The Cool Blue Blog

The Afghanistan Surge

Last week President Obama laid out his plan for dealing with the enemies fighting us in Afghanistan. And in general, I think it is a good plan. The major components are explained in the White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. The major points are as follows

Objectives:

• Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.
• Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal security, with limited international support.
• Developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.
• Assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunity for the people of Pakistan.
• Involving the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with an important leadership role for the UN.

Actions

• Executing and resourcing an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan
• Engaging the Afghan government and bolstering its legitimacy
• Reconciliation
• Engage NATO Allies
• Enabling Pakistan

Surging both military and civilian resources and closely coupling their activities is the right direction in which to move. So too is the attempt to peel off little "t" Taliban from capital "T" Taliban, though this has been an on-going effort for some time now. But its success in Iraq is proven.

Other parts are good as well, but problematic.

Convincing Europe to risk more blood and treasure, while desirable has not been met with much success in the past and is not likely to fare any better under Obama. We should keep trying but figure that, as always, we'll have to do the heavy lifting.

And Pakistan will be a tough nut to crack as well. We've been giving them cash now for almost a decade and they are still only lackluster allies. Additionally, the Pakistan card has to be played with a deft hand because 1) they are politically unstable, 2) that instability includes Islamists of the al Qaeda persuasion, and 3) they have nuclear missiles. Push too hard, and we could wake up some morning to a nuclear armed al Qaida. Don't push hard enough and al Qaeda continues to operate in the remote areas of the country.

In general, however, I think the plan is reasonable with a reasonable chance of success.

But I'm thinking two things: It's going to get bloodier before it gets better and we're going to need a bunch more troops.

President Obama is going to have some rough going maintaining support at home, but how he handles that will tell us what we need to know about the kind of leader he really is.

Slouching towards Fascism

President Obama tries to project the impression that he is guided by Lincoln, but the more he works his domestic agenda the more I am reminded of FDR.

Back in 1933, FDR, with the help of Congress, created the National Recovery Administration, which for some reason was referred to as the NRA.

As part of the "First New Deal", the NRA was based on the idea that the Great Depression was caused by market instability and that government intervention was necessary to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor. The NIRA, which created the NRA, declared that codes of fair competition should be developed through public hearings, and gave the Administration the power to develop voluntary agreements with industries regarding work hours, pay rates, and price fixing.^[2]

The NRA was put into operation by an executive order after the passage of the NIRA.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner addressed Congress with these words:

“Our system failed in fundamental ways,” Mr. Geithner told the House Financial Services Committee. “To address this will require comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”

The comprehensive reform Mr Geithner refers to would allow the government to monitor various industries that pose a "systemic" danger to the economy and step in if it deemed that the (private) company was about to fail.

What the criteria is for designating a (private) company "systemic" is unknown. So it could be anyone. What the criteria is for determining if said (private) company is in trouble, is unknown. It could be anything.

Yesterday, the CEO of General Motors was fired by the Obama Administration.

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

And today, the Obama Administration, by way of its Auto Industry Task Force, has begun dictating specific measures the companies must take in order to gain access to more Federal funds

Chrysler, which the administration believes cannot survive as a stand-alone company, must reach an agreement to partner with the Italian automaker, Fiat, in the next 30 days to become eligible for as much as $6 billion in additional federal loans.

GM, which has shed thousands of workers since the downturn began, must devise a leaner business plan that likely will cut the company workforce and product lines even more than officials had contemplated. It has 60 days to come up with a new approach.

The White House's insistence that Wagoner step down is an extraordinary intervention of the federal government into the management of a private company.

FDRs NRA was ultimately declared unconstitutional "because it attempted to regulate commerce that was not interstate in character, and that the codes represented a unacceptable delegation of power from the legislature to the executive."

But while it operated

The NRA negotiated specific sets of codes with leaders of the nation's major industries; the most important provisions were anti-deflationary floors below which no company would lower prices or wages, and agreements on maintaining employment and production. In a remarkably short time, the NRA won agreements from almost every major industry in the nation. Six months after the NRA went into effect, industrial production dropped twenty-five percent. According to some economists, the NRA increased the cost of doing business by forty percent.^[6]

While the Supreme Court objected to the NRA, Italy's Mussolini praised it because it was the embodiment of the Fascist Corporatism he had set up in his own country.

I've pointed out before that the definition of fascism is much more in line with the domestic agenda of the Obama Administration than is socialism.

