Singin' bout "Obama Care"

Sometimes a country-western song sez it best! Enjoy!

---

Erasing the 4th Amendment

Congress must think that since it is the Christmas Holiday period and the media has been fixated on cheering on the health care "reform" disaster that citizens are no longer paying attention to what is happening in Washington, DC. Not so. Normally, there is no time more dangerous to American's liberty than when Congress is in session. But President Obama changed that calculus as evidenced when he amended Executive Order 12425. When he did that, it effectively served as an "end-around" the US Constitution. I wrote about it yesterday, here and the story is starting to get attention elsewhere. Today, a newspaper picked up the story with "Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S."

With the President's signature amending Executive Order 12425, he handed over US sovereignty to an international organization full of people who detest America and everything she stands for. Worse, it canceled the 4th Amendment in the US Constitution and cancels the guarantees of due process under American laws.

This cannot be allowed to stand. In a government system with supposed “checks and balance” there are only two ways to overcome what President Obama just did. The Supreme Court can rule is unconstitutional when a case involving it is presented some time in the future. Or, Congress can legislate a fix. We need to inundate Congress with communications about this latest attempt by the President to subvert the US Constitution and insist that even thought members of Congress might not understand how serious this is, citizens do.

Here is what I wrote my members of Congress and Senators. I suggest you put together your version and make sure they understand that President Obama's latest action cannot be allowed to stand.

I was outraged to read of President Obama canceling the 4th Amendment and handing over US sovereignty with his recent amending of Executive Order 12425.

Legislative action is necessary now to fix this excess by the executive branch. Between this nutty health care "reform", cap n' trade, stimulus package, and now this end run on the US Constitution, there are lots of people reaching their limit on how much more they will tolerate from Washington DC.

Stand up Congressman, add your voice to your constituents who demand a return to the principles the republic our founders established, and refuse to accept this nanny state progressive democracy that is being forced down our throats.

When Government Lies to our Warriors

"Pentagon limits law's pledge to its wounded veterans" should be titled when our government lies to our warriors.

Some things never change.

Connecting Dots of the AQAP attack over Detroit

Not long after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s PETN-fueled gonad fire was extinguished, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed credit for the Christmas Day attack on Northwest Airlines flight 253 over Detroit. The Yemeni-based jihadist group praised “brother” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, describing the attack as “heroic” in a statement posted on a jihadist Web site.

While the media and the administration are nearly hysterical that a node of al Qaeda node is targeting airliners flying into the US, one has to put this into perspective. First off, two former Gitmo detainees, Said Ali Al Shihri (Prisoner #372) and Mohammad Al Awfi (Prisoner #333) have risen to positions of leadership since rejoining AQAP. While some will say this is “payback,” and it might be, what it is for sure is a fascination with striking at US targets. In this case though, the AQAP claimed the attack over Detroit was a response to U.S.-backed airstrikes against the group in Yemen. At a minimum, this recidivism into terrorism ought to cause the administration to reevaluate the previous policy of releasing anyone else held at Gitmo.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said there was "no indication" the incident was connected to a larger plot, there were increasing signs Monday that the failed bombing may have represented one of the most serious terrorist threats in the United States since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to, “Al-Qaida in Arabian Peninsula claims responsibility for bomb attempt.” This all, despite clear linkages between AQAP and the attacks at Ft. Hood. There is little wonder that some have called for the DHS Secretary to be lobotomized before she says anything else “really, really” stupid!

In a statement reminiscent of Bill Clinton and George Bush, President Barack Obama declared that authorities "will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable."On that, I have some advice.

Hey, President Obama … check out the AQAP leadership that the Bush administration released from Gitmo and you will find those folks. Take a note … your administration is following the same misguided path as your predecessor whom you chastised so thoroughly.

See a pattern here? You should, and it does not make me at least feel the least bit safer that my federal government is looking our for our security. While you are thinking about it, tell me one more time why you want to move the worst of the worst from Gitmo to Illinois and New York City for civilian trials??

So who is AQAP? It is a group of terrorists that have shown the capacity to plan and execute innovative and fairly complex tactical operations in recent months. Let’s face it, their “butt bomber” attack against Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nayef showed how capable they are of thinking “outside the box.” Nevertheless, that attack, like the one over Detroit was a dismal failure. About the only successful kills they have been able to pull off are suicide bombings directed against tourists in Yemen’s remote areas.

STRATFOR says of AQAP:

AQAP started as al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Its objective was to destabilize the Saudi government as part of al Qaeda’s larger strategic goal of creating an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East. After Riyadh cracked down on jihadists beginning in 2004, the group lost most of its ability to operate in Saudi Arabia. By January 2009, the remnants of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia were forced to relocate to Yemen, where they joined forces with al Qaeda in Yemen. This new group, AQAP, continued to pursue the goal of destabilizing the Saudi government, but it now faced the challenge of being hunted and the additional challenge of attempting to destabilize a government from which it was geographically isolated.

“Although the group had maintained this ‘think big’ mentality, they have lacked charismatic, strategic leaders.”

It looks like at long last the AQAP may have found the leaders STRATFOR says have been missing. To the credit of US anti-terrorists efforts in the region, it appears AQAP leadership may have been the targets of the military strikes in Yemen on Dec. 17 and 24. How sweet it would be if they decapitated the head of this hydra in Yemen.

Why Did Obama Surrender US Sovereignty?

The story started small, and if the administration has it's way it will go away fast. If the MSNBC's of the world have their way, it will be a story that always ends up spiked - it will never see the light of day. Yet it's a huge story that cannot be allowed to get buried and the facts are just now emerging in the blogosphere. It represents a classic example of how our liberty is being whittled away right in front of us and we are letting it happen.

Yet, thanks to "Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?" more and more are asking, in the blogosphere at least, "WTF just happened? The answer ain't pretty. President Obama just signed executive order 12425 which effectively cedes US sovereignty to the international community and ends the protections of the Bill of Rights. When Obama signed that, he removed the limitations imposed by President Reagan that insured the rights in the US Constitution pertained to a curious piece of legislation, International Organizations Immunities Act that was enacted in 1945.

The impact of Obama's executive order 12425 is explained in, "Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?" It is quite clear that the Obama administration plans to put the US under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). That would effectively remove the protections of the Bill of Rights and place all US citizens under the whims of the progressive statists what make up the ICC. How long will it be before ICC warrants are issued for the principals of the Bush administration is the only question remaining? That way, the progressive socialist wing of the Democratic party gets to use the ICC as its proxy to "get justice" for US foreign policy 2000-2008.

