The strange behavior of quantum physics might seem too unpredictable to rely on for our energy needs, but new technologies hope to capitalize on its very strangeness.

The most familiar of these quantum tricks is the fact that light acts both like a wave and a particle.

This dual nature is utilized in solar power technology. Incoming sunlight is concentrated by mirrors and lenses that rely on the wave-like properties of light.

Once inside a solar cell, however, this focused light collides with electrons in a particle-like way, thus freeing the electrons to create an electric current.

The next generation of solar cells may employ tiny bits of semiconductor material called quantum dots. These nanometer-sized devices are so small that only a handful (anywhere from 1 to 1,000) of free electrons can reside inside.

Because of these cramped quarters, a quantum dot behaves like an artificial atom in that its electrons can reside only at specific (so-called quantized) energy levels. These levels define exactly what wavelengths of light the dot will absorb.

"Quantum dots have a host of unusual properties compared to bulk semiconductors," said Arthur Nozik of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy.

He and his colleagues are looking at how a single light particle (or photon) can enter a dot and excite several electrons, rather than the usual one.

Other researchers are looking to tune the wavelengths at which a dot absorbs light by making it bigger or smaller.

Solar cell manufacturers may one day be able to mix together dots of different sizes to absorb sunlight along a wide range of wavelengths.

The last week before Congress’ August recess is typically a very busy one, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle hammering out final details on key legislation they hope to get to the President’s desk before the month-long break. But the final weeks before both last year’s and this year’s August recesses – the first two under the Democrat-controlled Congress – were more turbulent than they were busy.

Last year, in the waning days before August recess, Democratic leaders infamously stole a House floor vote on a Republican proposal to block taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants, literally forcing House parliamentarians to back down from their initial vote tally so several Democrats could change their votes and defeat the proposal. Not to be outdone this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her colleagues in the Democratic leadership are again wielding their power to block legislation allowing more environmentally-safe drilling for oil and gas here at home to help bring down the price at the pump.

Though the tactics used to steal the vote on illegal immigration and block votes on American energy may have been different, the motivation behind them was exactly the same: they were doing the bidding of their special interest allies on the Left. In the case of the stolen illegal immigration vote, they were satisfying the demands of groups fighting to keep our borders wide open. And in the case of the blocked American energy vote, they were scrambling to please a tiny band of radical environmentalists, such as the Sierra Club, which has plainly stated that America is “better off without cheap gas” and is running ads in support of freshman Democrats.

 

By blocking a vote to increase American energy production, Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Barack Obama (D-IL), have proven how amazingly out-of-touch with the American people they really are. In poll after poll, Americans are showing their strong support for drilling far off our nation’s shores and on remote federal lands – and that includes a poll released yesterday showing that a majority of Californians actually disagree with Speaker Pelosi on the issue of deepwater energy exploration. Yet week after week, Speaker Pelosi kept her gag order on the House, continuing to stonewall a vote for more drilling.

The House Republican proposal – appropriately titled the American Energy Act – actually would spur more than just new drilling. Not only would it increase production of American energy far offshore, on federal lands in the Inter-Mountain West, and in remote areas of Alaska’s North Slope, but it also would encourage conservation and efficiency and promote alternative forms of energy, such as biofuels and nuclear. We call it the “all of the above” strategy for energy independence.

The American Energy Act recognizes our energy needs now and promotes the energy technologies of tomorrow. Everyone recognizes that the future of American energy is not in traditional forms like coal, oil, and gas. However, until new renewable and alternative technologies like solar, nuclear, and coal-to-liquids are affordable and available, we need a bridge to get us there. And that’s why more drilling now is essential. America has the resources we need to fight our way through this energy crisis. All Congress needs to do is unlock them. But this week, the Democratic leaders of the Drill-Nothing Congress took the keys and went home instead.

Earlier this week, I warned Speaker Pelosi and her leadership colleagues that they were blocking this vote and going home at their own peril. Gas prices remain high nationwide – some $1.50 higher than they were when the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. And with fall and winter just around the corner, you can be sure that home heating costs are poised to soar as well.