Mussolini praised FDR and I suspect he is smiling on President Obama as well.

MSgt Jeffrey Wagner

A shy and reserved man with many talents who displays incredible calmness under fire --- that’s an accurate description for then-Tech. Sgt. Jeffrey Wagner. When his convoy was ambushed on main supply route Michigan between Fallujah and Habbaniyah, the Air Force non-commissioned officer remained composed but acted swiftly.

“I basically did what I was trained to do,” said Wagner. Insurgents had attacked with two Improvised Explosive Device detonations within meters of his vehicle and small arms fire from nearby fields.

“I stayed on the road, accelerated through the threat, and put our vehicle in a position where my gunner Tech. Sgt. Matthew Walter could engage and eliminate the hostilities,” he continued. His citation noted that his team and he then “provided suppressive fire to allow the assault team to neutralize the secondary threat.”

This was one of several incidents that Wagner was recognized for. His unending initiative and leadership were cornerstones for the establishment of a major operational base that was designed for U.S. military forces and Iraqi Army to jointly destroy insurgent forces. Wagner was not only in charge of a Coalition Military Assistance Training Team at the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq but also 220 Iraqi soldiers.

“Part of my job was to design a Base Defense Plan to protect more than 2,000 coalition personnel living on Camp Habbaniyah,” explained Wagner.

This plan included extraction of all U.S. military and Department of Defense contractor personnel in the event insurgent forces attempted to take over the base, according to Wagner. On May 6, 2006, he had an opportunity to put his plan to the test… a real test.

At 3:32 p.m. the base came under attack by enemy forces along multiple areas of the perimeter. Without concern for his own safety, he willingly placed himself in the line of fire, exposing himself to grave danger in order to assist in defending the southern perimeter of the base.

When asked about the success of the plan, he said, “Plans are only as good as the personnel performing them. I do have to say that during my time there, they [Iraqi Army] never allowed a perpetrator to penetrate the base perimeter.”

Wagner understood the Iraqi culture and boundaries; that helped him advise the Iraqi Army leadership on a security plan for the democratic elections. He also took control of an investigation that led to the recovery of 48 stolen weapons and the capture of two Iraqi Army thieves. For all of these actions, he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal.

“I definitely don’t think I am a ‘hero.’ There are other Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines more deserving of this honor. I just did my job, what I was trained for and what I was called on to do,” Wagner insists.

Scary numbers

So here's look at the fiscal discipline that President Obama promised us

Total Deficit or Surplus (Percentage of GDP)

A Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget and an Update of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook, March 2009

And here's a look at the President's budget in comparison to the deficits Bush ran up

 

The Heritage Foundation analyzes the numbers

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Bush was no fiscal conservative, that goes without saying. And the Republicans, when they controlled Congress started out fine, but got lost, fiscally, along the way.

And they paid a price for that.

And now we are paying the price for that by having voted in an even more fiscally irresponsible crew.

There is only one way to fix this fiasco and that is to send Congress packing in 2010. And if the new crop continues in this vain, send them packing as well.

Assuming we're not a third-world country by then.

The Mexican insurgency

In Mexico, things are pretty clearly out of control. And the meme infecting our country is that guns flow South while drugs flow North from Mexico.

And while it is true that some semi-automatic weapons do make their way from the US to Mexico, that doesn't account for this

Mexican drug cartels are now as heavily armed as America’s enemies during the Iraq war and are extending their bloody conflict into the United States, say security experts.

Law enforcement agencies in American cities close to the border with Mexico — including San Diego in California, and El Paso in Texas — are “gearing up” for street confrontations with the drug gangs, which are armed with rockets and grenades and have brought death and chaos south of the border.

I'm sorry, but you do not get a granade launchers and rockets from your local gun shop.

U.S. law enforcement officials say they detected the smuggling of grenades and other military-grade equipment into Mexico about a year and a half ago, and observed a sharp uptick in the use of the weapons about six months ago.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years, in contrast to 59 seized over the previous two years.

This stuff isn't coming from the US. So where is it coming from?

Most of these weapons are being smuggled through Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors focused on the smuggling of semiautomatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in U.S. border states.

Drug organizations appear to be taking advantage of a robust black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from wars the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

However, the impression that the Mexican drug insurgency is fueled by US guns can be used as a pretext to re-instituting the assault weapon ban.

The attorney general also suggested that re-instituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons would help reduce the bloodshed in Mexico, where last year 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence.