As pointed out in, "Obama Surrenders U.S. Sovereignty: His INTERPOL Executive Order," this puts us on a slippery slope of allowing international law to be used for political gain. How long before US service members are investigated and charged by INTERPOL for say a Predator attack in Pakistan or splitting the lip of a captured terrorist? Now, with executive order 12425, that time has arrived when it is all possible.

Ask your Senators and Representatives if they plan to acquiesce to this abrogation of the US Constitution by President Obama? I will be asking mine.

Al Qaeda & PETN over Detroit

Innovation again, but certainly a lack of imagination! This time al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) reportedly placed 2.8 oz of PETN in the Nigerian's underwear on Northwest flight #253 going to Detroit from Holland. It was a variation on Reid's tennis shoe bomb and the August "butt bomb" attack in Saudi Arabia.

I continue to remain perplexed by the al Qaeda fascination with bringing down airliners, particularly in view of there being so many soft infrastructure targets available that can kill so many more and have a much greater economic impact. The AQAP does seem to recognize that passengers will not allow another 9/11 type attack, and now seem determined to use a suicide bomber instead to down the aircraft.

Despite the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's dumb claim in the immediate aftermath that "the traveling public is safe" and "the system worked," the real bottom line is that we had simply been lucky to avert this attack. Someone was looking out for that flight that Christmas day. Yet, as pointed out in, "Re-Learning the Lessons from the Thwarted Detroit Airline Bombing," we seem to keep forgetting there are a bunch of Islamic nutjobs who want to kill us for not being like they are. It's a basic reason that replacing Napolitano is long overdue.

This video shows just how powerful a minuscule amount of PETN can be. Reportedly the Nigerian also had a liquid glycol-based explosive stored in a syringe. It is suspected in his last trip to the lavatory, he injected it into the PETN. Unclear, is whether the device was intended to detonate due to a chemical reaction of the two compounds or if there was another type of detonator involved, like the nonmetallic triacetone triperoxide (TATP) detonator used in Richard Reid’s shoe bomb device.

Make no mistake, a successful PETN detonation could have brought down that flight on final into Detroit. Investigation will reveal that it was no accident that the wanna be suicide bomber was seated above the Airbus fuel cells and adjacent to a structural bulkhead.

While some in the media suggest that attacks like this are amateurish, they do so out of ignorance. What we are seeing is a continuously adaptive attacker who analyzes their past failures, looks for weaknesses, conducts reconnaissance and rehearsals of the attacks. They adjust the attack plan for what they learn, and then conducts a dress rehearsal of the planned attack. I have no doubt that another AQAP operative had already flown this route, before launching Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to conduct the actual attack.

One has only to think back to the recent loss of Air France Flight 447 on June 1, 2009 to realize how difficult it is to determine why an aircraft disappears. That is why I suspect this attack was not planned to occur over Detroit, but over the Atlantic. It is why "locking down" passengers into their seats for the last hour before landing is ludicrous.

Did the attacker lose his nerve, and then rush the execution of the attack and make mistakes? I suspect so. Had the bomb worked over Detroit, eventually the investigation would have unraveled it all. But, put a airliner deep under the Atlantic, and solving it all become problematic.

Billboard Advocating US Revolution?

The picture of this billboard was sent to me in an e-mail. Does it reflect a growing resentment toward the increased statism of our government? Or, is is simply like the billboards I used to see as a kid that said "Impeach Earl Warren?"

I had no idea who Earl Warren was then. But I do know what we have now. It is a federal government run amok, spending our grandchildren's legacy, one that has mislead it's citizens about Social Security and now in the process of doing it again in order to "reform" health care.

I suppose if I knew nothing about macroeconomics I would worry not a bit about tomorrow or the monetary system we leave to our children. But now, knowing my future and my fiscal health in in the hands of the Chinese government who have bought our debt, it is impossible not to be very concerned.

Never has there been a time more critical in our nation to go to ballot boxes and elect American who understand the US Constitution, understand the limits of Federalism and are eager to return property rights, individual freedoms and liberty to the citizens of this nation. Term limits and elimination of professional politicians should follow, along with repudiation of the horrific mistake of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Let us flush this cancer of democracy now and return to the republic we once were. 

STRATFOR on Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan have proved to be three boils on the backside of the planet. Unfortunately, as we were reminded by the aborted attack on a US airliner on Christmas day, we ignore what happens there at our risk. This perspective from STRATFOR is always interesting to hear.

---

Drunk with Power in the Senate?

Drunk on the floor of the Senate? It sure looks and sounds that way in the video below. But, it may be the long hours ... right?

Yet, I keep wondering, how do the Democrats rationalize this health care "reform" when the polls clearly show the public does not want it and will likely end the Democratic lock in Congress? Why?

Is what we're seeing a mandated egalitarianism that proved to be such a failure in the USSR? Some think this concept of egalitarianism is the underpinning of many of the Obama administration’s recent policy initiatives. If true, we can finally see that Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted. In fact, he is not even simply a modern liberal, as charged. Instead he is a statist.

The president and his ilk, along with this Democratically controlled Congress, explained one author,

". . . believe that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves."

In fact they promise us "better" lives. But there is a problem with language as George Orwell pointed out in his novel "1984." Now "better" means "fairer," or more "equal."

Equality will take on a whole new connotation. While we may "make" different amounts of money, we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

(Mao and Che would be so proud!)

---

Talking Thru the Double Tap

Dad talks daughter through the fine art of the double tap. It's harder than it looks!

While the "Double Tap" has mostly been attributed to Charlie Beckworth, the article, "The Art of the Double Tap" explains it has been around a lot longer than that.

(Face redacted to protect her privacy.)

2009 Top Ten - Definitely an alternative listing.

Burial at Sea

Burial at Sea
by LtCol George Goodson, USMC (Ret)

In my 76th year, the events of my life appear to me, from time to time, as a series of vignettes. Some were significant; most were trivial.

War is the seminal event in the life of everyone that has endured it. Though I fought in Korea and the Dominican Republic and was wounded there, Vietnam was my war.

