The Cool Blue Blog

Team Smasher opens Route 515

Marines of 3/8 Clear Southern Afghanistan’s Deadly Route 515

Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force - Afghanistan

Story by Lance Cpl. Monty Burton
Date: 01.25.2009
Posted: 01.25.2009 04:25

Marines and Sailors of 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment (Reinforced) and Combat Logistics Battalion 3 successfully completed Operation Gateway III, Dec. 28, 2008, through Jan. 25, in Farah province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

By Lance Cpl. Monty Burton
Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force – Afghanistan

FARAH PROVINCE, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Marines and Sailors of 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment (Reinforced) and Combat Logistics Battalion 3 successfully completed Operation Gateway III, Dec. 28, 2008, through Jan. 25, in Farah province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

As the ground combat element of Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force – Afghanistan, 3/8 dispatched Weapons Company’s “Team Smasher,” a task-organized element comprised of a Route Clearance Platoon with heavy weapons elements, to clear southern Afghanistan’s Route 515, the Marines of CLB-3, SPMAGTF-A’s logistics combat element, followed in trace, constructing three combat outposts along the important east-west route. Marines of 3/8’s Co. I provided security for Team Smasher and CLB-3’s combat logisticians by conducting joint patrols with Afghan national army soldiers and then manned the outposts once they were constructed.

Route 515, which is notorious for improvised explosive devices laid by insurgents, has been a road few have dared to travel; but it is an important roadway that provides a direct route between the districts of Delaram and Bakwa in the east of Farah province.

“By opening Route 515, we will decrease travel time for alliance forces, as well as enable civilian goods, that are vital to the community, to pass through the area with less resistance,” said Lt. Col. David L. Odom, 3/8’s commanding officer. “The clearing of the route will also open the lines of communication between the two major district centers.”

The construction of the COPs provides an alliance presence in a volatile area, which in turn provides a safer environment for local villagers by eliminating many of the imminent dangers that locals and Marines faced while traveling through the region.

“There is more danger during the commute to work than there is actually at work; so it will be in everybody’s best interest to have a Marine presence in the area,” said Capt. Mike Hoffman, Co. I. commanding officer.

Odom said the COPs are designed to deny the insurgents the ability to disrupt the security that’s now established on Route 515.

While at the COPs, Marines conducted both mounted and dismounted security patrols and provided a quick reaction force, designed to respond at short notice to any contingencies that arose during the operation. When the Marines were not on patrol or on standby with the QRF, they were constantly fortifying their position, which included filling thousands of dirt-filled protective barriers and laying hundreds of coils of concertina wire.

The COPs were reinforced with machine guns and 120 mm mortar systems provided by 3/8’s Weapons Co., 81 mm mortar platoon. The Marines were also supported from the sky with close-in fire support provided by several AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopters of Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron 269, a component of the SPMAGTF-A’s air combat element, and Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicles to keep an eye on insurgent activity.

The Marines conducted several face-to-face engagements with local villagers to ensure they knew the Marines were there to provide a safer environment for them. During one meeting, a local villager said he enjoyed the Marine presence in the area and thinks the clearing and plans to pave the route in the future could definitely bring more commerce to the Afghan villages.

Throughout the operation, the Marines at the COPs remained vigilant and ready for enemy resistance. During an indirect fire attack during which COP Barrow was targeted by numerous enemy mortar rounds, the Marines returned fire with 120 mm mortar systems and dispatched a QRF in a matter of minutes.

“We always have to be ready,” said Lance Cpl. Anthony Lostal, a mortarman with 3/8’s Weapons Co., and one of the mortarmen who quickly responded to the IDF attack. “One second too late, and that could cost a Marine his life,” he said.

During the course of the operation, the Marines located and defeated dozens of IEDs, apprehended and tactically questioned several persons of interest and eliminated several insurgents.

The three COPs along Route 515 will eventually transition from just a U.S. Marine presence into a combined presence of Afghan national police and U.S. Marines to ensure the safety of local villagers and alliance forces, Odom explained.

Cameraman Chris Jackson

Navy Honors Civilian Journalist for Saving Marine’s Life
By Army Staff Sgt. Joy Pariante
Special to American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2009 – A civilian journalist received a top Navy honor in Iraq on Jan. 24 for his heroism in saving a Marine’s life while in Afghanistan.