In other words, while Democratic leaders may be running away from an American energy vote in Washington, they simply will not be able to hide from the issue when they are back at home. All month long, the calls for more drilling will continue to intensify, particularly as families take those last vacations and weekend trips of the summer. And you can count on House Republicans continuing to do our part as well: promoting our “all of the above” energy strategy and demanding a long-overdue vote on the American Energy Act.

The Republican Party is facing what Ronald Reagan called "a time for choosing." A real argument is raging over how much it should turn its back on the bad habits that cost it control of Congress in 2006.

Just after that debacle, Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens, the father of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," encountered Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, the antipork crusader who had held up many of the projects so many members believe are the key to their re-election. Mr. Stevens said, "Well, Tom, I hope you're satisfied for helping us lose the election." Mr. Coburn replied, "No, Ted, you lost us this election."

The data favored Mr. Coburn: 2006 exit polls revealed that corruption in government was second only to the Iraq war as the driving force behind the Democratic takeover. A major part of that corruption was earmarks -- pork projects members often secure in secret. Earmarks were at the heart of the scandals that sent Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Calif. Rep. Duke Cunningham to jail.

This week's events further discredited the earmark culture. On Tuesday, Mr. Stevens, ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, had to step down after being indicted for failing to report over $250,000 in gifts from a firm that sought earmarks from him. The day before, Republicans enjoyed a rare success when they beat back an attempt by Majority Leader Harry Reid to ram through an earmark-laden omnibus bill that Mr. Coburn had refused to help pass by the often-abused "unanimous consent" process.

 

[...]

 

Mr. Coburn's main point on earmarks is that senators must choose between a culture of parochialism and a culture that puts the national interest first. He stipulates that few members are corrupt, and that most go with the flow. He has even offered to release his holds on earmarks -- if their sponsors will propose reducing federal spending elsewhere, so "we aren't just dumping more debt on our kids."

His offer hasn't been popular. Included in the Reid package was $1.67 billion for ocean and coastal programs that were pet projects of Mr. Stevens. But the Alaska senator has refused to even discuss spending offsets to pay for what he calls "Stevens money." In 2005, there was so much "Stevens money" that Alaska snared almost $1,000 in earmarked federal funding for every resident, 30 times what went to the average state, based on population.

Mr. Stevens was a big reason the earmark culture had such a grip on Senate Republicans: Few dared risk his wrath. When he became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1997, he proudly proclaimed, "I'm a mean, miserable SOB." When Mr. Coburn dared challenge his $228 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in 2005, Mr. Stevens warned fellow senators "if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next."

It's almost August, the time each year when many American families go on vacation. But if you're like many Americans, you're crunching the numbers and realizing this year's vacation won't be like recent years past. The cost of gasoline and its spillover effect on the price of food - and, well, everything else - has left your family with less money to spend. That's why over half of Americans are reconsidering taking vacation this summer to save money.

It's against this backdrop that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the leadership in Congress will have to make a big choice.

With so many Americans skipping vacation this summer because of the high cost of gas, should Congress get to go on a five week vacation without doing anything about it?

The American Energy Act: "All of the Above"
Last week, House Republicans introduced a comprehensive energy legislation called the American Energy Act.

The American Energy Act is the sort of "all of the above" energy solution the American people want, one that allows for the development of American oil to lower gas prices and free us from foreign sources of oil, but also recognizes that oil must be used as a bridge to a much more diversified energy portfolio for America.

Passing the bill would not only allow the development of more American energy resources from the outer-continental shelf, oil shale, and the Arctic coastal plane, it would cut red tape that blocks the development of new refineries, provide tax incentives and prizes to reward energy conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies.

But if Nancy Pelosi has anything to do with it, the bill will never even come to a vote.

Nancy Pelosi and Her Anti-Energy Allies: "None of the Above"
Last week, the US Geological Survey issued a report that showed there are an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic. One third of that oil is in Alaskan territory, but it is currently illegal to access most of it due to the offshore drilling moratorium imposed by Congress.

Furthermore, a recent Fox News poll shows that the American people now favor "increasing oil in the United States immediately" (75%), including offshore (71%) and "in a small area of the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge" (54%).

