A new report from the Congressional Research Service provides an extensive overview of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and the choices that confront U.S. policy makers.
“The U.S. Government faces key strategic and operational decisions about its further engagement in the war in Afghanistan. These may include clarifying U.S. national interests in Afghanistan and the region; defining clear strategic objectives based on those interests; determining which diplomatic, economic, and military approaches to adopt, and what resources to commit to support those approaches; prioritizing ‘Afghanistan’ versus other national security imperatives; and helping marshal a coordinated application of international efforts.”
See “War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Military Operations, and Issues for Congress” (pdf), January 23, 2009.
Other noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following (all pdf).
“Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory Definitions, and Approaches,” updated January 14, 2009.
“Israel and Hamas: Conflict in Gaza (2008-2009),” January 15, 2009.
“Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments,” updated January 28, 2009.
“The Special Inspector General (SIG) for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP),” January 14, 2009.
“Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Set to Expire in 2009,” January 6, 2009.
A deeper understanding of methane could help scientists better address these impacts – including potentially through methane removal.
While it is reasonable for governments to keep the most sensitive aspects of nuclear policies secret, the rights of their citizens to have access to general knowledge about these issues is equally valid so they may know about the consequences to themselves and their country.
Advancing the U.S. leadership in emerging biotechnology is a strategic imperative, one that will shape regional development within the U.S., economic competitiveness abroad, and our national security for decades to come.
Inconsistent metrics and opaque reporting make future AI power‑demand estimates extremely uncertain, leaving grid planners in the dark and climate targets on the line