Gates Closing GITMO "Harder Than Expected"

The administration is finally revealing to the public what most of us already knew. Yesterday, unnamed administration officials first revealed that GITMO will most likely still be open come January 22,2010, when it was scheduled for closure. Today, here's what Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said trying to close down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay has proved more complicated than anticipated.

Gates said "it's going to be tough" for the president to meet his goal of shutting the prison in January. He said there are difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other issues.

Now, there are all sorts of things here that should trouble everyone. First, President Obama pronounced that he would close GITMO within a year on his second day on the job. Now, we find out that figuring out the logistics is proving to be "more complicated than expected". What was he expecting exactly? He'd been on the job for two days. There was no time for a review or a plan to get out. So, his expectations weren't based on any sort of legitimate analyis.

Second, the president has been using its impending closure as the subject of accomplishment in nearly every foreign policy speech. So, at the same time he privately knew that closing it was proving more difficult than expected, he was still telling the world that we should view its closure as a source of pride.

Third, we're all finding this out now. How long has the administration known that things were more difficult than expected? I point this out because this stance is two days old. For the first eight months, the administration put on a very confident face. No one ever gave one hint that there would be any problems. Now we learn that there were problems all along. So, while privately the administration saw a major problem coming, publicly they were telling the world everything was going according to plan.

So, let's review. The administration foolishly made a grand proclamation without doing even a hint of analysis. Then, they found out that reality was much more difficult than the utopia they were creating in their speeches. This didn't stop them from using this proclamation as a point of accomplishment. Meanwhile, privately they knew that they'd never close GITMO on time. Yet, they waited eight months to tell the world what most already knew.

Admin Acknowledges: We Won't Close GITMO On Time

It was back in May when Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange in a press briefing regarding the closure of GITMO.

Q Robert, does the President still expect to close Guantanamo Bay one year after his announcement, which would be I guess January 20, 2010? And is --

MR. GIBBS: I think it's the 21st or 22nd, but, yes.

Q Twenty-first, thank you. And is he still planning on issuing a detailed map, if you will, of how to get there in another two months from now?

MR. GIBBS: I don't understand the second part.

Q Did he not say on January 22nd that within six months he would sort of issue -- the administration would issue plans for how it intended to close Guantanamo?

MR. GIBBS: I'd have to go back and look. I mean, obviously, Sheryl, the President remains committed to closing Guantanamo.

Q On January 22nd?

MR. GIBBS: On whatever date he previously intoned in the executive order.

Q And he's still confident that he can do that?

MR. GIBBS: He is. There are multiple task forces that are -- have been stood up, and are meeting to deal with the issues surrounding that closure.

There were many of us that were dubious of the President's claim that he would close GITMO by January 2010 from the beginning. He said it in his second day on the job. He never said where any of these terrorists would go. GITMO has become a punching bag for the left for going on six years. Yet, no one that has criticized GITMO has offered a credible alternative. That's how I was very dubious that Obama would actually be able to fulfill his promise of closing GITMO. For nearly two years he criticized GITMO, what he never did was offer a credible alternatitve. Still, Gibbs was confident back in this May briefing the administration would follow through on its promise.

Then, roadblocks began to appear. Only a handful of detainees were received by other nations and most of those were only received after we bribed them. Then, the Congress, nearly unanimously, cut off funds for the transfer of GITMO detainees without a plan. That happened in May. Then, all the sticky questions began. Where would the detainees be tried? What would happen if they were acquitted? What rights would they have, etc? Then, there was a very contentious town hall meeting in Michigan, a potential site for where some detainees would be moved, in which citizens furiously objected to any suggestions that any GITMO detainees would be moved there.

Still, the administration put on a happy face. In fact, as recently as this week, the President proclaimed in front of the UN that one of his accomplishments is the upcoming closure of GITMO. The closure of GITMO was one of several things that Obama cited in which he felt that the U.S. was joining the rest of the world.

The problem is that GITMO won't be closed by January 20th as promised, and the administration is finally acknowledging that.

President Obama is unlikely to close the much-maligned detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in time to meet the self-imposed deadline of January, as his administration runs into daunting legal and logistical hurdles in moving the more than 220 detainees still being held there.

The difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip, senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday to FOX News.

The political damage of all of this will be directly related to just how quickly GITMO is closed and how messy that closure becomes. If it is closed in May of 2010 and that transition is smooth, the damage is minimal. If it's still open in November of 2010, that will be a huge problem not only for Obama but the Demorats in general.

President Obama's problem here remains the same. The reason that GITMO will likely not close by January is because there's absolutely no plan for where they can be moved if it's not GITMO. The president made this proclamation when clearly he had no clue what he would do. That's still the case. If the Democrats had stopped to think in the middle of their non stop criticism, they might have realized that the reason Bush kept GITMO open was because it was the best of bad options. Where exactly should we hold KSM? If he's moved into the U.S., then an ACLU lawyer will immediately move to mandate full constitutional rights to him. Then, KSM will lawyer up and we won't get any more information from him.