Now 42 years have passed and, thankfully, I rarely think of those days in Cambodia, Laos, and the panhandle of North Vietnam where small teams of Americans and Montangards fought much larger elements of the North Vietnamese Army. Instead I see vignettes: some exotic, some mundane:

*The smell of Nuc Mam.
*The heat, dust, and humidity.
*The blue exhaust of cycles clogging the streets.
*Elephants moving silently through the tall grass.
*Hard eyes behind the servile smiles of the villagers.
*Standing on a mountain in Laos and hearing a tiger roar.
*A young girl squeezing my hand as my medic delivered her baby.
*The flowing Ao Dais of the young women biking down Tran Hung Dao.
*My two years as Casualty Notification Officer in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.

It was late 1967. I had just returned after 18 months in Vietnam. Casualties were increasing. I moved my family from Indianapolis to Norfolk, rented a house, enrolled my children in their fifth or sixth new school, and bought a second car.

A week later, I put on my uniform and drove 10 miles to Little Creek, Virginia. I hesitated before entering my new office. Appearance is important to career Marines. I was no longer, if ever, a poster Marine. I had returned from my third tour in Vietnam only 30 days before. At 5'9", I now weighed 128 pounds - 37 pounds below my normal weight. My uniforms fit ludicrously, my skin was yellow from malaria medication, and I think I had a twitch or two.

I straightened my shoulders, walked into the office, looked at the nameplate on a Staff Sergeant's desk and said, "Sergeant Jolly, I'm Lieutenant Colonel Goodson. Here are my orders and my Qualification Jacket."

Sergeant Jolly stood, looked carefully at me, took my orders, stuck out his hand; we shook and he asked, "How long were you there, Colonel?" I replied "18 months this time." Jolly breathed, you must be a slow learner Colonel." I smiled.

Jolly said, "Colonel, I'll show you to your office and bring in the Sergeant Major. I said, "No, let's just go straight to his office." Jolly nodded, hesitated, and lowered his voice, "Colonel, the Sergeant Major. He's been in this job two years. He's packed pretty tight. I'm worried about him." I nodded.

Jolly escorted me into the Sergeant Major's office. "Sergeant Major, this is Colonel Goodson, the new Commanding Office. The Sergeant Major stood, extended his hand and said, "Good to see you again, Colonel." I responded, "Hello Walt, how are you?" Jolly looked at me, raised an eyebrow, walked out, and closed the door.

I sat down with the Sergeant Major. We had the obligatory cup of coffee and talked about mutual acquaintances. Walt's stress was palpable. Finally, I said, "Walt, what's the h-ll's wrong?" He turned his chair, looked out the window and said, "George, you're going to wish you were back in Nam before you leave here. I've been in the Marine Corps since 1939. I was in the Pacific 36 months, Korea for 14 months, and Vietnam for 12 months.. Now I come here to bury these kids. I'm putting my letter in. I can't take it anymore." I said, "OK Walt. If that's what you want, I'll endorse your request for retirement and do what I can to push it through Headquarters Marine Corps."

Sergeant Major Walt Xxxxx retired 12 weeks later. He had been a good Marine for 28 years, but he had seen too much death and too much suffering. He was used up.

Over the next 16 months, I made 28 death notifications, conducted 28 military funerals, and made 30 notifications to the families of Marines that were severely wounded or missing in action. Most of the details of those casualty notifications have now, thankfully, faded from memory. Four, however, remain.

MY FIRST NOTIFICATION

My third or fourth day in Norfolk, I was notified of the death of a 19 year old Marine. This notification came by telephone from Headquarters Marine Corps. The information detailed:

*Name, rank, and serial number.
*Name, address, and phone number of next of kin.
*Date of and limited details about the Marine's death.
*Approximate date the body would arrive at the Norfolk Naval Air Station.
*A strong recommendation on whether the casket should be opened or closed.

The boy's family lived over the border in North Carolina, about 60 miles away.. I drove there in a Marine Corps staff car. Crossing the state line into North Carolina, I stopped at a small country store / service station / Post Office. I went in to ask directions.

Three people were in the store. A man and woman approached the small Post Office window. The man held a package. The Storeowner walked up and addressed them by name, "Hello John. Good morning Mrs. Cooper."

I was stunned. My casualty's next-of-kin's name was John Cooper!

I hesitated, then stepped forward and said, "I beg your pardon. Are you Mr. and Mrs. John Cooper of (address.)

The father looked at me-I was in uniform - and then, shaking, bent at the waist, he vomited. His wife looked horrified at him and then at me. Understanding came into her eyes and she collapsed in slow motion. I think I caught her before she hit the floor.

The owner took a bottle of whiskey out of a drawer and handed it to Mr. Cooper who drank. I answered their questions for a few minutes. Then I drove them home in my staff car. The storeowner locked the store and followed in their truck. We stayed an hour or so until the family began arriving.

I returned the storeowner to his business. He thanked me and said, "Mister, I wouldn't have your job for a million dollars." I shook his hand and said; "Neither would I."

I vaguely remember the drive back to Norfolk. Violating about five Marine Corps regulations, I drove the staff car straight to my house. I sat with my family while they ate dinner, went into the den, closed the door, and sat there all night, alone.

My Marines steered clear of me for days. I had made my first death notification.

THE FUNERALS

Weeks passed with more notifications and more funerals. I borrowed Marines from the local Marine Corps Reserve and taught them to conduct a military funeral: how to carry a casket, how to fire the volleys and how to fold the flag.

When I presented the flag to the mother, wife, or father, I always said, "All Marines share in your grief." I had been instructed to say, "On behalf of a grateful nation...." I didn't think the nation was grateful, so I didn't say that.

Sometimes, my emotions got the best of me and I couldn't speak. When that happened, I just handed them the flag and touched a shoulder. They would look at me and nod. Once a mother said to me, "I'm so sorry you have this terrible job." My eyes filled with tears and I leaned over and kissed her.

ANOTHER NOTIFICATION

Six weeks after my first notification, I had another. This was a young PFC. I drove to his mother's house. As always, I was in uniform and driving a Marine Corps staff car. I parked in front of the house, took a deep breath, and walked towards the house. Suddenly the door flew open, a middle-aged woman rushed out. She looked at me and ran across the yard, screaming "NO! NO! NO! NO!"

I hesitated. Neighbors came out. I ran to her, grabbed her, and whispered stupid things to reassure her. She collapsed. I picked her up and carried her into the house.. Eight or nine neighbors followed. Ten or fifteen later, the father came in followed by ambulance personnel. I have no recollection of leaving.