Then-Fox News cameraman Chris Jackson, embedded with a Marine Corps platoon, was traveling by Humvee down a dangerous road in Afghanistan on Aug. 3 when it hit 50 pounds of homemade explosives. All of the vehicle’s passengers escaped the flaming vehicle, with the exception of vehicle commander Marine Corps Sgt. Courtney Rauch.

The blast severely injured Rauch and knocked him unconscious. Jackson, despite having received shrapnel wounds himself, rushed back to the vehicle, pulled Rauch out and carried him to safety.

"Without Chris' quick thinking and heroic act, I would have lost my life that day," Rauch said. "Chris forgot about being a reporter that day and became one of our brothers and acted as one of us. Chris went above and beyond his duty."

Jackson, who now works for CNN/Turner Broadcasting, was presented with the Department of the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award, the second-highest award given to civilians by the Navy, for his actions. Jackson received the award at Al Faw Palace at Camp Victory, outside of Baghdad, during a stop in Iraq en route to India. An audience of appreciative Marines was on hand during the ceremony.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Paul Lefebvre, deputy commanding general for Multinational Corps Iraq, has a son in the same company with which Jackson was traveling. Lefebvre, who presented the award on behalf of the Navy, asked his son if all the wonderful things being said about Jackson were true.

"I asked him, 'Is this the real thing?' and he said, 'Yeah Dad, this guy's a hero,'" Lefebvre said. "This was not an everyday action. It came from somewhere deep inside and shows such a level of courage and commitment.”

When told in front of the crowd why he was invited to Al Faw Palace, Jackson blushed. "It goes to show that Marines have a good sense of humor," he said. "I was told I was coming here for a briefing."

Jackson said he didn't think twice about risking his own life to save someone else's.

"I wasn't thinking. I saw there was trouble, and I didn't even think about grabbing a camera and filming it," Jackson said. "I just did what anyone else would do if someone was in trouble."

(Army Staff Sgt. Joy Pariante serves in the 13th Public Affairs Detachment.)

Economic Karma

It's a bad economy. Everyone agrees. We're in a recession.

IBM, formerly Vermont's largest employer (until it was eclipsed by the State Government) is in the midst of a layoff. Until today, it employed 5,300 workers. And we do not know the extent of the damage as of yet. But we do know there will now be fewer people paying taxes and more people trying to collect benefits.

But Vermont's economic bad news doesn't start or end there. Yesterday, it was reported that new business registrations fell last year for the second year in a row.

Now let me recall to you that two years ago the economy wasn't in a slump. And the data announced by Vermont's Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz doesn't include this year. But that's not all:

There were also 941 corporate dissolutions last year, a small increase from the 867 dissolutions in 2007.

The 3,679 new trade names registered last year was the low-est in 10 years, a sign that fewer individuals are willing or able to take the risk of starting their own business.

"Often times when you see a slowdown in the economy, you actually see an uptick in trade names … and that shows that as people are losing hours at work or perhaps losing a job, they're starting that business they always thought about starting," Markowitz said. "You're not seeing that right now."

That's right. Usually a recession is a small business incubator as people get laid off or businesses close shop, people go out on their own to try their hand at working for themselves.

And it's a fact that small businesses employ the most people in this country.

Now it is a truism that you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. And what Democrats in Vermont want is to propose more taxes. And these taxes affect business...negatively.

Vermont is already the most taxed State in the nation and what has it got us?

More people leaving the State and fewer business startups.

Do you think these facts will deter State Legislators from raising taxes? Unlikely.

Do you think that these facts will encourage State Legislators to cut taxes on businesses? My God man, are you crazy?

No, instead they'll muddle along, and hope for Obama to save them.

Bernie and Peter have convinced the Legislators that we're going to get a Billion Dollars from the Feds.

Fat chance.

At some point the Vermont State Legislature has to take responsibility for the Economic Karma it has incurred upon this State: You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax.

They need to take an inventory: What have they subsidized and what have they taxed?

If they do that, perhaps a new direction might occur to them.

Pelosi makes the argument against Universal Healthcare

We all want affordable healthcare. We all would like to believe that our prospects for living as long as scientifically possible should be assured, by government if necessary.