Increasingly, U.S. law enforcement officials see cartel violence spill into the United States, often as far away as Phoenix and Atlanta.

And while I do not agree with an assault weapons ban, if we want to reduce the spill-over of this insurgency into the US, I would support this

The Obama administration on Tuesday announced sharp increases in the number of federal agents and the use of high technology along the Mexican border, as part of a series of steps aimed as much at preventing violence from spilling into the United States as at stemming the flow of drugs and money....

Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, told reporters that she was still considering standby plans for the use of National Guard reserves. She said she would be discussing the issue Thursday with Governor Rick Perry of Texas....

The Homeland Security Department plans to double the size of both its border enforcement task forces and its violent criminal aliens teams; to triple the number of intelligence analysts along the southwest border, and to quadruple the number of border liaison officers working with Mexican law enforcement officials, the White House said.

But I do hope the Obama Administration is preparing for the possibility of Mexico becoming a failed state  of Mexican drug lords aligned with Islamists and sitting on our border.

The head of the U.S. National Guard Bureau said the link between terrorism and drug cartels along the United States' border with Mexico is increasingly clear.

Gen. Craig McKinley, chief of the National Guard Bureau, called the National Guard critical in helping protect the United States in the event of a terrorist attack and the growing threat of violent drug cartels operating along the Southwestern border with Mexico, the bureau reported.

McKinley, who addressed the National Guard's 2009 Domestic Operations Workshop, said the drug cartels in Latin America are clearly connected to organized criminal groups who support and funnel money to terrorist organizations.

It's a two way street.

What TARP buys

Yeah, people are upset over bonuses being paid to AIG employees.

Yeah, and bank bailout funds are buying new corporate jets over at CitiGroup.

Embattled bank JPMorgan Chase, the recipient of $25 billion in TARP funds, is going ahead with a $138 million plan to buy two new luxury corporate jets and build "the premiere corporate aircraft hangar on the eastern seaboard" to house them, ABC News has learned.

But what TARP funds is really buying is politicians.

Take Chris Dodd (please). He's the Senator who at first denied having anything to do with assuring that the AIG bonuses would get paid out, then remembered that he did indeed have something to do with it. All the while never mentioning that he was the single biggest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG, not to mention other government fund recipients

As a ranking member of the all-important U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs between 2003 and 2008, Dodd accepted donations from the nearly defunct insurance giant American International Group totaling nearly $225,000. In 2008, while we looked to him to represent our best interests, he received $157,194 from a now-quasi-nationalized Citigroup Inc., part of his total annual take of $854,200 from all TARP recipients, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Sweet, huh?

But he's not the only one.

In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOP Whip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG "counterparty." "This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions," says Brett Kappel, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much reporting like this gets done, it's still all "under cover". The House last week got all outraged over the bonus money they approved only after it became a big story. And they made a big show of taking it back. But that won't really happen (and shouldn't). Their outrage is just for show.

And the Democratic Leadership's vow to not take campaign funds from TARP recipients is likewise just for show.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Financial Services chair Rep. Barney Frank both said recently they won't take donations from TARP recipients. But House Democratic fundraisers have quietly passed the word that the party's campaign committee will resume accepting them—but down the road, not right now.

And their feigned disbelief that it is even possible that they were bought is contemptuous.

Gov. Paterson stuck to his guns Saturday, insisting he knew nothing about a $100,000 donation from AIG to the state Democratic Party days before his office helped save the insurance giant.

State Republicans charged the Democrats with stonewalling an investigation into the Aug. 29 donation, uncovered last week by The Associated Press.

So what is all this government bailout money buying? An incompetent political class that hopes to stay in power right up until the day they bankrupt the country. Then they'll all go and retire somewhere else.

Well, that's hope and change for ya.

The question is, are people getting what they wanted? Not according to this.

But the electorate is fickle and sometimes they say one thing but really mean something else.

I suppose we'll get out first indication in 2010.

Or are we getting it already? Hard to say, because given the lack of media coverage, this is still an underground movement.

Just like campaign donations by TARP recipients to the folks who dole out the cash....

SFC Ed Malone

Currently, one of the primary tasks for Army Sergeant First Class Ed Malone is mentoring young cadets who come from backgrounds where the military and its challenges are unfamiliar to them. Four years ago on June 25, 2005, he was mentoring as well – but under fire.

Malone used his tactical prowess and aggression to keep his platoon and some Iraqi Security Forces members alive despite his own injuries.

