Vancouver Riots: Hockey Fans Stick It to Their Own City (Time.com)

Updated: June 16, 2011, 3 p.m. E.T.

The police in Vancouver did little at first when drunken and angry sports fans took to making sport of the streets of the city. It all started with the flipping of a car on Georgia Street inside one of the outdoor spectator zones set up to watch the seventh and deciding game of the National Hockey League's Stanley Cup championship between the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins. The voluble disappointment over the local team's 0-4 defeat at the hands of the American team had a cheeky undertone to it in the beginning, the crowd entertained by the flipping of the car, by the people who dance on top of the tumbled vehicle, friends tweeting friends about the incident, laughing. Then the glee turned nasty. Fires were lit in trash bins; garbage was hurled at the police. Violence begat violence. The angry fans took apart the blue fencing used to demarcate an alcohol-free zone, turning it into riot gear to use to push back against the shields of the police.

It was only 8 p.m. in British Columbia when the mayhem started. The sun was still shining, but black smoke was rising everywhere. More than a dozen cars were torched, including at least two police vehicles that had also been flipped. The fire deparment was unable to move in to extinguish the flames. Suddenly, lawlessness became the law, and countless mainly young fans chose to obey the new dictum. Crowds started doing more than just flipping cars and throwing debris at police: they smashed glass storefronts and looted stores, including the Bay department store, stealing everything from clothing to chairs to cosmetics. (See pictures of the hockey riots in Vancouver.)

More uniformed officers arrived on the scene, and then the first tear-gas canisters and flash grenades were launched to disorient and disperse the mobs. It was a tall order. The city had invited more than 100,000 fans to gather on the streets of Vancouver to watch the game on four giant screens on the closed-off streets. Precautions had been taken: more than 2,000 liquor pour-outs took place, and alcohol sales were prohibited before game time. But many of the fans still somehow got the fuel to ignite their already fiery passions over hockey. "We shut the liquor stores down and were patting down people," said Vancouver police chief constable Jim Chu on Thursday, "But it is clear the alcohol was at an extremely high level." He said that earlier on Wednesday, he and his officers had run into a group of 16-year-olds drinking heavily.

The Vancouver police department would need three hours and reinforcements to stop the mayhem. Police marched in full riot gear. Cops from around the region sent extra officers to help quell the madness. British Columbia solicitor general Shirley Bond took to the airwaves to urge people to leave downtown. "What is most disappointing and disturbing is that we have spectators who will not go home," she said. "We need them to leave the downtown, and they need to stop treating this as a spectator sport." (Vancouver's Stanley Cup Craze: Grown Men in Full-Body Spandex)

Blood sport. People were seen walking the street with bloodstained clothing. Hospitals reported treating stabbing victims as well as those affected by the tear gas. The streets were littered with debris, the air suffused with a pungent scent of trash fires, burning cars and tear gas. Rioters covered their faces with T-shirts and scarves both to protect their noses and eyes and to conceal their identities. Not all the fans in the street, of course, turned to crime. Many of the would-be partyers showed horror on their faces - some wandering aimlessly, unsure of whether to stay and watch the unfolding violence or to flee. Shooting video on their iPhones was no longer fun.

Chu speculated that some of the trouble may have been planned. "You don't burn a car unless you come to an event with incendiary devices," he said at a Thursday-morning press conference. He said the rioters appeared to be equipped with masks, goggles, gasoline, wrenches and fire extinguishers. Several police officers were treated for human bites.

The city of more than 600,000 people on Canada's Pacific coast was in shock. Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson called the situation "embarrassing and shameful" and praised the Vancouver police and fire departments for doing an "exceptional job under challenging circumstances." Chu raised the question of parental and broader societal responsibility. "Where were your kids?" he asked. "How drunk were they?" In the Canucks' locker room, an already dejected Henrik Sedin, Vancouver's captain, had to explain why his team fell apart in the loss and then say what he thought of the city's falling apart too. "It's terrible," he said. "This city and province has a lot to be proud of. It's too bad." One thing to take solace in: the rioting this time lasted three hours less than when the local team lost the Stanley Cup finals in 1994 after another Game 7. The looting this time, however, was much more intense.

