Home » Air » Civvie Kills Endanger COIN: Mullen

Civvie Kills Endanger COIN: Mullen

By Colin Clark Tuesday, May 19th, 2009 12:55 pm
Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Land, Policy

Adm. Mike Mullen doesn’t want “to tie our troops’ hands” but drone and bomb strikes that kill civilians undermine the counterinsurgency mission.

When you boil it down that is what Mullen said yesterday when I asked him iif drone attacks that killed civilians were a major problem for operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “I believe each time we do that [kill civilians] put our strategy in jeopardy…” he said. “We cannot succeed in Afghanistan – or anywhere else, but let’s talk specifically about Afghanistan – by killing Afghan civilians. The center of gravity in Afghanistan are the people of Afghanistan.” Mullen was referring to the May 4 airstrike in Afghanistan’s Farah province, which Afghan officials said killed 140 civilians. The Pentagon disputes the Afghan accounts.

Mullen said the military is trying to improve its targeting, noting that there have been changes in “procedures.” He said the military is working “to be more deliberate and more precise about this.”

I asked Mullen the question in part because of a piece co-authored by the counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen. Buzz readers doubtless saw a piece Kilcullen co-authored in the May 16 New York Times where he tilted against drone attacks, saying they just had too many negative consequences.

“Expanding or even just continuing the drone war is a mistake. In fact, it would be in our best interests, and those of the Pakistani people, to declare a moratorium on drone strikes into Pakistan,” wrote Kilcullen and co-author Andrew Exum of the Center for a New American Security.

Greg Grant, who did the first story pointing out Kilcullen’s claims about the drones’ low success rate, called sources at the Pentagon to try and see if the military agrees with Kilcullen’s numbers. No one said a word. Our conclusion: if the numbers were off base the military would be screaming, if only to put pressure on the CIA, who are responsible for most — if not all — the drone strikes.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Alex May 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pm Greg Grant is an idiot. The CIA hasn’t even publicly admitted they are responsible for the drone strikes. If they comment on those numbers, they have effectively just come out of the closet. The CIA didn’t respond to his stupid question because the CIA doesn’t comment on anything regarding drone strikes inside Pakistan, unless it is leaked by some anonymous source. With that being said, this was debated in another post. It’s starting to look like that May 4th strike was staged by the Taliban, where they killed civilians themselves with grenades and then paraded the bodies around blaming it on American air strikes. How can you fight that?
	DensityDuck May 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pm What did Grant think, that his sources would just be all “well this stuff is totally classified, but we’ll tell you anyway because you’re cute”? The first thing they teach you in security-clearance school is that the ONLY acceptable answer is “no comment”. Even a “no” is information. And you can always backtrack information.
	mike j May 19th, 2009 at 5:43 pm Not sure you guys understand what a journalist does for a living… anyway. The military changed their story about Farah province today– we did it, but we’re only admitting to killing about 2 dozen people. You ought to try to stay current on the spin you’re defending.
	Alex May 19th, 2009 at 5:50 pm Mike, Farah is an Afghani province. Kilcullen was talking about our drone strikes in Pakistan, which is what Grant asked the CIA about…which is what the CIA did not comment on. I’m well aware of what a journalist does for a living, but if Greg Grant and Colin Clark think they can come to a conclusion about the events based on the fact that the CIA refused to comment, they should be looking for another job. That is not journalism, because even 10 year old girls know how to start a rumor with unsubstantiated “facts”.
	Colin Clark May 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm Alex and Density, We’re just letting you and other readers know that no one wanted to comment and giving that some context. Given the data Kilcullen put out we thought it important to give the government a chance to say something if it so wished.
	Greg Grant May 19th, 2009 at 6:09 pm Alex, I didn’t ask the CIA anything. Try reading that last paragraph again. Greg Grant
	mike j May 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pm Alex– you brought it up.