The 3rd Platoon, Grim Troop, 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, was conducting a joint combat patrol with the Iraqi Army in the extremely hostile Surai district of Tal’Afar, Iraq, when Malone’s dismounted patrol came under withering enemy machine gun fire, RPG fire and hand grenades.

According to Malone, the mission was “in support of an initiative to make the Iraqi Security Forces more visible to the local populace.”

Following an attack initiated by the enemy and without immediate direct fire support from his Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Malone ordered his men to establish a defensive posture and return fire. He directed his grenadier to take out several targets firing from a rooftop, resulting in the battle’s first enemy casualties. During the firefight and without regard for his own safety, Malone repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire.

First, to retrieve a piece of equipment that was accidently dropped by one of his Soldiers in the enemy’s kill zone, then to evacuate women and children caught in the crossfire between hostile and friendly forces, and then again to drag one of his severely wounded non-commissioned officers out of the line of fire and into cover. According to the Bronze Star Medal with Valor narration, Malone’s actions resulted in the speedy medical evacuation of the wounded Soldier, which ultimately saved his life.

“Our primary objective was to ensure the Iraqi Security Forces continued to develop into a well-trained and aggressive combat ready force who would adopt a more offensive rather than defensive posture.”

Refusing to give up ground until reinforcements arrived, he and his team successfully held the position for over an hour while pinned down by heavy machine gun and enemy sniper fire. They deployed hand grenades and laid down suppressive fire to counter the insurgents’ assault.

Malone spotted automatic weapons fire coming from a house. When Iraqi Army Soldiers refused to assist, Malone led a three-man assault team toward the objective by clearing the courtyard with a grenade upon entry. The blast wounded an enemy insurgent, whom Malone immediately began administering first aid to, while his Soldiers uncovered large amounts of various explosives and munitions.

Once a foothold was established, Malone and two of his Soldiers moved to secure the rooftop to fend off enemy insurgents moving in on their location.

As Malone and his men were leaving the strike zone, Malone suffered a gunshot wound to the foot while trying to protect the wounded enemy combatant under his care.

Risking his life to save an enemy, Malone explained, “As per the laws of warfare outlined in the Geneva Conventions, once an enemy combatant is captured, it is our responsibility to provide care and protection as we would like the same treatment if the roles were reversed.”

Malone’s unmatched example of courage and selfless service inspire every Trooper in the Regiment, according to the Bronze Star citation.

Malone concluded, “one of the Soldiers who helped save my life and provide initial treatment after I got hit was Specialist Hoby F. Bradfield Jr. I’ve known him since he was first assigned to my platoon as a private. He was killed on July 9, 2005, in another heavy firefight my platoon was involved in. In never saw him again after the day I was wounded. I never had the opportunity to personally thank him for helping to save my life.

Breaking faith

Just last Monday, on March 16th, the President gave encouraging remarks regarding Veteran's Affairs

You know, 20 years ago, on the day the Veterans Administration was officially elevated to a Cabinet-level agency and renamed the Department of Veterans Affairs, a ceremony was held to swear in the administrator of the old entity as Secretary of the new one.  And in his remarks that day, President George H.W. Bush declared that the mission of this agency is "so vital that there's only one place for the veterans of America:  in the Cabinet Room, at the table with the President of the United States of America."  I could not agree more....

I intend to start that work by making good on my pledge to transform the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 21st century.  That's an effort that, under Secretary Shinseki's leadership, all of you have already begun -- conducting a thorough review of your operations all across this agency.  And I intend to support this effort not just with words of encouragement, but with resources.  That's why the budget I sent to Congress increases funding for this department by $25 billion over the next five years.

With this budget, we don't just fully fund our VA health care program -- we expand it to serve an additional 500,000 veterans by 2013; to provide better health care in more places; and to dramatically improve services related to mental health and injuries like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly obvious that what the President says and what he does are two completely different things. Regardless of what the President said, he does not plan to expand and improve care Veterans with combat-related injuries. No, his plan is to out-source their care.

The proposal -- intended to save the Department of Veterans Affairs $530 million a year -- would authorize the VA to bill private insurance companies for treatment of injuries and medical conditions related to military service, such as amputations, post-traumatic stress syndrome and other battle-related conditions. The VA already pursues so-called third-party billing for non-service-related conditions.

Veterans groups said the change would abrogate the government's responsibility to care for the war-wounded. And they expressed concern that the new policy would make employers less willing to hire veterans for fear of the cost of insuring them, and that insurance benefits for veterans' families would also be jeopardized.