The funeral took place about two weeks later. We went through the drill. The mother never looked at me. The father looked at me once and shook his head sadly.

ANOTHER NOTIFICATION

One morning, as I walked in the office, the phone was ringing. Sergeant Jolly held the phone up and said, "You've got another one, Colonel." I nodded, walked into my office, picked up the phone, took notes, thanked the officer making the call, I have no idea why, and hung up. Jolly, who had listened, came in with a special Telephone Directory that translates telephone numbers into the person's address and place of employment.

The father of this casualty was a Longshoreman. He lived a mile from my office. I called the Longshoreman's Union Office and asked for the Business Manager. He answered the phone, I told him who I was, and asked for the father's schedule.

The Business Manager asked, "Is it his son?" I said nothing. After a moment, he said, in a low voice, "Tom is at home today." I said, "Don't call him. I'll take care of that." The Business Manager said, "Aye, Aye Sir," and then explained, "Tom and I were Marines in WWII."

I got in my staff car and drove to the house. I was in uniform. I knocked and a woman in her early forties answered the door. I saw instantly that she was clueless. I asked, "Is Mr. Smith home?" She smiled pleasantly and responded, "Yes, but he's eating breakfast now. Can you come back later?" I said, "I'm sorry. It's important. I need to see him now."

She nodded, stepped back into the beach house and said, "Tom, it's for you."

A moment later, a ruddy man in his late forties, appeared at the door. He looked at me, turned absolutely pale, steadied himself, and said, "Jesus Christ man, he's only been there three weeks!"

Months passed. More notifications and more funerals. Then one day while I was running, Sergeant Jolly stepped outside the building and gave a loud whistle, two fingers in his mouth....... I never could do that..... and held an imaginary phone to his ear.

Another call from Headquarters Marine Corps. I took notes, said, "Got it." and hung up. I had stopped saying "Thank You" long ago.

Jolly, "Where?"

Me, "Eastern Shore of Maryland. The father is a retired Chief Petty Officer. His brother will accompany the body back from Vietnam...."

Jolly shook his head slowly, straightened, and then said, "This time of day, it'll take three hours to get there and back. I'll call the Naval Air Station and borrow a helicopter. And I'll have Captain Tolliver get one of his men to meet you and drive you to the Chief's home."

He did, and 40 minutes later, I was knocking on the father's door. He opened the door, looked at me, then looked at the Marine standing at parade rest beside the car, and asked, "Which one of my boys was it, Colonel?"

I stayed a couple of hours, gave him all the information, my office and home phone number and told him to call me, anytime.

He called me that evening about 2300 (11:00PM). "I've gone through my boy's papers and found his will. He asked to be buried at sea. Can you make that happen?" I said, "Yes I can, Chief. I can and I will."

My wife who had been listening said, "Can you do that?" I told her, "I have no idea. But I'm going to break my ass trying."

I called Lieutenant General Alpha Bowser, Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, at home about 2330, explained the situation, and asked, "General, can you get me a quick appointment with the Admiral at Atlantic Fleet Headquarters?" General Bowser said," George, you be there tomorrow at 0900. He will see you.

I was and the Admiral did. He said coldly, "How can the Navy help the Marine Corps, Colonel." I told him the story. He turned to his Chief of Staff and said, "Which is the sharpest destroyer in port?" The Chief of Staff responded with a name.

The Admiral called the ship, "Captain, you're going to do a burial at sea. You'll report to a Marine Lieutenant Colonel Goodson until this mission is completed..."

He hung up, looked at me, and said, "The next time you need a ship, Colonel, call me. You don't have to sic Al Bowser on my ass." I responded, "Aye Aye, Sir" and got the h-ll out of his office.

I went to the ship and met with the Captain, Executive Officer, and the Senior Chief. Sergeant Jolly and I trained the ship's crew for four days. Then Jolly raised a question none of us had thought of. He said, "These government caskets are air tight. How do we keep it from floating?"

All the high priced help including me sat there looking dumb. Then the Senior Chief stood and said, "Come on Jolly. I know a bar where the retired guys from World War II hang out."

They returned a couple of hours later, slightly the worst for wear, and said, "It's simple; we cut four 12" holes in the outer shell of the casket on each side and insert 300 lbs of lead in the foot end of the casket. We can handle that, no sweat."

The day arrived. The ship and the sailors looked razor sharp. General Bowser, the Admiral, a US Senator, and a Navy Band were on board. The sealed casket was brought aboard and taken below for modification. The ship got underway to the 12-fathom depth.

The sun was hot. The ocean flat. The casket was brought aft and placed on a catafalque. The Chaplin spoke. The volleys were fired. The flag was removed, folded, and I gave it to the father. The band played "Eternal Father Strong to Save." The casket was raised slightly at the head and it slid into the sea.

The heavy casket plunged straight down about six feet. The incoming water collided with the air pockets in the outer shell. The casket stopped abruptly, rose straight out of the water about three feet, stopped, and slowly slipped back into the sea. The air bubbles rising from the sinking casket sparkled in the in the sunlight as the casket disappeared from sight forever....

The next morning I called a personal friend, Lieutenant General Oscar Peatross, at Headquarters Marine Corps and said, "General, get me out of here. I can't take this anymore." I was transferred two weeks later.

I was a good Marine but, after 17 years, I had seen too much death and too much suffering. I was used up.

Vacating the house, my family and I drove to the office in a two-car convoy. I said my goodbyes. Sergeant Jolly walked out with me. He waved at my family, looked at me with tears in his eyes, came to attention, saluted, and said, "Well Done, Colonel. Well Done."

I felt as if I had received the Medal of Honor!

Much more about this subject at: The Sandgram 

Passing of an American Warrior

Rest in peace Bob Howard. There are so very few men of your caliber in life. Those who have met you are better men for the experience. Those who have walked behind the path you cut in our Army know what a giant you were. A Warrior Passes in Texas

Mumbai-style terrorist attack expected in London

According to "London firms told to prepare for attack" a terrorist attach that mirrors the one in Mumbai is imminent. The warning is supposedly based upon terrorist "chatter" intercepted by intelligence agencies. According to "Police expect Mumbai-style terror attack on City of London," much of that chatter has been on terrorist websites and included:

One web site contributor suggested fighters could use automatic weapons to strike places such as nightclubs, sporting venues and Jewish centres.