	Alex May 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pm Greg, It doesn’t matter if you asked CIA Director in person, or your “sources at the Pentagon” over the phone. The response will always be the same — “no comment”. You should call your sources at the Pentagon and say you heard a rumor that the U.S. was building a Death Star in deep space to destroy planets that could end up being hostile towards Earth sometime in the future. You will probably get the same response — “no comment”. I’m sorry I called you an idiot — I’m sort of new here and didn’t know you actually read these comments or I would have been more polite — but whether you, or Colin, or both of you came to the conclusion that Kilkullen is correct on his “statistics” because one of your “sources” refused to comment and because the military is not up in arms (which would be the same as admitting to the strikes) is a ridiculous, illogical leap of faith. I have a security clearance myself (and I certainly don’t work for an agency as secretive as the CIA), and if anyone asks me specific details about what I do, I’m supposed to say “no comment” even if it’s about something that is common open-source knowledge. The fact is that Killcullen was already speculating on the casualty figures, because unless he was on the scene immediately before and after all of the drone strikes, he has no way to know how many militants we killed, how many civilians we killed, and how much the Taliban and other biased sources made up to turn sentiment against the U.S. We don’t need more people speculating about Killcullen’s speculations. I’m irritated by this because it’s the kind of garbage that is getting tossed around not just on blogs, but in the media where “journalists” speculate wildly and start sensationalist rumors with no substantiation whatsoever. It’s the kind of thing that builds up steam and has an impact on our ability to effectively fight a war like this. Obviously, this blog reaches out to a relatively narrow audience so the impact of rumors like that are minimal, but the principle is the same. Alex
	Cole May 19th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Kilcullen is not correct but Greg and Coin are not to blame, Alex. Kilcullen has a book to sell.;) Nevermind that Predators fire Hellfires that don’t cause lots of collateral damage. When was the last time you heard Afghans/Iraqis complaining about Apache fratricide…yet in 2007, Boeing claims Apaches were responsible for more kills than any other battlefield system. I recall another recent article where a Taliban spokesman admitted that Predators were highly effective. You always hear Afghans complaining about bomb damage over there. I never read anything about Pakistanis complaining about Hellfire strikes. Until they added a sleave to increase lethality, it wasn’t uncommon for Hellfires to destroy vehicles, yet have personnel inside them running off in all directions. Even the 250 lb small diameter bomb doesn’t have anywhere near the lethality of a 500 lb bomb. Why would anyone believe a 106 lb Hellfire would be causing all kinds of collateral damage. Instead, I’ve read plenty of accounts of Hellfires targeting the bedrooms where Taliban were sleeping, while adjacent bedrooms suffered few ill effects. Finally, since Killcullen is such an expert, he knows that those supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan are the MINORITY Pashtuns…not the majority Punjabis. Why should the majority care that much what happens to the minority Pashtuns…who are the majority only in Afghanistan.
	mike j May 19th, 2009 at 8:17 pm Cole– Seems to me Kilcullen is well-placed to know what he’s talking about. Not sure his book will have much impact if he fills it with unsubstantiated BS. The central idea of your argument is essentially “they shouldn’t mind so much, we don’t kill that many innocent people.” Seriously? Maybe those Punjabis care because A: they didn’t really ask us to be there in the first place, and B: they don’t appreciate the trouble we’re stirring by not following our own COIN doctrine.
	Alex May 19th, 2009 at 8:35 pm Cole, I wasn’t blaming Greg and Colin for Killcullen’s ridiculous statistics. I was merely pointing out they seemed to have inferred that because the Pentagon would not comment and the military wasn’t complaining about his numbers, that he must be correct. This is generally a good blog to get the latest military news, but making “conclusions” like that really calls into question the credibility of the authors. Mike, unless Kilcullen is looking at the raw intel used and the BDAs afterwards, he’s not any more well placed to make that sort of claim than you or I. Just because this guy is/was important in the military doesn’t mean he’s not trying to promote an agenda or knows what a Hellfire is.
	Cole May 19th, 2009 at 8:44 pm Mike J, Just out of curiosity, if the Punjabis and Pakistanis did not want us there in the first place, why do they allow our CIA Predators to be based there and American supplies to travel through their country? Inquiring minds want to know. It just amazes me that Mr. Kilcullen is picking on Predators that kill very few civilians while the crux of this article about the CHAIRMAN of the JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF comments are primarily concerned about killing Afghan civilians (center of gravity) with 500‑2000 lb BOMBS, not 100 lb Hellfires. If you want to talk about killing innocent civilians, look at our bombing campaigns in WWII where there was nothing accidental about killing civilians. We’ve come a long way in 65 years.