We all know, consciously or unconsciously that like Freedom, healthcare isn't free.

Since we all know this, the question is, who pays?

Well, we know know that we pay. Whether we pay premiums out of pocket or we share the cost with an employer, or we in taxes, we pay.

So the only argument seems to be, who is most efficient at taking our money and delivering all the healthcare we are likely to need.

But this is not the fundamental argument for me. For me the fundamental argument is who controls my healthcare: me or the Government.

If the Government controls access to healthcare, they could decide that certain types of illnesses are not "cost-effective" to treat. We have seen examples of this in countries that have Universal healcare and in this regard I like to point out the Netherlands where it was decided by the Government there that certain types of births defects could result in "termination" of the infant against the will of the parents.

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12....

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

(emphasis mine)

Over the weekend, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave us a clue as to how things might work here if we ever adopted Universal Healthcare.

Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So to Nancy Pelosi children are a burden on the healcare system. Well, true, but so is everyone who requires healthcare services. In fact the longer you live the more of a burden you become.

And there is a school of thought that says that healthcare services should be prioritized by how likely an individual is going to be able to contribute to society.

And retired folks wouldn't pass such a test. Combine that with the stress on Social Security, it may very well become expedient for the Government to decide to withhold health care to retired people.

Or people who are mentally disabled.

Or people who just don't eat right.

Speaker Pelosi let slip a glimpse of how the dispensation of healthcare might go if and when Government ever controls healthcare in this country.

And your access would be especially vulnerable during times of economic stress.

Something gas to be done about controlling healthcare costs. But giving it to government is a conflict of interest on such a scale that it is unacceptable.

Capt. Greg Ambrosia

Although Army Capt. Greg Ambrosia’s tour at a secluded combat outpost in Afghanistan was somewhat primitive, with few luxuries and the bare essentials, his mission of counterinsurgency was quite complex. Ambrosia, executive officer of Company A, and his troops often found themselves patrolling the rugged Pech Valley and surrounding areas for days at a time with little contact with the rest of the world. However, on Sept. 25, 2007, they encountered a Taliban force that not only outnumbered but surrounded them.

Ambrosia and his men set up a makeshift outpost after a nighttime air assault into the valley. The troopers made contact with the enemy early the next morning, receiving a hail of rocket-propelled grenades and gunfire. But they couldn’t spot where exactly the attack was coming from, he said.

“We spotted an enemy scout and eventually made contact, but he was able to [disengage and communicate] our location to other fighters in the valley,” Ambrosia explained.

Ambrosia’s element had a translator monitoring the enemy communication with a basic one-way radio. After the initial contact, it was quiet for about 45 minutes. The interpreter continued to monitor the radio, and Ambrosia learned that the scout was coordinating with other enemy fighters in the area to launch an attack, he explained.

Soon there were at least three enemy elements with three to five fighters each closing in on the platoon. So close, in fact, they were in hand grenade range of his troops, he said.

“At one point, I started calling the vehicles in the valley to start shooting on our position, because the enemy was too close to call in artillery or mortar fire,” Ambrosia continued. “So we ended up having our guys shooting on our own position.”

Even though Ambrosia and his men maintained some safety behind a mound of rocks, the smoke from the mounted vehicle engulfed their position. He began call for aerial support from AH-64 Apache helicopters, he said.

Enemy radio traffic intercepted by Ambrosia’s interpreter let the paratroopers know the insurgents planned to overrun their position and take them hostage, but they were able to repel the attack, he said.

However, Ambrosia’s radio requests for Apaches to provide aerial support wouldn’t arrive for another 45 minutes, he added.

“That’s when it began to get really hairy,” he said. “The enemy was getting really close and using hand grenades.”

Ambrosia’s actions and direction of his men repelled the enemy fighters long enough for the helicopters to arrive. The modest captain said he doesn’t know exactly how many enemies were killed, but knows that two of his men were wounded. None were killed.

“I’m very thankful for that,” Ambrosia said.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen personally awarded Ambrosia the Silver Star in Korengal Outpost for his valor under fire after running into a hail of enemy gunfire to help save fallen comrades.