Now comes a different type of police work for Vancouver. Officers videotaped the rioting while it was in progress. London Drugs, a shop damaged in the looting, said its security cameras had "sharp, clean images of the 200-plus rioters that ransacked the store." Meanwhile, thousands of spectators snapped photos and posted videos from the pockets of disturbance downtown. The Vancouver police has a process for allowing the public to share - even anonymously - images from the riots, inviting people to send everything to robbery@vpd.ca. "The response from the public wanting to help the police identify the individuals involved in [Wednesday] night's criminal activity has been overwhelming," says Vancouver constable Lindsey Houghton. "We are grateful for everyone's help." Social media may help bring antisocial behavior to justice.

Vancouver Minute: The Hockey Team Wears Heels

Stanley Cup Finals, Game 1: One Bite, One Goal

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

Vancouver Riots: Hockey Fans Stick It to Their Own City (Time.com)

Updated: June 16, 2011, 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time

The police in Vancouver did little at first, when drunken and angry sports fans took to making sport of the streets of the city. It all started with the flipping of a car on Georgia Street, inside one of the outdoor spectator zones set up to watch the seventh and deciding game of the National Hockey League's Stanley Cup championship between the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins. The voluble disappointment over the local team's 0-4 defeat at the hands of the American team had a cheeky undertone to it in the beginning, the crowd entertained by the flipping of the car, by the people who dance on top of the tumbled vehicle, friends tweeting friends about the incident, laughing. Then the glee turned nasty. Fires were lit in trash bins; garbage was hurled at the police. Violence begat violence. The angry fans took apart the blue fences demarcate an alcohol-free zone, turning it into their own riot gear to use to push back against the shields of the police.

It was only 8 p.m. in British Columbia when the mayhem started. The sun was still shining but black smoke was rising everywhere. More than a dozen cars were torched, including at least two police vehicles that had also been flipped. The fire deparment was unable to move in to extinguish the flames. Suddenly, lawlessness became the law and countless, mainly young fans chose to obey the new dictum. Crowds started doing more than just flipping cars and throwing debris at police: they smashed glass storefronts and looted stores, including The Bay department store, stealing everything from clothing to chairs to cosmetics. (See photos of the hockey riots in Vancouver.)

More uniformed officers arrived on the scene; and then the first tear gas cannisters and flash-bang grenades were launched to disorient and disperse the mobs. It was a tall order. The city had invited more than 100,000 fans to gather on the streets of Vancouver to watch the game on four giant screens on the closed-off streets. Precautions had been taken: more than 2,000 liquor pour-outs took place and alcohol sales were prohibited prior to game time. But many of the fans still somehow got the fuel to ignite their already fiery passions over hockey. "We shut the liquor stores down and were pattin down people," said Vancouver Police Chief Constable Jim Chu on Thursday, "But it is clear the alcohol was at an extremely high level." He said that, already earlier on Wednesday, he and his officers had run into a group of 16-year olds drinking heavily.

The Vancouver Police Department would need three hours and reinforcements to stop the mayhem. Police marched in full riot gear. Cops from around the region sent extra offers to help quell the madness. British Columbia Solicitor General Shirley Bond took to the airwaves to urge people to leave downtown. "What is most disappointing and disturbing is that we have spectators who will not go home," she said. "We need them to leave the downtown and they need to stop treating this as a spectator sport."

(Vancouver's Stanley Cup Craze: Grown Men in Full-Body Spandex)

Blood sport. People were seen walking the street with bloodstained clothing. Hospitals reported treating stabbing victims as well as those affected by the police tear gas. The streets were littered with debris; the air suffused with the unexpungeable mix of trash smoke, burning cars and tear gas. Rioters covered their faces with t-shirts and scarves, both to protect their noses and eyes and to conceal their identities. Not all the fans in the street, of course, turned to crime. Many of the would-be partiers exhibited horror on their faces, some wandering aimlessly, unsure of whether to stay and watch the unfolding violence or to flee. Taking video on their iPhones was no longer fun.

Chief Constable Chu speculated that some of the trouble may have been pre-planned. "You don't burn a car unless you come to an event with incendiary devices," he said at a Thursday morning press conference. He said the rioters appeared to be equipped with masks, goggles, gasoline, wrenches and fire-extinguishers. Several police officers were treated for human bites.