	John the civi May 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pm From what I have read in the past…it seems like the changes in procedures Mullens alludes to, won’t have any affect on how the CIA conducts its UAV strikes. Makes you wonder if the CIA and the Pentagon are even on the same page.
	mike j May 19th, 2009 at 9:37 pm Cole– Governments sometimes do things that their people don’t entirely support. I think it’s that simple. No question we’ve come quite a way in reducing civilian casualties, but I think we’ve still got some work to do, and maybe we shouldn’t be using Af/Pak as our laboratory. Also, the size of the weapon makes no difference if it hits the wrong target. One more observation: Afghanistan will be more or less what it always has been. If Pakistan collapses, that’s a much bigger regional and possibly global threat, so I think Pakistan is the center of gravity. Alex– It’s entirely likely Kilcullen IS looking at that info. He didn’t develop his “agenda” in a vacuum. You should read David Galula’s “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice”. It’s about 100 pages long, you can read it in an afternoon. Look: Karzai is the “mayor of Kabul”, the Pakistanis are in a major operation in the Swat valley to stamp out an insurgency– 2 million refugees they said today. Those things are directly connected to how we’ve been prosecuting the war there. It’s not that we’re not killing enough Taliban, we’re doing it WRONG, all the way around. You can’t protect the population if you’re also blowing some of them up.
	SMSgt Mac May 19th, 2009 at 9:45 pm So, When asked if the accidental (collateral) killing of civilians with UAVs and strike weapons is counter-productive. the Admiral answers ‘yes’. I’m curious. Under what circumstances would one expect the Admiral to think otherwise or answer differently? The question has the feel of “Are you still beating your wife?” Even the morally correct answer leaves a bad taste.
	Alex May 19th, 2009 at 10:09 pm Mike, I find it extremely hard to believe that if 98% of those killed by our missile strikes were civilian, that our current administration would be continuing, much less ramping up, these attacks. Obviously I don’t know where Kilcullen gets his intel, but he is a non-American civilian so I suspect that he’s not getting any information from the CIA. If I had to make a bet, I would say he came up with these numbers himself by doing independent research from 2nd/3rd hand and media reports.
	mike j May 19th, 2009 at 11:31 pm Alex, do you know who Kilcullen is, or what he’s been doing the last few years for this country? Google is your friend. I do not want to believe that my country would be that callous and ineffective, but I also know that David Kilcullen is not an idiot or some foreign idealist pushing snake oil. He’s been in the field, and he has a track record to back up what he says.
	Cole May 19th, 2009 at 11:34 pm Kilcullen’s numbers probably came from this and similar articles that were being claimed as factual around early April (comes up as a green link on my McAffee). http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440 Authorities cited were “Pakistani authorities”…you know like the ISI, comprised of lots of guys with Pashtun sympathies. So our Hellfires have a 687 loss and 14 win record in about 60 strikes…with none successful until 2008. All the early ones in 2006 and 2007 were “bad intelligence.”;) It is true that according to some surveys that only about 1 in 5 Pakistani are pro-U.S., and they do view Predator strikes as a violation of their sovereignty. However, I’m inclined to side with Zadari whose wife was killed by the Taliban, and by those in charge of the nukes, who are more concerned with the Indian threat. Near as I can tell, if you go to any Arab country you will find about 1 in 5 Muslims that are pro-U.S., so not sure we have much to lose or gain. Frankly, I’d rather have 4 out of 5 Israelis and Indians on our side. I also found an article that said Pashuns in the FATA region were actually happy some of the Predator strikes were occurring…after all the snakes were in their midst. Here is article from about 10 hours ago in “Foreign Policy” where Admiral Mullen recently said Predator attacks were highly effective. http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/admiral_mullen_drone_strikes_in_pakistan_are_very_effective Finally, thinking about it from a munitions effectiveness standpoint, it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for 60 Hellfire strikes to kill 700 good OR bad guys. They just don’t have that kind of explosive power, even if they were hugging each other and you hit center of mass.