Excerpts from article by Army Staff Sgt. Michael J. Carden
American Forces Press Service - July 12, 2008

The New Defense Agenda and unilateralism

As President Obama officially took office, his strategy for defense and Middle East policy, was uploaded to www.whitehouse.gov. His agenda for items that concern the military and national security can be found within the agenda items regarding defense, Foreign Policy, and Iraq.

According to the agenda summarized by the DoD, the administration:

• supports the effort begun in 2007 to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000 to help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families;
• plans to create a Military Families Advisory Board to make senior policymakers and the public more aware of military families' concerns;
• plans to cease these mandatory extensions under "stop-loss";
• intends to create defense capabilities for the 21st century by fully equipping troops -- including members of the National Guard and reserves -- for their missions, and balancing conventional and counterinsurgency weapons systems;
• intends to build up special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that are in chronic short supply;
• invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets;
• create a more robust capacity to train, equip and advise foreign security forces.
• adhere to the status-of-forces agreement in Iraq
• add about 25,000 additional troops to Afghanistan over the next 12 to 18 months to suppliment the 32,000 American forces currently are deployed there.

Additionally

Both Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who replaced Donald H. Rumsfeld as then-President George W. Bush’s defense secretary and whom Obama has retained as Pentagon chief, have spoken about the need to push for stronger commitment from NATO allies in Afghanistan.

During a news conference last month in the Afghan capital of Kandahar, the secretary said that some NATO allies believe they and their Afghan counterparts are holding their own in some areas of fighting.

“But I think everybody would agree that holding your own isn't good enough,” Gates said. The Obama White House, meanwhile, said it “will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan [and] press our allies in NATO to do the same.”

“America's traditional alliances, such as NATO, must be transformed and strengthened, including on common security concerns like Afghanistan, homeland security, and counterterrorism,” the Web site states.

The plan gets a little dicy, though, when it the plan includes Europe.

Any attempt by Barack Obama to get European Union members of Nato to send more troops to Afghanistan will be strongly rebuffed by EU voters, according to a new opinion poll for the Financial Times.

As Mr Obama prepares to be sworn in as US president today, a Harris poll for the FT shows that clear majorities in the UK, France, Italy and Germany believe their governments must not send more forces to Afghanistan, irrespective of demands that the new American head of state might make.

It will be a real challenge for the new President to encourage Europe to fulfill their global military obligations. It has been thus since the end of WWII. In Kosovo, under Clinton, Europe begged us to do the heavy lifting and we did.

I predict that President Obama will find that it will take be more than "not Bush" to get Europeans to confront global threats militarily. Take the Germans

It’s 10 p.m. Do you know where the German Army is?

If it’s the few thousand social worker-servicemen in Afghanistan, they’re probably tucked securely into bed. That’s because German soldiers serving with the U.S. and other allies have a curfew, among other “national caveats” that prevent them from making a serious military contribution to the fight against the Taliban.

Chancellor Merkel is certainly better than her predecessor in showing solidarity with the U.S. She has silenced much of the carping criticism of American foreign policy; rapidly censured Russian aggression against Georgia this past summer; and offered important intelligence cooperation in the war against Islamofascism. And Germany has been surprisingly stalwart in standing by Israel in the ongoing fighting against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

But on crucial issues Germany still lags, especially by continuing to trade with the Iranians and especially in Afghanistan, where their obduracy is helping to jeopardize the fight against the Taliban and thereby bringing into question the very future of NATO.

I predict that President Obama will come to understand the nature of US exceptionalism and unilateralism: If the US doesn't do it, no one but our enemies will.

Perhaps President Obama will be more persuasive with regards to Europe than either Bush or Clinton could be.

We can hope...

Election season

On January 31st, the citizens of Iraq will "choose members of ruling councils in 14 of the 18 provinces on Jan. 31. More than 14,000 candidates are running for 444 council seats."

Political freedom is still a new thing in Iraq, and in fact throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Prior to the US invasion, politics was something decided for people, not by them. So these Provincial elections will be another step towards defining how Iraqis want Iraq to be. And the outcome is uncertain.

One thing that seems to be true is that a plurality of Iraqis do not want to mix religion with politics

Iraqi voters prefer secular candidates over those linked to religious groupings, according to an opinion poll published on Monday, less than two weeks before regional elections.