In an online discussion hosted on December 2, another contributor invited suggestions for carrying out “guerrilla warfare” and proposed “a group of mujaheddin raid police stations and fire at them”.

Another said: “Make sure that all those at the location are of age, that there are no children and so on. Insist on the locations and times where no Muslims or children are to be expected.

“If machine guns are available, and explosive and expertise for [explosives] are not available, this is a good way ... The [Mumbai] operation is the ideal scenario for operations you are talking about.”

A third contributor said targets should be “chosen in a studied manner”. He added: “In general, targeting economic joints and intelligence centres if possible has priority over police stations.”

This announcement is something of a surprise. Perhaps it was made in an attempt to give the terrorist attackers a moment to pause in their attack cycle. If the terrorists have lost the element of surprise, even if targets have preped for attack as they were in Mumbai with stockpiles of ammunition and explosives were prepositioned their discovery before the initiation of the attack could result in a very brief and violent failure by the terrorists. A colossal and very visible terrorist attach failure would not play well in the Arab street, even if conducted against the infidels in Londonstan as many in the UK now call it.

The Brits know, based upon their experience with IRA bombings how tough it is to defend against car bombs and IEDs in densely packed London. But they also have one of the finest counter terrorist & special operator forces in the world. My expectation is that there are a bunch of them enjoying staying in some of the finest London hotels, waiting for that first inkling that the attack sequence has started, so they can respond and terminate the attacks before they seize buildings or hostages.

Never forget. Never forgive.

Should the Government Be Afraid of "Teabaggers"?

Increasingly citizen generated political statements on Youtube are becoming a force to be reckoned with. Some of them go viral on the Internet, get picked up by mainstream web sites and media outlets and the message is delivered everywhere. But for most, that never happens. They sit on Youtube and pick up a couple of thousand hits and this fade into obscurity.

That is what will happen to this one. It is a great first try, but wanders and the message is muddled by the accompanying video at times. After watching the video a couple of times I tried to answer the question I think the originator was asking, but on each showing the message became less clear. So I guess the idea is one should only watch it once!

The video starts with the perspective that the media and some politicians (Yep, you Madam Speaker) seem genuinely afraid that those protesting might break out in violence against the government. True enough, and the point is reinforced well by the accompanying video and dialogue.

It then goes on to point to the fact that the power of the state is unlimited in capability to respond to citizen violence, which is certainly true and fear of violence against the state is out of whack with reality. After making the point that throughout history nation-states have killed their own citizens with abandon, it slides into multiple examples of where government has brutalized US citizens. It ends sliding back to the initial point that today’s protests against the state have not been the source of any violence. The video is a good first cut at making a political statement. It just wanders too much and some of the video seems ill-placed with the point being made. It also ignores America's historical track record of conflict between the state and her citizens.

Nevertheless, the video asks a valid question. Are the progressive socialists in the media and in the political class unreasonable in their fear of a vocal and resistant citizenry?

Probably, but these are the same citizens that gave those progressive socialists the power in the last election. The winner of the last election was a true example of what happens in a democracy and majority rules politics wreaks great harm on those not in the majority. That is why our forefathers feared the republic form of government becoming a democracy which it did when the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1913.

Americans have a long history of action that sometimes becomes violent when they get riled up over a perceived assault or infringement of their liberty. One has only to read of Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Toledo War, Dorr Rebellion, Utah War, Brooks-Baxter War,  Blair Mountain, Draft Riots, Bonus Army, Civil Rights Movement, and anti-war movements to find there is a long tradition of Americans responding enthusiastically to a loss of economic or personal freedom and a violent reaction by those in power.

Today’s protests have been relatively mild by comparison and so far the response of the state has been mild. But as a look at history shows, that can change on something as simple as a few dumb words by the director of Homeland Security.

Americans know not all assaults on liberty are what we have seen in the last 50 years have been limited to those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Assaults on economic freedom and property rights seem more common, whether in the form of a ruling on eminent domain or another tax imposed by a government agency that goes around the Constitutional requirement all taxes be levied by Congress. There is little wonder that American citizens have become satiated with taxes and government regulations and restrictions.

In the case of economic freedoms progressive socialists have had remarkable success passing repressive laws using altruistic or moral rationalizations (e.g. for the children, economic justice, diversity, for the poor people, etc). All lead to more impoverishment of the little guy citizen and enrichment of special interests groups, unions, and politically savvy corporations. Economic history is crystal clear in this, and yet our economic choices dwindle due to the mandates of government that reallocate income and property to moochers from those who earned it.

So do the "teabaggers" as the left likes to call them, have a valid reason to take to the streets, get angry, and yell at politicians? You betcha. Will the state respond with bullets and truncheons? That is the real question. As we have seen in the past 20 years, the state has little aversion to executing a citizen, his wife, and dog in Idaho with a FBI sniper, exterminating a "compound of religious extremists" with tanks or blowing away a bunch of pot smokers in Michigan. Because of incidents like those, "teabaggers" have every reason to be a little bit paranoid about the response by the state. So far, their rallying cry has been "To the ballot boxes in 2010!"

Will that continue with the progressive drumbeat of health care "reform," governmental directed eco-wacko laws, and other anti-capitalist and anti-property legislation seeping out of Congress? That is the real question and hopefully this video author will take it on with his next attempt.

---

Stupid Cop in DC

On the surface this video reflects an absurd overreaction by a plain clothes cop to being hit with a snowball in Washington, D.C. The bottom line is no one in their right mind pulls a gun in response to a snowball ... unless you are a cop in DC.

Reflect on it for a moment and you realize there is something else in play. Yep, it's reverse racism all over again. The cop is black, so he will escape any sanction for his stupid response to being pelted by snow balls by white kids.

The good news is that the cop did not blow anyone away. The bad news is that the fact he pulled a weapon indicates it could have happened in an instant. That's just wrong.

---

Who Funds Islamic Terrorism?

Follow the money? It's a recurring expression one hears often within law enforcement and the intelligence community. Whenever trying to solve a puzzle of terrorism the question of who has the motive, the capability, and the funding always get asked up front and early.

When it comes to Islamic terrorists the question generally comes down to, "Where does the funding come from?" That is simply because their motives and capabilities are well demonstrated. Pick a news article about terrorist actions from Kenya, Somalia, Thailand, or Russia and you see recurring themes. Less clear is the source of funding that supports these operations.