	Alex May 20th, 2009 at 2:48 am I know what he has done..I have no doubt he knows what he is talking about when it comes to COIN ops. However, in no way does that mean his data is even close to accurate on civilian casualties as a result of drone strikes in Pakistan. I would really like to know where he got his data from, because it certainly isn’t the same data that Pres. Obama is looking at or these predators would be sitting in hangars collecting dust right now.
	mike j May 20th, 2009 at 9:59 am I’ve been relying on you guys to tell me what Kilcullen’s position is, but he didn’t say what you said he said. Critical sentence from Kilcullen’s and Exum’s NYT op-ed: “American officials vehemently dispute these figures, and it is likely that more militants and fewer civilians have been killed than is reported by the press in Pakistan.” Kilcullen doesn’t believe 2%, but the Pakistani public DOES. We’re not talking data, here, it’s about belief. The people who we’re trying to protect don’t think we’re helping, which is what we have to do to win Kilcullen’s way. If you just want to blow away terrorists, unfortunately we’re not doing so great at that either, based on results.
	GPL, LRRP, Vietnam May 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm Let us first find out who is who? Are they for or aganist the Taliban. I would rather use the drone then sending in US Forces. Those who want to carry the Olive Branch, probably like the Taliban. Using the drones and Special Ops, special trained troops are the best way to get to them.
	Alex May 20th, 2009 at 1:48 pm Sorry Mike, I thought Kilcullen believed the 2%/98% numbers. I agree that what the Pakistani people believe is more important than the actual numbers, but this is not a failure of our drone strikes, this is a failure of our information warfighting capabilities. There is a serious risk-reward scenario to consider when deciding to stop or continue drone strikes inside Pakistan. These strikes aren’t just targeting every militant they can find — they are going after high value targets and large groups getting ready to carry out attacks inside Afghanistan. If you have reliable intel that 20 militants are sleeping in a hut on the Pakistani side of the border one night, and the next they will be crossing into Afghanistan to carry out IED attacks against U.S. soldiers, what do you do?
	Rhyno327 May 20th, 2009 at 2:17 pm T-ban/AQ know we don’t bomb civ., so they seek shelter there. Civ. casualties are almost unavoidable, unless ur gonna dig them out, which puts men in danger. There is no way I would stop the airstrikes, its almost a given civilians will die. If this war goes no-where within 2 yrs., I think it would be time to pack up and leave. Nation building, all that crap, just don’t work. Iraq is on its way to chaos, and A-stan is much more complex. We will see..
	Rhyno327 May 20th, 2009 at 2:25 pm If there was reliable intel about the t-ban’s shura meeting in Quetta, and you had the option of taking them out, wat would you do? Hellfire’s? Spec. Ops teams? Or a couple 2,000lb JDAM’s through the roof? No matter how you cut it, the PAKI’s hate us, no matter wat we did or will do. P-stan is where they lie thier heads at nite, operate with impunity, plan attacks. This “nation” is at the crux of our problem there.
	DensityDuck May 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm Colin: You claimed that the military didn’t deny it and so it must be true. I understand that you’re trying to give both sides a say, but you’re adding a bit of viewpoint into the reportage. And again, I understand that you’re adding some analysis to try and improve the value of the piece, but I think it’s also important to mention that OPSEC rules require a “no comment” answer, and therefore a “no comment” answer doesn’t necessarily translate to “these numbers are totally correct”.
	Court May 20th, 2009 at 8:33 pm Admiral, Sir, when the bad guy are allowed to live in amongst the civilians ————- then civilians are going to get killed along with those trying to kill us —– WE are war ————- fight it as such — NOT you semil-political playground. IT is MY Grandson’s life at stake over there — NOT yours! Let hinm do what he has to do to stay alive and come back home. Fr Court (Ret’d USAF)
	mike j May 20th, 2009 at 9:36 pm Alex, Rhyno327– You don’t get it. “The population is the prize.” You focus on killing insurgents, or whatever the Taliban is, and you will lose the war. Protect the population, and they’ll give you all the intel you’d ever need. I don’t like dealing in hypotheticals, but factor something like this into your scenario: every civilian that dies because we screw up, adds a week to the war.