The government-sponsored National Media Centre survey showed 42 percent of eligible voters favour casting ballots for secular nominees, compared with 31 percent for religious politicians. The rest were undecided.

Of the 4,500 people questioned among various faiths and ethnic groups, 68 percent said they were against the use of religious symbols by candidates and parties standing for election.

The much venerated Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani wants people to vote, but he doesn't want them to pick a person solely on their religious beliefs

"The religious leadership stands an equal distance away from all candidates in these elections, but it stresses at the same time that voters must, after thorough checks and examination, choose those who are worthy of becoming members of provincial councils," he said.

He said worthy candidates must be efficient, honest and sincere.

Still, the outcome in this regard is uncertain

"I don't have any more faith in the religious parties," said Abu Moneim Tamimi, a manual laborer in the port city of Basra. "They haven't presented us anything we can grasp." He concedes, though, that those Islamic parties seem assured of dominating southern Iraq for years to come, deciding issues crucial to the country's future: the power of the government in Baghdad, the independence of the provinces, the influence of Iran and the question of whether the south, blessed by natural resources and plagued by factional conflict, can realize its ambition.

"There's no competition," boasted Khalid al-Jashani, the candidate of a religious party, as he sat in an office piled with campaign posters. "Here, we have no competition."

The Iranian surrogate troublemaker, Muqtada al-Sadr, is hopeful for a resurgence of his Party.

Followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr hope to win back their position as a major force in this month's regional elections after a string of military and political setbacks last year.

Even modest success in the Jan. 31 vote for ruling provincial councils could position the Sadrists as coalition partners in key southern provinces, where a large number of candidates makes it unlikely any single party can win on its own.

Anything short of that could relegate the once formidable al-Sadr to political irrelevance — something unthinkable a year ago when his fearsome Mahdi Army militia wielded vast power in Shiite areas of Iraq.

"This month's elections will decide who remains in the political arena and who will go into oblivion," said senior Sadrist lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie. "If we fail to do well, our movement could fragment, and some of its key figures could be lured away by rival blocs trying to destroy us."

One can only hope, but again, it is up to Iraqis to decide.

It seems that whatever the outcome, the vast majority of Iraqis intend to participate in shaping the political future of their country, if for varying reasons.

In the poll, more than 73 percent of those questioned said they expect to participate in the upcoming regional elections.

"Among the provinces Karbala had the highest would-be participation rate with around 85 percent and the lowest was in Najaf," another largely Shiite province, according to Ali Hadi Mohammed, director of the centre.

"Thirty percent of those who said that they would participate said that they are doing it as a national duty, 20 percent are doing it because they have candidates they trust and 19 percent said they will vote in the hope of improving the provincial councils' performances," he added.

But this is still a new Democracy. They have not yet completely replaced physical violence with rhetorical violence something we take for granted here when we complain about our nasty political campaigns: at least no one is getting killed in the process.

Still, two dead candidates in a field of 14 thousand is pretty good given Iraq's history, and the history of the Middle East. 

And they have George Bush, and the American people, to thank for this opportunity.

Capt. Brent Morel

Faced with continual enemy fire from more than 50 insurgents, Capt. Brent L. Morel - by all accounts a "Marine's Marine" - led an assault across an open field with a handful of Marines following closely behind.

Where most would be looking for cover, Morel's assault was aimed at saving others - not himself - according to battlefield accounts.

Consequently, Morel, a platoon commander with 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, posthumously received the Navy Cross - the Department of the Navy's second-highest award for combat valor May 21, 2005, during a ceremony that drew hundreds at the Marine Forces Reserve Training Center.

It was the second Navy Cross awarded in less than two months to a 1st Recon Bn. Marine for combat actions April 7, 2004, during the first offensive in Fallujah as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The two awards are among nine Navy Crosses awarded to U.S. servicemembers for heroism during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Morel's award was presented to his wife, Amy. "Although I would rather have him receive the award in person, I am glad to see that his brave actions did not go unnoticed," Amy said, clutching the medal in her hand.

Sgt. Willie L. Copeland III and several other Marines who fought alongside Morel that day were on hand for the presentation.