The tendency is to believe that if you can shut down that, the capability will diminish and perhaps the motive will as well. If it were only that simple.

After 9/11 Islamic charities in the USA were pretty much recognized as conduits of funding to terrorists and largely constricted. Terrorist organizations, taking a page from the operations manual of the drug cartels, simply adjusted their operations to accommodate the new restrictions.

Yet, the source of funding has morphed throughout the years. Today terrorist funds appear to come from a combination of private charities, nation-state oil revenues, and organizations like the UN.

In the 1970s the US funded Afghan fighters directly and through the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. It was an inexpensive way to fight a proxy war against the Soviets in the context of the on-going cold war. Saudi Arabia matched the US funding dollar for dollar. Their motivation was more than fighting the Soviet infidels, it was about spreading Wahabism - a particularly radical type of Islam. The Pakistani motivation was more complex. They believed that they could use Afghan trained fighters in their battles against India in Kashmir.

So today, where does that funding for IEDs, arms and explosives come from to kill and attack Americans? In many cases, it still flows from the Islamic "charities" that operate unfettered worldwide and are particularly effective in ever more Muslim Europe.

Hezbollah remains the proxy force for the Iranians and uses funds from the sale of its petroleum to not only arm and equip terrorists in Lebanon and Palestine, but also in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Philippines and Thailand. In these places the "enemy of my enemy is my friend. For that reason, for the Wahabi, if you are not Sunni, you still have no right to live in the caliphate they seek to establish. Yet, they recognize that until they get that caliphate in place, they will have to wait cleaning up all those "unbelivers." Hence, the Shia terrorists tend to be funded and tolerated - for now.

One surprising (to me anyhow) source of terrorist funding is the UN according to Turning Off the Tap of Terrorist Funding. That story tells how United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) funds terrorist organizations under the guise of helping the impoverished. Sadly, the US pays for a huge amount of that funding.

So the answer to "Who funds Terrorism?" has to be - You and I do. Our government does it in our name when it funds the UN with our taxes. We do it again every time we use imported oil. Am I the only one who is just a bit bothered by this system?

---

Are the American Sheeple's Houses Ablaze?

During this year we have seen long time Cold War adversaries asking, "Has America forgotten the lessons of the failure of Communism?" It is almost as if things have turned upside down to have those who were a part of the USSR express alarm at their old adversary. Americans used to take pride in going our own way after they decided what was the right way to go. Where are those Americans? Has apathy and generations of "entitled" Americans replaced the rugged individual that made Americans so unique? I am not the only one asking. When the Russians start wondering, you know there truly may be a problem so fundamental that we cannot pretend it doesn't exist. At the start of this year, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, evidently who had studied the mistakes of FDR during the Great Depression, commented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on the current economic crisis and appropriate responses by governments:

" . . . This is why I would first like to mention specific measures which should be avoided and which will not be implemented by Russia.

We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism. The leaders of the world’s largest economies agreed during the November 2008 G20 summit not to create barriers hindering global trade and capital flows. Russia shares these principles. Although additional protectionism will prove inevitable during the crisis, all of us must display a sense of proportion.

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state’s increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation. In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing."

And yet, almost everything Putin cautioned about, we have since done in the US. Bizarre isn't it? Not too long after Davos, Pravda published an OpEd titled, "American capitalism gone with a whimper" that pointed out that the US had pretty much fallen into the morass of a socialist economy. According to Pravda, citizens in the USA had become "sheeple" and learned nothing from the failure of Soviet-style socialism. It wrote in part about America:

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another.

Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

When Putin made his comments he was also advocating moving away from the US dollar as the world's currency. The irony of a former ruler from the USSR lecturing the world on not falling into a trap of central planning and ignoring private enterprise was barely noticed in the West. Should Putin's suggestion be adopted, it will be a debacle for the US economy. Strangely, US monetary policy seems to have passively accepted that eventuality. It is why so many Americans have pulled out of financial investment instruments and invested in things they can eat, trade, or use to defend their homes when the US currency starts looking like that of the Weimar Republic. When Pravda published its OpEd it was dismissed as simple jealously. One must then ask what is the motivation for the author Yu Shi Yu to write in Singapore's Chinese language media, "Butter or Cannon?: America’s 'Europeanization',"another 'uncomfortable' question. In a country rated in 2009 more free economically than America one doubts the motivation is akin to that of Putin or Pravda. It is somewhat startling to read the translation which says in part:

From another angle, the American magazine Newsweek published a commentary on December 7 by Harvard University's heavyweight economic historian Niall Ferguson, who warned that the American government's increasing debts will imperil America's incomparable global military power, thereby causing the fall of the "American Empire." The commentary has received a great deal of attention.

Ferguson is British, and this article can be seen as the British Empire's elegy. Ferguson can be said to be opposing Keynesian's comeback after the financial tsunami had caused a great global recession on Anglo-Saxon cultural grounds.

Ferguson, however, missed a point, which is that the future decline of American military power is not solely due to Washington's inability to extricate itself from its heavy debt; there is also a deeper social trend factor - America's internal government reforms, especially the healthcare reform, that Obama pushed for when he took office. It represented a certain trend toward America's "Europeanization."

Specifically, the so-called "Obama Revolution" was an opposition of the Republicans' "Conservative Revolution" in the past 20 years and a return to the social philosophy of a "soft America" since the Roosevelt administration.

Increasing Butter will Naturally Reduce the Cannons

The Conservatives deeply resent Obama's healthcare reform. Most people explained it as an instinctive response by Conservatives to "Big Government," especially to the government's involvement in the medical and healthcare industries, both of which play an increasingly important role in the national economy. However, the Wall Street Journal's recent commentary directly pointed out the inverse relationship between a "welfare state" and military spending, disclosing another of the American right wing's important motives for opposing Obama's internal government reform.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the result of a "Europeanized" society will be a change in the emphasis fiscal expenditure. When social welfare becomes entitlement, "butter" will overcome the "cannon." An illustration: the U.S.'s military spending exceeded the GDP by 4%. In Europe, only the U.K. and France's military spending barely exceeded the GDP by 2%, while the biggest economy in Europe, Germany, spent only 1.3% of its GDP on military. In addition, only 31% of the U.S.'s military spending is used as the soldiers' wages, while the amount that Belgium used as their soldiers' wages was 74%.