	3warLTC May 20th, 2009 at 10:24 pm We can debate the Innocent Civilians [India charlies] issue until we are blue in the face. We must always work to be surgical and keep IC deaths to a minimum. That being said, let’s admit that 1. Someone will always be killed and 2. The bad guys may kill some ICs and try to make it look like we did it! In fact if they don’t kill them outright they will fire weapons [mortars/rockets & HMGs from positions surrounded by ICs and thus bait us into counter battery fire that kills the IC’s! Remember we must work to minimize IC deaths and woundings but in COIN there must always be factored in a certain amount of IC deaths. Have CA and PSYOP SOF resources ready to step up and mitagate as much ill-will as possible and righlty so put the blame for the IC deaths on the bad guys who were hanging out in their villages/urban neighborhoods.
	Alex May 20th, 2009 at 10:26 pm I know exactly what you are talking about mike, and I agree with you, but you aren’t listening to me. Unless we invade Pakistan, your “plan” is not an option. We can’t put boots on the ground going door to door gaining intel like we did in Iraq. Our only option in Pakistan is drone strikes or no drone strikes, and we have to weigh the pros and cons of each. Obviously our administration has decided that preventing a planned attack on coalition troops by killing 20 militants in their sleep inside Pakistan is more important than the prospect of turning a few more Pakistanis against the U.S. As I said, this is not a long term sustainable solution — but it’s the best we have at the moment. I suspect that if the Pakistani military starts to take control of the situation, then we will see less drone strikes.
	mike j May 20th, 2009 at 11:30 pm Alex– I know what you’re saying. I don’t think we have any good options in Af/Pak. I think Rhyno327 is right when he says “nation building” is a pipe dream. It’s like that part of the world was designed to favor insurgency– culture, terrain, borders, distribution of population, etc. We need to reduce our goals to something achievable, and then we have to stay out of our own way. So with Pakistan, we need to avoid destabilizing Pakistan, first and foremost. If we can help stabilize them, we should do that too. In Afghanistan, we have to protect the population, whatever our goal is, if we want to leave with something more than a total loss.
	Michael May 21st, 2009 at 12:38 am Court, I think you need to cease fire on “mad” Mike Mullen. He was my XO on the USS Sterett and I know him personally. He is a good steadfast and honorable man and leader. We all know the sacrifices our families, and yours are doing for our fine country. Lets find common ground to attack the bad guys and not make the good guys appear less than they are. God Speed my friend. MKC Court May 20th, 2009 at 8:33 pm Admiral, Sir, when the bad guy are allowed to live in amongst the civilians ————- then civilians are going to get killed along with those trying to kill us —– WE are war ————- fight it as such — NOT you semil-political playground. IT is MY Grandson’s life at stake over there — NOT yours! Let hinm do what he has to do to stay alive and come back home. Fr Court (Ret’d USAF)
	Alex May 21st, 2009 at 2:07 am It’s a hell of a conundrum..we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Killing the AQ and Taliban before they cross into Afghanistan helps to protect the Afghanis, but it pisses of the Pakis. If we don’t kill as many high level targets as we can in Pakistan, then we might stop pissing off more Pakistanis, but then it is likely that more Afghanis will be getting killed. It’s lose lose for us..but I still believe targeting high value targets in Pakistan, despite any collateral or perceived collateral damage, is better than doing nothing — especially if we are getting high level leaders and/or one or two dozen militants planning large attacks in each strike.
	Bob W May 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am The CIA executes policy; sometimes they make policy. In their copious free time, they provide “information, data or facts” to back the administration’s assertions and/or support their own actions and previous findings, cloaking their failures with plausible deniability… unless they need to take a fall for the president or vice president.
	VAPOR_ONE_NINE May 21st, 2009 at 12:45 pm Explain to me again how you can tell the difference between the enemy and civilians in this conflict? Which uniform are the bad guys wearing?