"That was the type of Marine Morel was - he led from the front," said Copeland, a team leader with 2nd Platoon, Company B, 1st Recon Bn, which Morel commanded. "He was a personal mentor of mine, so I was constantly trying to obtain knowledge from him any way I could."

Morel's self-sacrifice came as no surprise, Copeland said.
"No medal or award can make up for the loss of a good Marine, but as a recon Marine, (Morel) knew that his life was on the line every day - and he was always proud of it," Copeland added.

Although Morel, 27, of Martin, Tenn., had been in the recon community for only a short amount of time, he made his mark among an elite crowd, Copeland said.

The award honored a "man amongst giants," said Mike Morel, Brent's father.

Also during the ceremony -- held at Morel's very first unit after completing boot camp--- a life-like bronze bust of Morel in his helmet and protective vest was unveiled.

"The statue looked so real, right down to the scar he got while he was in boot camp," said Molly Morel, Brent's mother.

The statue will be placed in the library at Morel's alma mater, the University of Tennessee at Martin.

"The library is where me and my husband met, so it is only fitting that his statue be kept there to inspire those who pass it by," Amy said.

Excerpts from article by Lance Cpl. Miguel A. Carrasco Jr.,
MCB Camp Pendleton, May 21, 2005

Citation:
For extraordinary heroism as Platoon Commander, 2d Platoon, Company B, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Central Command in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM on 7 April 2004. Captain Morel's platoon escorted a convoy into the Al Anbar Province when 40 to 60 insurgents in well-fortified and concealed positions initiated an ambush. Witnessing a rocket-propelled grenade crippling his lead vehicle and while mortar and machine gun fire erupted, he ordered his remaining two vehicles to secure a flanking position. Captain Morel left his vehicle and led a determined assault across an open field and up a 10-foot berm, in order to maneuver into firing positions. The boldness of this first assault eliminated several insurgents at close range forcing their retreat. Observing his Marines pinned down from enemy fire, Captain Morel left the safety of his position and continued the assault, eliminating the enemy's attack. During this valiant act, he fell mortally wounded by a withering burst of enemy automatic weapons fire. By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, Captain Morel reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

When is a good time?

Universal Healthcare is the feel good issue du jour for the Economic Left. Here in Vermont, it has taken the form of Catamount Healthcare.

The goal of Catamount Healthcare is to get the number of Vermonters who are uninsured for healthcare down from 9.6% (which is where it was when the program started in 2007) to 4% by 2010.

Now there are many ways of doing Universal Healthcare and Vermont's version does not suffer from the problem that Hawaii had when it decided it couldn't afford it.

Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

Vermont requires that you have to take employer health insurance if they offer it and you have to be without private heathcare insurance for 12 consecutive months before you are eligible for the program.

And, to its credit, Vermont didn't fall victim to the failing of Massachusetts' attempt at Universal Healthcare either.

To much fanfare from both right and left in 2006, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to require all residents to buy health insurance. A new state health insurance clearinghouse was created, with taxpayers subsidizing those who couldn’t afford to buy coverage. Then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, promised that “every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance.” Yet just two years later, Romney’s much-heralded “solution” — touted by many as the model for a national program — has become an embarrassing flop.

Just a year after the universal coverage law passed, The New York Times reported, state insurers were already jacking up rates to twice the national average. According to Dr. Paul Hsieh, a physician and founding member of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, 43 mandatory benefits — including those that many people did not want or need, such as invitro fertilization — raised the costs of coverage for  Massachusetts residents by as much as 56 percent, depending upon an individual’s income status. So much for “affordable” health care.

Small businesses with more than 10 employees were required to provide health insurance or pay an extra fee to subsidize uninsured low-income residents, yet the overall costs of the program increased more than $400 million — 85 percent higher than original projections. To make up the difference, payments to health care providers were slashed, so many doctors and dentists in Massachusetts began refusing to take on new patients. In the state with the highest physician/patient ratio in the nation, some people now have to wait more than a year for a simple physical exam.

So good on them for that.

But, unfortunately, Catamount Healthcare isn't the Silver bullet either. For Catamount to work

It needs people on private insurance to pay the bills of the people who are otherwise "covered."  This is done through the magic of something called the "cost shift."