What the Wall Street Journal failed to see was another social factor in Europe, the dilution and polarization of the welfare policy which shrunk society's risk-taking lower-class, thereby reducing the source of "gunpowder" for foreign warfare. This is an important reason for widespread anti-war sentiments in European society, and this made it difficult for the government to increase military spending to become involved in foreign military operations.

All of this is a reminder that when neighbors tell you your house is on fire, or the sky is falling, a wise man does not disregard the warnings out of hand. It looks for fire, or evidence of falling sky before it decides that neighbor erred. Generally, one ignores the warnings of their neighbors at great peril.

Health Care "Reform" - What's the Rush??

What's the rush to pass health care "reform?" This video looks at that. As you watch, its tough to not wonder why no one seems bothered by the provisions that require a citizen to buy health care or be fined or jailed. It was never supposed to be like that here in America. In Europe or Africa perhaps, in both, places where feudalism and colonialism have simply morphed into new forms of oppression against individual and property rights. But not here, not in America.

---

Iran Invades Iraq (STRATFOR)

Glen Beck on Leno - refreshing!

Liberal fear Glen Beck. I don't get it. He simply talks common sense and is so much an example of "main street" America.

---

Part II of this is here.

Palin - Obama's Science and Copenhagen

"In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to 'restore science to its rightful place.' But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a 'deal.'

Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science."

— Sarah Palin, Former Alaska Governor

Blast from the past of an old scout driver (scout pilots only!)

The Anal Equinox Prevents The Reversal Of The Adiabatic Lapse Rate

The Anal Equinox is a rare event that occurs when some helicopter pilots make ever tightening, successive, 360 degree turns. They actually cross the rectal event horizon and fly up their own alimentary canals.

This phenomena was seen mainly among helicopter Scout pilots in Vietnam. Occasionally they could completely disappear for short periods of time. Red birds (Cobra high bird) crews can attest to this fact.

WARNING! Non-Scout type aviators must not attempt this maneuver without the supervision of an onboard, qualified instructor pilot.

Some less skilled pilots attempting the maneuver only partially encountered the Equinox to their shoulders and suffered the dreaded Rectal/Cranial Inversion (RCI) and thus exacerbated the condition by depriving the brain of oxygen, usually resulting in catastrophic uncontrolled aircraft contact with the ground.

The secrets of the Anal Equinox were never taught in flight school and are closely guarded by the Aero-Scout community. The uninitiated are unable to complete the process and are often doomed to repeat iterations of the RCI.

Humor from CavHooah

The meeting in Copenhagen

"When you slice through the blather about marooned bears and melting ice caps, oceans rising and cities sinking, global warming is a racket and a crock. It is all about money and power.

Copenhagen has always been about an endless transfer of wealth from America, Europe and Japan and creation of a global bureaucracy to control the pace of world economic and industrial development."…

—Pat Buchanan, Syndicated Columnist and Founding Editor, The American Conservative Magazine

Wisdom of Noah Webster

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

2009 in the Year of Obama

2009 in Review: The Year of Obama (STRATFOR)

By George Friedman

President Barack Obama’s speech in Oslo marking his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize was eloquent, as most of his speeches are. It was also enigmatic — both for its justification of war and for his speaking on behalf of the international community while making clear that as commander in chief, his overarching principle is to protect and defend the United States. In the end, it was difficult to discern precisely what he meant to say.

An eloquent and enigmatic speech is not a bad strategy by a president, but it raises this question: At the end of his first year, what precisely is this president’s strategy abroad?

Ironically, it is useful to consider Obama in the light of the last president who dominated and defined his time: Ronald Reagan, a man as persuasive, polarizing and enigmatic as the current president. These two men share much, including charisma and a desire to revive American power abroad.

But Obama is about to diverge from this parallel. Whereas Reagan chose to reassert American power to bring U.S. allies back into line, Obama seems to be choosing to rejuvenate American alliances to revive national power. And this choice constitutes the largest foreign policy risk to his presidency in the months and years ahead.

A Year of Presidential Dominance

Obama dominated 2009 as no freshman-year president has since Reagan. As with Reagan, the domination came not only from character and charisma but also from deep public disappointment with his predecessor. Reagan succeeded Jimmy Carter, who was seen as having led the country into the double miasma of a major economic crisis and a global crisis of confidence in the United States.

The Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981 raised the question of the limits of American power and the extent to which U.S. allies could count on American power.

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan drove home the diminished state of American power, as the United States seemed incapable of responding. George W. Bush very much paralleled Jimmy Carter, as different as their respective ideologies seemed.

Like Carter, Bush’s presidency also culminated in a grave economic crisis, while his foreign policy had created deep distrust worldwide about the limits and effectiveness of U.S. power.

It is ironic in the extreme that both Reagan and Obama ran on platforms emphasizing the need to do something about Afghanistan and castigating the prior president for alleged fecklessness with dealing with it. At some point, someone should write a history of the last American generation and its Afghan obsession. This has become a symbol of our times, and not for obvious reasons.

Reagan vs. Obama

The similarities and profound differences between Reagan and Obama are a good starting place for understanding the last year. Reagan took office in a powerful country that seemed to have lost its confidence, and he saw his mission as restoring both American self-confidence in its global mission and its appetite for pursuing it.

To Reagan, the American-led anti-Soviet alliance was in jeopardy not only because of the Carter presidency but also because of Gerald Ford (whom Reagan had challenged for the nomination in 1976) and ultimately because of Richard Nixon.

They saw the United States as a declining power and sought to manage that decline. Reagan intended to preside over the reassertion of U.S. power and global leadership.

The Obama presidency is partially a reaction to Bush’s response to 9/11. Obama argued that the war in Iraq was not essential and that it diverted American forces from more important theaters, particularly Afghanistan. Like Reagan, Obama feared the fate of the American alliance system, though for very different reasons.

Whereas Reagan feared that unwarranted American caution was undermining the confidence of the alliance, Obama’s view has been that excessive and misplaced American aggressiveness was undermining its alliance, and weakening the war effort as a result.

Both Reagan and Obama set about changing the self-perception of the United States, and with it the perception of the United States in the world. Neither was uncontroversial in doing this. Indeed, critics vilified both for what they did, frequently in extraordinarily vituperative ways.