The city of more than 600,000 people on Canada's Pacific coast was in shock. Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson called the situation "embarrassing and shameful" and praised the Vancouver police and fire departments for doing an "exceptional job under challenging circumstances." Chu raised the question of parental and broader societal responsibility. "Where were your kids?" he asked. "How drunk were they?" Inside the Canucks' locker-room an already dejected Henrik Sedin, Vancouver's captain, had to explain why his team fell apart in the loss and then say what he thought of the city falling apart too. "It's terrible," he said. "This city and province has a lot to be proud of. It's too bad." One thing to take solace over: the rioting this time lasted three hours less than those in 1994 when the local team lost the Stanley Cup finals after another Game 7. The looting this time, however, was much more intense.

Now comes a different type of police work for Vancouver. Officers had videotaped the rioting while it was in progress. London Drugs, a shop damaged in the looting, said its security cameras had "sharp clean images of the 200-plus rioters that ransacked the store." Meanwhile, thousands of spectators both snapped photos and posted video from out of the pockets of disturbances in Vancouver's downtown. Now, the Vancouver Police has its own process for allowing the public to share - even anonymously - images from the riots, inviting people to send everything to robbery@vpd.ca. "The response from the public wanting to help the police identify the individuals involved in [Wednesday] night's criminal activity has been overwhelming," says Vancouver Constable Lindsey Houghton. "We are grateful for everyone's help." Social Media may help bring anti-social behavior to justice.

Vancouver Minute: The Hockey Team Wears Heels

Stanley Cup Finals, Game 1: One Bite, One Goal

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

Samsung to stick with Google for its tablets (AFP)

SEOUL (AFP) – Samsung Electronics will depend on Google's Android mobile-device software to run future versions of its tablet computers, a senior Samsung official said in an interview published Tuesday.

"We'll continue to work with Android on future tablets," J.K. Shin, head of the South Korean giant's mobile division, told The Wall Street Journal.

Samsung Electronics is the world's second-largest cellphone maker after Finland's Nokia but trails Apple's iPhone and iPad in smartphones and tablets.

However, the Android system has boosted its smartphone business and Samsung hopes to do the same with tablets.

The iPad surprised competitors with the success of its launch early last year. Samsung responded by choosing Android for its tablets and introduced the seven-inch (17.8 centimetre) Galaxy Tab in October 2010 to take on Apple.

Samsung will launch new versions of the Galaxy Tab this summer in an 8.9-inch and 10.1-inch model. Both will run the latest version of Android, known as Honeycomb.

Despite Apple's status as a major customer for Samsung components, the two companies are embroiled in lawsuits.

The US firm sued its South Korean rival, claiming it copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Samsung launched its own suits, alleging that Apple violated patents covering Samsung's cellphone transmission technologies.

"We didn't copy Apple's design," Shin told The Wall Street Journal. "We have used many similar designs over the past years and it (Apple's allegation) will not be legally problematic."

Samsung expects its tablet shipments to rise about fivefold this year to 7.5 million. Market data provider IHS iSuppli forecast in April that Apple's iPad shipments would reach 39.7 million this year.

"Android is the fastest-growing platform and the market direction is headed toward Android so we're riding the wave," said Younghee Lee, senior vice president of sales and marketing.

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Why people stick by scandal-plagued pastors

Parishioners often build a firewall around a pastor hit by scandal, a Christian author says. But when does loyalty turn unhealthy?What are the limits of loyalty to an embattled pastor?
Some parishioners stick by embattled pastors no matter what
Christian author: "There is a refusal to put two and two together"
Sociologist: Some people remain at pastor's side because they like spiritual "train wrecks"

(CNN) -- The streets that were once choked with traffic are now bare. The church's sprawling parking lot is half full. Inside the stylish sanctuary, ushers sway to choir music in front of empty seats.

On a typical Sunday morning, New Birth Missionary Church in suburban Atlanta would be hopping. But on a recent Sunday, the sprawling church complex looked half-deserted and the mood seemed flat.

Six months after a sex scandal involving New Birth's senior pastor, Bishop Eddie Long, became public, the megachurch no longer packs them in. Yet there are loyalists, like C.D. Dixon, who have not joined the exodus.

"I come back to the church even more now because the word is more powerful," she said as she stood with a serene smile in the parking lot before a recent service.

Last fall, four young men accused Long of using his spiritual authority to pressure them into sexual relationships, charges that Long has vehemently denied. On Thursday, lawyers for the four men released a statement saying only that "the matter has been resolved."

Belief Blog: Bishop Eddie Long settles with accusers

For Dixon, though, the allegations only make Long's sermons more powerful.

"The cry from the bishop's belly is more now. We're not dealing with right or wrong. We're dealing with God's deliverance. I don't know if that makes sense to you."