	Alex May 21st, 2009 at 3:41 pm The uniforms are AK-47s and RPGs. If you blow up a house with 20 middle aged males armed to the teeth, its safe to say they aren’t civilians minding their own business.
	armamentsoldier May 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pm “Greg Grant, who did the first story pointing out Kilcullen’s claims about the drones’ low success rate, called sources at the Pentagon to try and see if the military agrees with Kilcullen’s numbers. No one said a word. Our conclusion: if the numbers were off base the military would be screaming, if only to put pressure on the CIA, who are responsible for most — if not all — the drone strikes.” I think the military did exactly what they were suppose to do, tell you nothing. It’s a Military operation, not some study for a think tank. Mabe that last bunch would have talked, but not this one. Besides, I think thats “need to know” information and you don’t need to know.
	Crossdecker May 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm The article misses the point. I’ve recently heard Australian Army (retired) Lieutenant Colonel Kilcullen speak (at Northwestern University) and am reading his book, “Accidental Guerrilla,” in which he makes the point that Predator strikes in Afghanistan that miss kill civilians. These regrettable deaths make generational enemies for America. Not simply for awhile but for generation after generation. And this factor outweighs the strike’s tactical advantage – particularly in a war where we’re trying to win over ‘fence-sitters’ within the populations.
	DARK KNIGHT May 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm YOU KNOW THE TALIBAN ARE COWARDS WHEN THEY FORCE THERE WAY INTO INNOCENT AFGAN CIVILIANS HOME BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY WILL NOT BE ATTACKED AND THEY CAN TAKE POT SHOTS AT OUR SOLDIERS AND GET AWAY WITH IT WRONG!!!! THE MILITARY TRIES TO KEEP COLLATERAL DAMAGE DOWN TO A BARE MINIMUM BUT THERE IS GOING TO BE TIMES WHEN INNOCENT CIVILIANS ARE GOING TO DIE BUT IF THEY THINK THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BECAUSE THERE ARE IN AN INNOCENT CIVILIANS HOUSE THEY ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY WILL BE ATTACKED THAT’S JUST THEY WAY IT IS.
	BuddhalovesPaine June 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm As I observe US military personnel on Installations in Germany I see happy people chatting away, eating their Anthony’s pizza, thinking that they are minding their own business. But then Adolf Eichmann thought that he was just minding his own business too. That was in fact the basis of his legal defense. Now the people that I see certainly do not see any similarity between themselves and Adolph Eichmann, but I do. That is what is really important to me. It will no doubt not have the slightest interest to you though. After all anyone trying to kill you is a bad guy because it is you that they are trying to kill. There is no way in hell that you could be mistaken and there is no way in hell that those who are trying to kill you could not know better. So the next time a Pond’s Guard checks your ID you should wonder, who is she really working for? Remember anyone could be a CIA agent!
	DensityDuck June 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pm …are you saying that pizza is made of Jews?
	BuddhalovesPaine June 18th, 2009 at 5:42 am Anthony’s Pizza is made with the finest indigents that precious water supplies can produce. Do not forget that anyone selling Anthony’s Pizza including a local national could in fact be a CIA agent. This Anthony Pizza Add* has been paid for by 1LT Harro Schulze-Boysen. 98% or 20% When I learned the Law of Land Warfare it would have been unquestionable that one can not call in an airstrike on a civilian target jut because you are taking fire from that position. You have to move in and clear the target with small arms. But of course we have a miltary that knows they are on the wrong side of the law anyways so why make things worse and get yourself killed trying to commit a crime. And as for the drone strikes at targets carried out because we have no forces in the area to carry out the attack that is like saying it is OK to torture POWS to find out where their next ambush will be. Shi* the way I see the whole US military should just march itself in to prison, who are not needed. The US can then hire decent Finnish and Swiss soldiers to defend America since the only reason anyone wants to attack us is because we have not stopped attacking them for the past 60 years. But then they do not teach history in the US any more now do they. A person has to actually listen to what non Americans have to say to understand how they might see things. Ever eat a socialist? Some parts are edible. Place you order for an AAFES Socialist Party Platter for the upcomming playoffs and receive a free Che Dart Board. Offer good only while supplies last. Add* paid for by Mildred Harnack