But despite the increasingly overwhelming reasons to "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less", Nancy Pelosi and her anti-energy allies in the House are countering the House Republicans' "all of the above" energy proposal with a "none of the above" energy stonewall.

Remember when every person in America trusted the media? Remember when the media simply presented the facts, free of opinion and slant? Remember when the media was relevant?

Well, those days are gone forever.

Say hello to the new mainstream media, where news anchors, reporters, and columnists present their special version of the day’s events, complete with enough spin to make an astronaut lose his lunch. No longer will you hear, “Man bites dog,” on the evening news. Nowadays, you will hear, “Evil conservative non-female viciously attacks a sweet, innocent, unarmed pit bull. The criminal also shouts an anti-Semitic slur afterward.”

Sound far-fetched? Not when you consider the recent sugar-shock-inducing love fest that encompassed Barack Obama’s trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe. The junior senator from Illinois did not just have a few correspondents following him from photo op to photo op: Obama had a team. Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Brian Williams shadowed the presumptive Democrat Presidential nominee like feeder fish underneath a tiger shark, hoping for a new piece of information to fall out of his powerful jaws.

Barack Obama’s Mystical Journey of Whimsy, Hope, and Change was no mere media event. It was the Woodstock of 2008, and the mainstream media was eating the brown acid. The resulting “bad trips” were enough to demand a disclaimer before every newscast:

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Next stop - the Obama Zone!

Luckily for the mainstream media, there is room in the Obama Zone for everyone. And, as such, it gives German reporter-ettes an opportunity to publish stories that would send a diabetic to the emergency room:

“I put my arm around his hip – wow, he didn’t even sweat! WHAT A MAN!”

A number of onshore areas in Canada, Russia, and Alaska already have been explored for petroleum, resulting in the discovery of more than 400 oil and gas fields north of the Arctic Circle. These fields account for approximately 240 billion barrels (BBOE) of oil and oil-equivalent natural gas, which is almost 10 percent of the world’s known conventional petroleum resources (cumulative production and remaining proved reserves).

Nevertheless, most of the Arctic, especially offshore, is essentially unexplored with respect to petroleum. The Arctic Circle encompasses about 6 percent of the Earth’s surface, an area of more than 21 million km2 (8.2 million mi2), of which almost 8 million km2 (3.1 million mi2) is onshore and more than 7 million km2 (2.7 million mi2) is on continental shelves under less than 500 m of water. The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth.

Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.

The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000.

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.

Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.

At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.

The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.

Olmert did not actually resign from office in the normal sense of the term. That is, he's not planning to leave office any time soon. What Olmert did was force Israel into a long period of governmental instability.

According to the elections law, when a prime minister announces his resignation, his government is immediately transformed into a transition government that will remain in power until either Olmert's successor forms a governing coalition or until the winner of the next general election forms a governing coalition. If Olmert's successor forms a new governing coalition after the September 17 primary, Israelis won't go to the polls until March 2010. But if Olmert's replacement as Kadima head is unable to form a coalition, Israel will have a general election by March 2009 at the latest. In the latter scenario, Olmert's transition government will remain in power until the winners of that election form a governing coalition. And that could take up to three more months.

So far from leaving office anytime soon, Olmert will remain in power at least three more months, and perhaps for as long as 10 months.

Olmert's non-resignation resignation speech was filled with protestations of patriotism. But it is hard to see how his announcement served the national interest. If Olmert had wanted to do what is best for the country, then he would have announced that his resignation was effective immediately. This would have set the course for a general election in November.

In the interim, and in light of the intensifying security crisis with Iran, a caretaker government could have been formed that would have encompassed all willing Zionist parties represented in the Knesset. If such a government were formed, Israel could have attacked Iran's nuclear installations with the full backing of the Knesset and the people. The political cost of such a vital operation would have been borne equally by all of Israel's political leaders and so, in a sense, it would have been borne by no one. Under such circumstances, Israel's political leaders would have been able to concern themselves only with Israel's survival as they made their best decisions on how to prevent the ayatollahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

But rather than enable Israel to unite in the face of a threat to its existence, Olmert opted for continued instability, continued uncertainly and a continuation of the polarized status quo that leaves him in office and leaves Israel strategically hamstrung at the hands of a governing coalition that the nation does not want and does not trust. And this situation could easily last for nearly a year.