Surging Then Sagging Popularity

The controversy of each president has been rooted in a shared fact: Neither won the presidency overwhelmingly. Reagan took 50.7 percent of the vote, but Carter lost by a large margin because of third party candidates. Obama won with 52.9 percent. Put another way, 47.1 percent of the public voted against Obama and 49.3 percent voted against Reagan.

Both surged in popularity after the election and both bled off popularity as the rhetoric wore thin, economic problems continued and actions in foreign affairs didn’t match promises. Reagan fought a brutal battle for tax cuts to stimulate the economy and was attacked by Democrats for greatly increasing the deficit.

Obama fought a brutal battle for more spending and was attacked by the Republicans for greatly increasing the deficit. As a result, Reagan suffered a sharp setback in the 1982 midterm elections as Republicans lost seats in the House of Representatives.

Reality overwhelmed rhetoric, and Reagan’s rhetorical skills even began to be used against him. But over time, as the economy recovered, Reagan began to gain ground in foreign policy.

There were many failures to be sure, but Reagan succeeded by aligning his policies with geopolitical reality. The United States was enormously powerful, regardless of psychic wounds and poorly deployed resources. The Soviet Union was much weaker than it appeared to those who feared to challenge it.

Reagan did not try to change this reality; instead, he crafted policies that flowed from this reality. For all his mistakes, this made him both a two-term president and one more fondly regarded today than he was in his time.

Repudiation vs. Continuity

This is where the difference between Reagan and Obama begins to emerge, and the two men as historical figures begin to diverge. Reagan repudiated his predecessor’s foreign policy and understood that by flexing American power, the allies would regain confidence and fall back into line.

By contrast, Obama has taken a different turn — and is traveling a much more difficult road. He has retained a high degree of continuity with his predecessor’s policies while seeking to resurrect American power first through popularity in order to get allies to cooperate.

This is a complicated proposition at best. With Iraq, Obama continues the Bush policy of phased withdrawal subject to modification. In Afghanistan, the president has carried out his campaign pledge to increase forces, continuing the war that began in 2001, again with a timetable and again subject to change. With Iran, Obama continues the Bush policy of using sanctions while not taking any other options, like war, off the table.

With Russia, Obama has maintained the position the Bush administration took toward NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, as well as resisting Russian attempts to dominate the former Soviet Union.

With China, Obama’s position is essentially the Bush position of encouraging closer ties, not emphasizing human rights and focusing on tactical economic issues. This continuity is combined with a so-far successful attempt to create an altogether different sensibility about the United States overseas.

Obama has portrayed the Bush administration as being heedless of international opinion, whereas he intends to align the United States with international opinion. This has resonated substantially overseas, with foreign publics and governments being far more enthusiastic about Obama than they were about Bush. As a result, the president has been particularly proud of the number of nations that are part of the Afghan war coalition, which he puts at 43.

The Iraq war saw only 33 countries send troops, substantially less than Afghanistan but still not indicative of isolation. But in both cases this use of popularity as power is illusory.

In many cases the numbers of troops sent are merely token gestures of goodwill. Nevertheless, there is no question that Obama has managed to generate far more excitement and enthusiasm about his presidency overseas than Bush did. This is the marked achievement so far and it is not a trivial one. His goal is to create an international coalition based less on policy than on a perception of the United States as more embedded in the international community.

The question is: Will this gambit succeed? And if the answer is yes, the next question is: What does he plan to do next?

Reagan intended to change the U.S. perception of itself to free him to conduct a more aggressive and risk-taking foreign policy. His view of the world was that the American perception of itself was irrational and limiting and that by lifting the limitations, American power would surge.

Obama’s strategy thus far is to change the perception of the United States in foreign countries while at the same time conducting a foreign policy imposed on him by geopolitical reality, much as it imposed itself on Bush.

Obama’s problem is that the perception he has deliberately generated and the actions that he has taken are at odds. What will the allies offer him, for instance, if he has simply resurrected American popularity — but not changed U.S. policy?

Indeed, significant policy changes so far have not succeeded. Openings to Iran and Cuba have not been reciprocated. The opening to the Islamic world has not revolutionized U.S. relations in the region.

The Russians are deeply suspicious of Obama, as is Eastern Europe. The Chinese find it hard to see a difference. The major impact has been in Europe, in particular Europe west of Poland. But even here there is a difference between popular enthusiasm and the unease of governments, particularly in Germany.

The Obama Paradox

And so it is in Europe that Obama’s strategy will face its defining moment. In Europe, two goals are at odds. For the Europeans, a definitive, new era is one in which the United States will stop making demands on Europe to support foreign adventures and, ideally,stop engaging in foreign adventures except with European approval.

Obama expects that the Europeans, when approached, will be far more willing to join the United States in foreign adventures because their perception of the United States is more positive. This is the deep paradox of Obama’s foreign policy, which he expressed in Oslo as he accepted the peace prize and went on to make the case for just war and for sanctions against regimes like Iran.

In the coming months, three questions will manifest themselves. The first is: Will the Europeans shift from greater control over U.S. actions and less risk to less control and more risk? The second is: What will the president give them in exchange? How much control will pass to them in a consultative foreign policy? The third: How much active support for the Untied States are the Europeans able and willing to bring to bear?

After all, the reality is that the American president who just accepted the Nobel Peace Prize is engaged in multiple wars and a confrontation with Iran. Europe’s good wishes have some value, but not the same as material engagement.

Indeed, it is not clear why foreign states would embrace Bush’s foreign policy conducted by Obama, simply in exchange for consultation. The Europeans will want more.

Aligning Foreign Policy and Geopolitics

Reagan’s foreign policy was elegant and aligned with geopolitics. It sought to create a domestic surge in self-confidence in order to support larger defense budgets and a more aggressive policy toward the Soviet Union.

Reagan’s read of the situation was that the United States was stronger than had been thought and the Soviets were weaker. He had many problems along the way: economic setbacks, scandal, etc., and his popularity shifted.

But his thrust was clear. What is inelegant, though,in Obama’s foreign policy is the relation between continuing many of Bush’s old policies while improving America’s image overseas.

Continuity is understandable: Geopolitics deals the cards and the choices are few. The utility of the popularity is important; it can only help. What is unclear as he enters his second year is the relationship between the two. Most presidents do not fully define their strategy in the first year.

But those who do not in the second year tend to run into serious political trouble. Obama has time, but not much. He must show the hand he is playing, or invent one, fast.

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"