And the problem with that is obvious, especially in hard economic times: When people are losing their jobs, there are fewer people to "cost shift" with and more demands on services. Catamount Healthcare was under-funded to begin with, in order to keep the cost to the uninsured down, but in good times there's money to throw at it. Now, though, things are different.

A year ago lawmakers at the Statehouse wanted to expand Catamount Health, the state-sponsored insurance plan, but now many wonder if it will survive cuts to the state budget....

During this economic recession, programs like Catamount, which subsidizes the cost of insurance for some Vermonters, is needed more than ever, Maier said. Pushing people off the state program, he said, would only increase the number of uninsured patients in Vermont and would cost more in the long run. It would also be a major step backwards for a state known for its progressive health care initiatives.

But the only alternative is to raise taxes during a recession which pretty much everyone understands to be a bad idea. If cutting back on subsedized Healthcare coverage at a time when people can't afford it is the wrong time to cut back, when is the right time? When we can afford it?

Regardless of the problems, our Representative to the US House thinks Vermont's plan should be replicated Nationally.

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) hopes to use his new assignment to a key congressional committee both to advance Vermont’s interests and to introduce Vermont solutions to national legislation on energy, climate change and health-care reform.

Welch called his recent appointment to the House Energy and Commerce Committee “a win-win” for the state that gives Vermont “a seat at the table” in as Congress takes on major new challenges under the new presidential administration.

He said he hopes to make some Vermont initiatives — such as the Clean Energy Fund to promote transition to alternative energy sources, and Catamount Healthcare and the Blueprint for Health as steps toward universal coverage — templates for broader, federal legislation....

But the fact is, we do not have a viable model for Universal Healthcare yet. Hawaii's model doesn't work. Massachusetts model doesn't work and Vermont's model doesn't work.

It just goes to show that empirical evidence just does not affect some people.

Which is why Vermont never considers cutting taxes during a recession.

But it's always a good time to raise them.

Now it's complicated

As I pointed out before, no matter how much President-elect Obama wants to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, it's not as easy to do as it is to say. There is reason why it exists: people captured on a battlefield are not the same as people committing crimes in the US. And yet, they can be just as dangerous, if not more so, to the American people.

Mr Obama has clearly come to this conclusion as well.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close the camp. But in an interview on Sunday on ABC, he indicated that the process could take time, saying, “It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.” Closing it within the first 100 days of his administration, he said, would be “a challenge.”

In the face of criticisms from his Left "who said his remarks suggested that closing Guantánamo was not among the new administration’s highest priorities" once he becomes President he "plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba" which will mostly be a symbolic gesture.

Now, he has Senator Patrick Leahy covering for him, in a way that Leahy would never have considered doing for President Bush. But the situation hasn't changed, only the President has. In an interview today with NPR (it's near the end of the audio clip) Leahy said (and I'm paraphrasing slightly because there is no transcript):

Most will be easy to dispense with. We come down to a small core who one, we know they're very dangerous, we don't know how we came by the information and third other countries don't want them.

Well no kidding. This is precisely the argument Bush has made over and over again. And one which Senator leahy was never before receptive to. In June 2006 President Bush said

I'd like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous, and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. And the best way to handle -- in my judgment, handle these types of people is through our military courts. And that's why we're waiting on the Supreme Court to make a decision.

Part of closing Guantanamo is to send some folks back home, like we've been doing. And the State Department is in the process of encouraging countries to take the folks back. Of course, sometimes we get criticized for sending some people out of Guantanamo back to their home country because of the nature of the home country. It's a little bit of a Catch-22. But we're working through this.

No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends -- provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying to encourage other countries to adhere to. And my answer to them is, is that we are a nation of laws and rule of law. These people have been picked up off the battlefield and they're very dangerous. And so we have that balance between customary justice, the typical system, and one that will be done in the military courts. And that's what we're waiting for.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush, Leahy said

...the Supreme Court did the right thing in the detainee case upholding the great writ of habeas corpus," he insisted, to sustained applause. "When I heard the decision, I wondered 'Why do we have to have a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court to uphold habeas corpus in the United States?' It should be unanimous."

Of course, now that Guantanamo Bay is Obama and the Democrat's problem, the solution is not so obvious. Now Leahy says of Obama about Guantanamo

He has to be careful...

But that's not how he counseled President Bush.