 

Russian contractors are seen working at the Bushehr nuclear reactor site in south of Iran, on April 3, 2007. Photographer: Yalda Moaiery/document IRAN/ Bloomberg News.

 

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Iran is on a path toward a ``major breakthrough'' in its nuclear program that is ``unacceptable,'' Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz told a Washington audience today. 

``It is an existential threat,'' Mofaz said at a forum on Iran at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ``We have to make sure we are prepared for every option.''

Mofaz, a former Israeli army chief of staff, is a potential future leader of Israel because of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's planned departure from office. Mofaz is competing with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for control of the ruling Kadima party after Olmert said July 30 that he won't compete in the party's Sept. 17 primary amid a corruption scandal.

While Mofaz accused the Iranian government of ``buying time'' in its resistance to international pressure to suspend uranium enrichment, he said the diplomatic ``track'' should continue.

``We don't want war, we want peace,'' Mofaz said. ``But we will not let the second Holocaust take place.''

The comments from Mofaz, who also serves as transportation minister, echoed statements he made last month to the Jerusalem Post that ``all options are on the table. If there won't be a choice other than a nuclear Iran or a military option, it's clear what our decision has to be.''

Similar threats he made in June contributed to a surge in oil prices.

“My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.

“When I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,” Obama told reporters in Jacksonville in late June. “That’s how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”

“It's not going to provide short-term relief or medium-term relief or in fact long-term relief. It won't drop prices in this administration or in the next administration or in the administration after that,” Obama said while campaigning in Iowa.

“The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the interview with the Florida paper, "and so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done.”

The McCain camp was quick to applaud Obama’s softening on the issue.

“It’s clear that members of both parties are following John McCain's leadership toward an ‘all of the above’ approach on energy that includes nuclear, alternative energy, and offshore drilling,” said a McCain spokesman. “We hope Barack Obama will realize that his ongoing opposition to John McCain’s realistic energy solutions and additional offshore drilling is wrong.”

WASHINGTON — President Bush chastised Democrats on Saturday for refusing to allow a vote on whether to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling before lawmakers departed for their summer recess.

"To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home," Bush said in his weekly radio address. It was the fourth time this week that he has called for Congress to end the drilling restrictions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Some of the drilling moratoriums have been in place since 1981 for environmental reasons and concerns that energy development might harm coastal tourist industries.

Bush acknowledged it would be years before any of the oil beneath the offshore waters could be pumped, but he said "lifting the ban would create new opportunities for American workers and businessmen."

"But the leaders of the Democratic Congress have refused to allow a vote" on whether the drilling moratoriums should be lifted, Bush complained.

Most energy experts and the government's own research agency at the Energy Department have said drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, which is now off-limits, would have no impact on current gasoline prices and probably would have none for years.

Congressional Democrats have argued that oil companies already have large areas of federal land and waters where they can drill for oil, especially in Alaska and off its coast.

"The president knows ... that the impact of any new drilling will be insignificant, promising savings of only pennies per gallon many years down the road," says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called the demand to lift the drilling bans a hoax.

Pelosi, D-Calif., has refused to bring up for House consideration various Republican proposals to lift the offshore drilling moratoriums that Congress has renewed annually for years.

 

The internecine fight between Hamas and Fatah has gotten ugly — at least for Palestinians who favor men with mustaches.

Hamas has resumed its policy of shaving the mustaches of rival Fatah members to humiliate them as a form of punishment, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Reports of such punishments surfaced in January, though Hamas denied it had resorted to close shaves in its struggle to assert dominance over Palestinian politics.

Fatah officials renewed their allegations Wednesday, according to the Jerusalem Post, which said Hamas, in turn, claimed followers' beards had been sabotaged by Fatah officials.

Nafez al-Namnam, a top Fatah operative in the Gaza Strip, appears to be the latest target of Hamas clippers. Namnam, 51, had sported a rather large mustache for more than three decades, but after being rounded up by Hamas in the aftermath of a bombing, he emerged from prison with a clean-shaven face, The Jerusalem Post reported.