For some, it doesn't. While most church scandals revolve around the conduct of a pastor, there's another question lurking behind the headlines that onlookers often ask: Why do some people stick by their pastor even when everyone else in the church seems to be leaving?

Building a firewall

Some do it because they've placed a "spiritual firewall" around their pastor, and in their own mind, said Sue Thompson, a professional speaker who attended a church that disintegrated after a pastor's extramarital affair was exposed.

We were on the front page for all of the wrong reasons.
--Janet Shan, on megachurch destroyed by pastor scandals.

She said some parishioners cannot leave a pastor because they credit him or her with a life-changing event, such as inspiring them to overcome drug addiction or turning around a disastrous marriage.

To accept such a pastor's guilt, she said, would lead them to contemplate another possibility: Is my life-changing event just as fraudulent as the pastor who inspired it?

"There is a suspension of common sense, a refusal to put two and two together," Thompson said. "For a lot of people, this is the man who gave them the keys to a whole new way of living. They can't separate the good they received from the man himself, so they feel it would be a betrayal to turn on him now."

When outsiders ratchet up criticism against an embattled pastor, members often go into battle mode, said Thompson, author of "The Prodigal Brother: Making Peace with Your Parents, Your Past, and the Wayward One in Your Family."

"They circle the wagons to protect their guy," Thompson said. "They don't want to see, and they don't want to be made to see what 'the world' sees. They believe the world's view is false, so they form the firewall."

Conditioned by the language of persecution

Some parishioners can't let go because of their reading of the Bible, a religion scholar said.

The Bible is full of persecution stories: The Egyptian oppression of the Israelites, the persecution of Jesus. Some pastors who are frequent targets for criticism condition their followers to stick by them no matter what by invoking these stories, said Jonathan Walton, an assistant professor of religion at Harvard Divinity School in Massachusetts.

Parishioners rallied around televangelist Jim Bakker for years before a scandal destroyed the pastor's ministry.

"Many of these churches are conditioned to be under scrutiny," Walton said. "They view themselves as saints living in exile in the world. Nobody at the end of the day wants to be labeled Judas or, God forbid, Peter, the one who denied the faith at the moment of persecution."

The persecution mentality can take on another dimension when race is added to the mix, said Marla Frederick, author of "Between Sundays: Black Women and Everyday Struggles of Faith."

African-American history is filled with examples of charismatic black religious figures -- the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.; Malcolm X; Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam -- who were targeted by shadowy political forces trying to discredit them, Frederick said.

"At the time, it was seen as a white racist society trying to dismantle a strong black organization," Frederick said. "They didn't like to see black men being successful. People felt like there were larger political forces at work."

'Watching a train wreck every Sunday morning'

Sometimes, people stick by an embattled pastor for voyeuristic reasons -- they like watching "train wrecks," said one sociologist who has studied megachurches.

Shayne Lee, a sociologist and co-author of "Holy Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the Spiritual Marketplace," said some parishioners see scandal as a spiritual spectacle. They view themselves as participants in a cosmic struggle.

"When you have a spiritual world view that emphasizes the power of the Holy Spirit and you see all these dynamic tensions in church, it's exciting to see the forces of evil and the power of God at work," Lee said. "There's a certain dynamism that's attractive and keeps people coming back."

And then some parishioners won't let preacher scandals drive them away because they say that the message they receive is more important than the vessel that delivers it.

Thomas Kirkpatrick cited that rationale as he walked to New Birth for Sunday service. He shrugged at the allegations surrounding Long.

Long publicly denied the sexual coercion claims, and compared himself to David fighting Goliath. The scandal's impact on New Birth, though, may already be apparent. Attendance has dropped, staff is being laid off and Long recently announced that he would take a salary cut.

A New Birth spokesman attributed the changes to a sour economy and said the declining attendance is the result of more people watching the church service online.

None of this appeared to matter to Kirkpatrick. He said Long would have to answer to God, not him.

"I don't think Bishop Long can do anything worse than what Judas did, and God still loved him," Kirkpatrick said.

Kirkpatrick compared pastors to doctors.

"There are people who we trust with our lives every day, like doctors, who do all sorts of things, but we don't question them. This is our spiritual medicine. We come here to get what we need and then we leave."

When asked if there was anything that would cause him to stop attending New Birth, Kirkpatrick lowered his head and paused before he finally said:

"The church would have to close."