One of the problems with this approach was expressed succinctly by the Editorial staff of the Buffalo News

Even if veterans aren’t expected to come up with any copays or other out-of-pocket expenses for their service-related needs, charging any of those considerable costs to the insurance plans they buy themselves or get through their post-military employment stands to quickly eat up whatever coverage limits they may have. That could mean that they, and their dependents, would have little or no coverage for their next, non-military, medical bill.

But it is not just the editorial staff of the Buffalo News that is opposed to this; every Veterans Organization out there thinks it stinks and they expressed that opinion to the President in a meeting on Monday after the President's remarks.

Like the Veterans of Foreign Wars

"Charging wounded and service-connected disabled veterans for their VA healthcare breaks a sacred trust that this nation has with her veterans," said [Glen M. Gardner Jr leader of the VFW], who fears that the initiative could lead to higher insurance premiums, as well as make it more difficult for veterans and their families to obtain or retain private health insurance. He said it could also discourage civilian employers from hiring disabled veterans...

Gardner, a Vietnam veteran from Round Rock, Texas, is greatful for the president's willingness to sit down and address the issue face-to-face, but he said after yesterday's meeting that "the VFW still believes that the proposal is clearly the wrong thing to do."

The VFW national commander voiced the VFW's opposition to the third-party collection proposal in meetings today with congressional leadership, and will again tomorrow in testimony before a joint House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.

And the American Legion

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

In a letter to the President, the leaders of The American Legion, AMVETS (American Veterans), Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A., Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. expressed their disapproval

On behalf of the millions of veterans represented by the veterans and military service organizations that have joined our effort, we write to express our serious concerns about a policy proposal that has been discussed this week in conjunction with the release of your first budget. We have been told that your Administration may be considering a proposal that would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system to bill a veteran’s insurance for the care and treatment of a disability or injury that was determined to have been incurred in or the result of the veteran’s honorable military service to our country. Such a consideration is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government’s moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms.
As you know, the mission of the VA is “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” Similarly, the VA emphasizes that it will “provide veterans the world-class benefits and services they have earned—and to do so by adhering to the highest standards of compassion, commitment, excellence, professionalism, integrity, accountability, and stewardship.” Unfortunately, the proposal to bill veterans for the care of their service-connected disabilities ignores the most important aspect of this vision—that their care has been earned.

This proposal ignores the solemn obligation that this country has to care for those men and women who have served this country with distinction and were left with the wounds and scars of that service. The blood spilled in service for this nation is the premium that service-connected veterans have paid for their earned care.

We understand and accept that the VA bills third-party insurers of veterans who are treated for non-service connected conditions. However, we cannot and would not agree to any proposal that would expand this concept any further. There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.

There is a reason why we leave no one behind on the battlefield. Why the military goes to great risk and expense to rescue a single airman shot down behind enemy lines even though it might cost the lives of some or all of the rescuers.

We do this because when we ask the men or women of our armed forces to do the dangerous mission, they have to know they will not be abandoned when they get in trouble if it is humanly possible to bring them back alive.

What the President is proposing is a fundamental breach of that rule of war and is no different than abandoning service member in combat or failing to rescue that downed airman because it is too costly to extract him.

Sorry. That may be how it works in Chicago.

But that's not how it works in America.

When criticizing Gitmo isn't enough

President Obama famously vowed to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Section 3 of the Executive Order mandating its closing states:

The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

His plan to do this included various European nations, you know the one's who criticized Bush for the existence of Camp X-Ray, to take some of these. A meeting was held yesterday on just that subject.

But faced with the prospect of actually having to do something other than criticize, they balked.

Two top EU officials held talks in Washington on whether to take in scores of inmates from the Guantanamo Bay military jail which the US administration aims to close in the coming months.

However, after meeting with top US officials including Attorney General Eric Holder, the Europeans stressed they were here to listen but not take any decisions about whether or not to take in any detainees from the controversial "war on terror" prison....

"We had a mandate not to negotiate but to receive, to get information," Langer told reporters after the talks, adding that "this is an American problem" and "the speed of the process is in the Americans' hands."

But why are they so reluctant? I mean these are just folks who were mistakenly picked up on the battlefield. Right?

Well, let's see:

Barrot said European countries would await answers from Washington on how it intends to avoid a repeat of the Guantanamo situation, with inmates languishing for years without charge amid accusation of harsh treatment and interrogation methods.