In response, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades issued a statement strongly condemning the use of shaving as punishment.

Coalition special operations forces captured two members of the Iranian-supported Hezbollah Brigades during a raid in eastern Baghdad on early Thursday morning. The intelligence-driven raid targeted the home of a propaganda cell member, Multinational Forces Iraq reported. The cell member was responsible for videotaping Hezbollah Brigades attacks on US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

“This propaganda cell is suspected of making, videos of attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces, which are then used to raise funds and resources for additional attacks against Coalition forces and Iraqis,” the US military stated in a press release.

While the exact neighborhood in Baghdad was not identified, Multinational Forces Iraq often referred to the New Baghdad district as east Baghdad. On July 21, Coalition forces captured a member of a Hezbollah Brigades propaganda cell who was responsible for uploading attack videos to the Internet in New Baghdad.

The Hezbollah Brigades, or the Kata'ib Hezbollah, has been active for more than a year, Sergeant Susan James, a Public Affairs NCO for Multinational Forces Iraq told The Long War Journal. Multinational Forces Iraq said the group receives support from Iran and is an “offshoot of Iranian-trained Special Groups." The US military has referred to the Iranian-backed elements of the Mahdi Army as the Special Groups. The Hezbollah Brigades is “a separate and independent organization from Special Groups,” said James.

“We believe that Hezbollah Brigades does receive support from Iran,” James said. “That support likely includes funding, training, logistics, and material.” Iran's Qods Force funds, trains, arms, and supports Mahdi Army operatives to facilitate attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces.

The US Air Force killed an al Qaeda field commander in Afghanistan during an airstrike this month, al Qaeda said in a statement released on the Internet earlier this month.

Abu Abdallah al Shami, one of four senior al Qaeda operatives who escaped from Bagram prison on July 10, 2005, was killed in an unspecified airstrike, said Mustafa Abu Yazid, al Qaeda's senior commander in Afghanistan.

"Al Qaeda announces the martyrdom of one of the heroes and field leaders who performed well in facing the modern crusade, our brother Abu Abdallah al Shami," Yazid said, in a statement translated by Reuters. "Since his feet touched the battle field (after the escape) he resumed jihad with stronger zeal ... he had led and took part in several successful military operations."

Shami, who is also called Abu Mu'adh, is originally from Syria. He was captured by US forces Afghanistan's Khost province in 2003. He then spent "about a year and eleven months" in Bagram prison, according to al Qaeda Spokesman Abu Yahya al Libi, al Qaeda's spokesman who also escaped Bagram along with Shami and two other senior operatives.

Al Libi said Shami "played a major role on the jihad battlefields" and was a commander of "groups of mujahideen."

Shami escaped Bagram with al Libi, Abu Nasir al Qahtani, and Omar Farouq. Of the four, al Libi is the only one to remain free.

British special forces killed Omar Farouq in Basrah, Iraq, in September 2006 after attempting to be reassigned to facilitate the flow of money, weapons, and fighters for al Qaeda in Iraq. Farouq was considered to be al Qaeda point man in Southeast Asia prior to his capture in by Indonesian security forces in 2002.

The Pakistani military has begun to abandon forts in the Taliban-controlled tribal agency of South Waziristan. The Frontier Corps are leaving outposts in the Mehsud tribal areas, according to reports in the Pakistani media.

The Frontier Corps has abandoned the Ladha Fort and all of their outposts in the Saam region in South Waziristan, The News reported. Ladha is near Makeen, the home town of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

The Frontier Corps claimed the Ladha Fort was vacated at the wishes of local tribal leaders and would be converted into a hospital. Frontier Corps Inspector General Major General Mohammad Alam Khattak attempted to downplay concerns that the paramilitaries were leaving due to Taliban pressure, and claimed a new outpost would be set up elsewhere in Ladha.

Reports from Saam indicate the Frontier Corps left the region because the paramilitaries faced "tremendous hardships while sending supplies for the troops in the fort."

The Taliban used the Frontier Corps retreat to taunt the military and government. "It is our victory and defeat of the government that it ultimately realized that its troops could not stay in the [Ladha fort] without our will," an anonymous local Taliban commander told Daily Times.