Breaking through the firewall

They believe the world's view is false so they form a firewall.
-- Susan Thompson, Christian author, on parishioners who stick by scandal-plagued pastors no matter what

Janet Shan said she couldn't wait that long at her former church. She wrote an online essay about the emotional whiplash she experienced when her church became engulfed in scandal.

Shan was a regular attendee at Chapel Hill Harvester Church, an Atlanta megachurch whose pastor was caught in a sex scandal that involved several women. The church was eventually forced to sell its massive cathedral and close.

When the media first reported the women's accusations, the church's pastor, Bishop Earl Paulk, denied allegations.

He also invoked scripture.

"He blamed it all on Satan," said Shan, a freelance writer and editor of an online magazine, The Hinterland Gazette.

Shan said she didn't initially believe the accusations because she thought the women had ulterior motives. But as more accusations surfaced, she became suspicious.

So did many in the congregation. She said the church pews started emptying "faster than someone yelling fire." Those remaining began arguing among themselves. Church leaders vanished from the pulpit without explanation, she said.

"People were devastated," Shan said. "There was a feeling of defeat in the atmosphere. We were on the front page for all of the wrong reasons."

The allegations over Paulk's sexual indiscretions made headlines for over a decade. One accuser said Paulk molested her when she was a child. That allegation ended in a civil suit that was settled out of court.

During a deposition in another suit filed by a woman, Paulk said under oath that he had slept with only one woman outside of marriage. A court-ordered paternity test then revealed that he had also fathered a child with his brother's wife.

Paulk eventually pleaded guilty to lying under oath, and was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for 10 years. He died in 2009 at 81 from cancer.

Shan left Paulk's church, but like others who had abandoned churches rocked by scandal, it took time to recover.

"I didn't go to church for a year or two," she said. "I've lowered my expectations for pastors."

Trying to persuade a parishioner to leave is difficult, though, said Thompson, the professional speaker who left her own embattled church.

"It cannot be done by simply showing the person who still believes in the charlatan 'the truth' about him," she said. "It can't be done by ridiculing and dismissing the person's faith in the man. It is done by sincere biblical discussions, talking about the red flags that everyone saw but many were ignoring."

Thompson said church members must ultimately learn two lessons: The message must be disconnected from the messenger, and "psychopaths and narcissists live in the church world, too."

Then again, that still might not be enough, she said.

"For a lot of people, it will take catching the guy in the act -- he runs off with church money, he goes to jail, he's caught on film with a prostitute," she said. "And even then, some are so fundamentally misinformed about concepts of forgiveness and judgment that they blindly go on supporting him."

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

With bin Laden gone, will U.S. stick to war plan?

WASHINGTON — The demise of Osama bin Laden complicates what was already a tough call for President Obama: how to wind down the nearly decade-old war in Afghanistan. Now the symbolic reason for staying in the fight ? to get al-Qaeda's leader and avenge 9/11 ? has been undercut.

var data = blocks.columnist;if (data != undefined){document.getElementById('columnistmug').innerHTML=data;} ISAF Regional Command (South), U.S. Air Force, via Getty Images

U.S. military members watch a broadcast of President Obama on Monday in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Obama announced Osama bin Laden's death.

ISAF Regional Command (South), U.S. Air Force, via Getty Images

U.S. military members watch a broadcast of President Obama on Monday in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Obama announced Osama bin Laden's death.

Momentum had been building in Congress and elsewhere for a shift to a narrower, less costly military mission in Afghanistan even before the U.S. raid that killed bin Laden.

This could suit Obama's desire to put Afghanistan behind him by beginning a phased troop pullout this summer along with NATO partners. But it also could put him at sharper odds with his military commanders, who argue for a slower drawdown and a longer-term military commitment that they believe would lessen the chances of Afghanistan again falling apart.

U.S. commanders fear squandering hard-fought battlefield gains, particularly those achieved with the addition last year of an extra 30,000 American troops. They now face a spring offensive by the Taliban, whose goal remains undermining the Afghan government, discrediting its security forces and driving out U.S. troops.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., reflected a wider skepticism about remaining heavily involved in Afghanistan when he said Tuesday that he had not imagined at the outset of the war in October 2001 that U.S. troops would still be there ? "with no end in sight, even after the death of Osama bin Laden."

