas Romer who teaches theology at the University of Lausanne and he did write an article about the Chirac-Bush conversation for the University of Lausanne's magazine, Allez Savoir!  (Title: "George W. Bush et le Code Ezechiel.")

 And this isn't the first time religion has reared its head in the Bush administration's handling of national security affairs. Remember Bush letting slip about "a crusade" a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks? And then there were those Pentagon PowerPoint (TM) briefings that began with war-like phrases from the Bible.

What really nailed it for us, though, was the revelation that Bush's father, who like the son was a member of Yale's secretive Skull & Bones society, was assigned a certain nickname. What was it? "Magog."

We're shocked, shocked, that the mainstream media has by and large ignored this blockbuster - nay, apocalyptic - story, with the exception of a handful, like The Toronto Star and The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette.

So, as they say, there you have it - mystery solved, after 6 1/2 years. It was about good and evil, Gog and Magog, Apocalypse and Salvation.

In a way, it makes more sense than WMDs and al Qaida links. Now there's a fantasy.

   Our colleague Jonathan Landay is in Afghanistan to cover the August 20 elections. Today, he went to President Hamid Karzai's first big campaign rally in the capital:             

             Afghan President Hamid Karzai may well have problems winning a first-round re-election victory if the turnout for his first major campaign rally in the nation's capital is any indication.

            Less than 5,000 people appeared to have showed up - several said they came under instructions from tribal superiors - at the National Stadium today to hear Karzai promise better schools, public services and security in return for their votes on Aug. 20.

            That's not a big crowd for a city of an estimated 5 million people. Of course, the number may have been kept down by fears of an attack by the Taliban, who staged public executions and limb amputations in center field before they were ousted in 2001 and tried to assassinate Karzai at a reviewing stand only yards from the stadium last year.

            Then there was the summer heat and the fact that it was Friday, the Muslim holy day.

             But many experts believe that the strongest of his 40 opponents, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, has been gaining ground and could garner enough support in the next two weeks to force a run-off that Karzai, considered a shoe-in for re-election in the first round not too long ago, could lose.

            Karzai, however, told his enthusiastic, flag-waving audience that he has no doubt about the outcome, and he urged them to ignore the Taliban's vow to disrupt the voting, which is being protected by tens of thousands of U.S.-led international troops and Afghan security forces amidst a surge in violence.

            "Relax, God willing, everything will go safely," Karzai asserted from the heavily guarded grandstand atop which snipers kept watch for signs of trouble. "After the election, we will have celebrations and we will distribute sweets!"

  The Israeli government has long been sensitive about its Dimona nuclear research center, where the country developed its unacknowledged nuclear arsenal. After technician Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel's nuclear secrets to London's Sunday Times in 1986, he was kidnapped by Israeli agents and taken to Israel, where he was convicted of treason and espionage, and served 18 years in jail. He was released in 2004, with restrictions on his speech and movements.

But with Israel and Iran in a growing confrontation over Iran's own nuclear weapons program, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday visited the nuclear complex in Israel's southern Negev desert. A statement from Netanyahu's office quoted him as praising workers there for contributing to Israel's "strength and security," according to the Associated Press. The statement called the visit routine, but it seemed calculated to send a message to Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has done his own white-gowned tours of Iran's nuke facilities.

This unprecedented photo was then released, but only to Israel's state-owned Channel 1, according to the Jerusalem Post newspaper.

Apparently a bit miffed, the J-Post, as the English-language daily is sometimes known, went in search of the photograph. An official in Netanyahu's office denied that the picture existed. No one else seemed to want to take responsibility for the picture either.

The paper's account, concluded, perhaps a bit conspiratorially: "All material relating to the Dimona nuclear reactor must go through military censorship. In the face of the PMO's (Prime Minister's Office) denial that the picture exists, the further question arises as to whether there was a security breach here, or whether there was a calculation behind the picture's appearance on state TV only."

(The Hebrew-language caption, according to the Post's website, reads: ‘The Prime Minister visits the Dimona nuclear reactor, receives briefing on the scientific programs undertaken there.')