Um. How is this germane to the subject at hand?

Any such accord would have to lay out "the principles that drive the anti-terror policy and explain the change of disposition" in terms of US plans regarding detention and interrogation, Barrot said.

Come on. Just stop. Why does future detainment policy impact the folks who have been "languishing for years without charge amid accusation of harsh treatment and interrogation methods"?

"There is a very deep wariness on the part of EU interior ministers, who are concerned about the difficulties of hosting one or another inmate. To do that, we need to know a lot about the candidates," Barrot told AFP last week.

Ah, now we get down to it. They want to know if they are dangerous or not.

So what? They won't take dangerous terrorists just the nice terrorists? It seems so. According to Bloomberg

European Union nations want “total transparency” and “maximum information” about Guantanamo Bay detainees before accepting any for resettlement after their release, EU officials told the Obama administration.

During talks with the Obama administration yesterday, EU representatives said they presented a list of questions about U.S. plans to close Guantanamo and conduct individual reviews of the more than 240 detainees held at the prison camp in Cuba. President Barack Obama directed the reviews on Jan. 22 when he ordered Guantanamo closed within a year...

“We need to have all of the information before we can come to a conclusion” about accepting detainees, Jacques Barrot, vice president of the European Commission, told reporters in Washington.

Because the EU has no internal borders, information about each detainee the U.S. seeks to resettle must be shared with all 27 member states, the officials said. “There is one condition: maximum information,” said Ivan Langer, interior minister of the Czech Republic and president of the European council of interior ministers.

You know what? I don't think Europe is going to help with this as much as the President thought they would. But that's just my guess.

Good thing that the result of the review the President ordered, the Guantanamo Bay facility was judged to be within the guidelines set forth by the Geneva Conventions because I'm thinking President Obama is going to have to keep the place open a little longer than he anticipated.

And he going to need a place to send those he deems dangerous in the future, as well.

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

Assuming he doesn't kill them all first, which I admit, would be preferable.

The China grovel

On March 8, the USNS Impeccable, a sea floor survey ship with a civilian crew, was accosted by five Chinese Naval vessels while on station 120 kilometers of China's shore; 118 kilometers from it's territorial waters but within China's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The EEZ owner can control who fishes there, and extracts natural resources (mostly oil and gas) from the ocean floor. But the EEZ owner cannot prohibit free passage, or the laying of pipelines and communications cables.

Clearly, the USNS Impeccable was within it rights to do what it was doing right where it was. China calimed the Impeccable was spying since it is capable of detecting Chinese submarines operating there.

President Obama was not about to cede the point. On March 15th, the US Navy dispatched a US Navy Destroyer to escort the Imeccable while it completes its mission.

China responded by sending a patrol boat of its own.

In 2001, China tested the new President Bush by forcing a US Spy Plane down and into Chinese custody. But something is different now.

China is financing the USs economic recovery, so they have leverage.

And they seem to want us to know that they can pull the plug at any time.

Premier Wen Jiabao's message is unlikely to be misunderstood at the White House. It is counting on Beijing to help pay for its stimulus package by buying U.S. bonds. China already is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, with an estimated $1 trillion in U.S. government debt. A weaker dollar would erode the value of those assets.

"Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said at a news conference Friday after the closing of China's annual legislative session. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."

But what if China did decide to sell US Treasuries?

“The fear is not totally unfounded. Foreigners own a little more than half of publicly held U.S. government securities, according to the Treasury Department. So if these foreigners - both central banks and private investors - woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decided to give the Treasury portfolio the old heave-ho ... well, you can begin to understand the basis for the recurrent nightmare.

“‘When people say, What happens when foreigners dump U.S. securities, I say, Tell me why,’ says Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research in Chicago. ‘It's never happened before’ on a long-term basis…
“The latest bout of flu-like symptoms was triggered by news earlier this year that the People's Bank of China was setting up an investment vehicle to diversify its $1.2 trillion of dollars…

That was from 2007. But today when Jim Bianco asks "Tell me why?" I say because they could take out the US as a Global Power, that's why.

Now it is true that China and the US are co-dependent economically. But what if China ever does a cost-benefit analysis and decides that by "goinging nuclear" they could recover faster and better than we could.

Would that change the calculus?

But the question is have Congress and the President have put us in a position where China could threaten and we would have to accede to their demands because we can't afford to call their bluff?

And that, it seems to me, is just as dangerous...