Top administration officials have vowed not to abandon Afghanistan, even as the U.S. military role shrinks, and their central rationale is not changed by the elimination of bin Laden. They point to 1989 and the U.S. decision to walk away from Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation collapsed; chaos ensued, the Taliban rose to power and al-Qaeda had a launch pad for global terror.

The worry is that the pattern would be repeated if the U.S. left anytime soon, giving terrorists a haven and compelling a future president to intervene yet again.

"Nobody wants them (U.S. troops) to leave and come home more than I do, but I don't want them to go back," Sen. Lindsey Graham, an outspoken supporter of Obama's plan to keep troops there until at least 2014, told reporters. His advice to the president: "Stay with the plan you got."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who traveled to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan last month, said it was clear the administration's plan is working. "I don't want to see us take any steps that jeopardize the progress we've made," Boehner told reporters.

Coincidentally, just one day before Obama gave the go-ahead for the nighttime raid on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, he announced a new U.S. lineup in Afghanistan, with Lt. Gen. John Allen replacing Gen. David Petraeus as the military commander and Ryan Crocker succeeding Karl Eikenberry as the top U.S. diplomat. But Obama did not say this meant a change of war strategy.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., acknowledged the likelihood that bin Laden's death would increase public pressure to bow out.

"Some people will ask why we don't pack up and leave Afghanistan. We can't do that," said Kerry, who will travel to Afghanistan in the coming weeks. "But it is no longer enough to simply lay out our goals. We need to determine what type of Afghanistan we plan to leave in our wake so that we may actually achieve these objectives."

Bin Laden's death also highlighted rising U.S. frustration with Pakistan, whose fragile government is heavily funded by Washington as a hedge against militants. Pakistan has a history of supporting some militant groups that target outsiders, including U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the U.S. is committed to cooperating with Pakistan despite questions about who in the Islamabad government may have known that bin Laden was in hiding in Abbottabad.

"We are working very hard on that relationship. It is an important and complicated relationship that has been tested in many ways over the years," Carney said. "We don't know who if anybody in the government was aware that bin Laden or a high value target was living in the compound. It's logical to assume he had a supporting network. What constituted that network remains to be seen."

CIA director Leon Panetta told Time magazine that the U.S. ruled out informing Pakistan of the coming raid early on, because "it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets."

Congress may consider cutting the almost $1.3 billion in annual aid to Pakistan if it turns out the Islamabad government knew where bin Laden was hiding, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she wants more details from Panetta and others.

Panetta and other senior officials were on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to brief lawmakers on the bin Laden raid and its implications.

Other lawmakers are raising questions about the Afghanistan war in light of a growing U.S. budget deficit, expected to hit $1.6 trillion this year.

"With al-Qaeda largely displaced from the country but franchised in other locations, Afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost, given current fiscal restraints," said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, at the start of a series of hearings on Afghanistan.

Lugar said Obama needs to spell out what constitutes success in Afghanistan.

Although the number of al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan is believed to be 100 or fewer, they are still a focus of U.S. commanders.

Maj. Gen. John Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan, said Saturday that his troops killed "our No. 1 targeted insurgent," a Saudi national whom he described as an al-Qaeda senior leader who moved frequently between Afghanistan and Pakistan and directed al-Qaeda operations in Afghanistan's Kunar province. Campbell said he had been a top target since 2007.

The airstrike that killed that al-Qaeda figure is the kind of targeted operation that some believe should be the main feature of the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan ? rather than a broader counter-insurgency strategy designed to help the Afghans build government institutions, revitalize their economy and promote reconciliation with the Taliban resistance.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.We've updated the Conversation Guidelines. Changes include a brief review of the moderation process and an explanation on how to use the "Report Abuse" button. Read more.

USATODAY.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Blake Shelton Cannot Stick To His Scripts

Comments 0

News were coming that Blake Shelton wanted himself to be fired from Country Music Awards. He creates natural humour in his participations; therefore, sticking to the script looked difficult to Blake Shelton. But later on, it proved that Blake had said these words in a joke; he might have expected the public to attract towards him when he said these words. Overall, the performance of Blake and Reba entertained public; every fan of Country Music Awards got some thing to enjoy from programs of last evening.
Previous night, Blake created many beautiful jokes with his co-host Reba. They, Blake and Reba, together made many beautiful humorous moves in the events of last evening. The start of evening’s broadcast was delayed up to 5 seconds because Blake was feeling a little nervous when he came to stage. Due to the 5 second delay, the first lines of ceremony came in the part of Reba McEntire.

View the Original article