So, I'd be stunned if most of the folks currently in GITMO now aren't still in GITMO come November of 2012.

A Plethora of Problems With The Administration's Current GITMO Scheme

Fox News is reporting that sources within the administration are saying that the latest Obama administration idea for moving GITMO detainees has them going to Leavenworth and a maximum security prison in Michigan.

The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.

Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the 134-year-old military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected Al Qaeda, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.The officials outlined the plans as the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama's order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010,

(note a White House spokes person said that no final decision has been made)

First, if this is the final plan, the president will have two Congress people, four Senators, two State Senators, several mayors, and dozens of city council members, not to mention thousands of voters that will vociferously object to the idea that terrorists will be housed any where near their homes and the homes of their constituents. Some folks are all right with having terrorists moved to the States, but almost no one is all right with moving them anywhere near where they themselves live. As such, whoever's "backyard" they are moved to are likely to object in a very vocal way.

Second, once you move these folks to the U.S. a lawyer can and WILL argue that they now have the full protection of the Constitution. If they are moved to the Federal prison system, which is what the Michigan prison is, a lawyer can and WILL argue that they are part of the criminal court system.

If they are part of the criminal court system, they have the rights of a criminal. That means they can refuse to speak without lawyer. That means that evidence would fall under criminal standards. It also means they have the right to face their accuser. So, if evidence was gathered without a warrant, it can't be introduced. That means that any terrorist that flipped would have to speak in open court where the defendants would see and word would get back to terrorists overseas.

That's not what the Obama administration wants to do. He wants to create some sort of a new court system that would act outside of the criminal system. That's much easier to do when the terrorists are overseas. That's one reason that Bush kept them in Cuba. Can you imagine the Constitutional challenges that will follow once the president puts terrorists on American soil but also creates a whole new judicial system just for them. Some the president doesn't even want to try but to hold indefinitely. Can you imagine the legal challenges that will come when the president moves a terrorist on U.S. soil but refuses to even give him a trial?

What if they're acquitted? Presumably, they could potentially be released into the community surrounding the prisons. After all, their home country most likely will 1) not want them or 2) will want them but to torture them. Either way, sending them home will be no easy task. So, we could face the prospect of a handful of the worst terrorists roaming the streets of Kansas and Michigan.

Finally, what are the logistics for housing? Leavenworth is where we house our worst military offenders. It's not as though we can put the terrorists into the general population. So, they will have to be isolated. That means that they will have one hour of sunlight a day. It will also means massive increases in security. Now, if human rights are the reason to move these prisoners from GITMO, how will it look if we then put them in a cell for 23 of 24 hours each and every day? Furthermore, how much will it cost to add all the security necessary for them not to escape and for fellow prisoners not to beat on them? It would, of course, be a P.R. nightmare if they were beaten up by an American in prison, not to mention a recruiting tool.

The president will have to figure a satisfactory answer to all these concerns if he is to move forward with this proposal. Of course, in reality, the president should have thought about all this before he signed the executive order. Instead, he has to figure it all out as he goes.

From GITMO to Afghanistan

Fox News has this report.

A former Guantanamo Bay inmate is leading the fight against U.S. Marines in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, a senior U.S. defense official confirmed to FOX News on Tuesday.

Mullah Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, surrendered in Mazar-e-Sharif in Northern Afghanistan in 2001, and was transferred to Gitmo in 2006. He was released in late 2007 to Afghan custody.

Now as the United States is pushing ahead with the massive Operation Khanjar in the southern province of Afghanistan, Zakir is coordinating the Taliban fighters. Some 4,000 U.S. Marines and hundreds of Afghan forces have faced some resistance as they sweep across the province, reclaiming control of districts where Zakir and his comrades were running a shadow government.

Lost in the debate over what to do with those in GITMO is a debate we should be having. That debate is how to make sure that this scene doesn't get repeated any longer. It's unacceptable and frankly self destructive for a country to capture their enemies on the battlefield and then let those enemies go any significant numbers so that they can take up arms again during war.

While President Bush was often criticized for his heavy handed treatment of those in GITMO, he wasn't criticized nearly enough for the large numbers of those he released from GITMO only to have many of those folks take up arms again once released.

Far more of an issue for me than just how many rights those in GITMO is the issue of just how many former residents take up arms against our troops. These stories receive far too little attention. There is far too few criticism of the phenomenon that is again playing out in Afghanistan. It's been nearly eight years since we started the GWOT and yet we still don't seem to learn our lesson. Once we capture the enemy, we must do everything we can to keep them captured for the duration of the war.

Far more than the debate over their rights, the really important debate is how we make sure the scene currently playing out in Afghanistan is the last of its kind.

What Now of Our Policy in South America

President Obama just laid down the marker today regarding Honduras. (h/t Hot Air)

The president called the coup "illegal" and said the U.S. continues to recognize deposed President Manuel Zelaya the leader of Honduras. Now, if we are to follow this to its logical conclusion, then this means that we won't recognize the new government. That means we would have to remove our ambassador from the nation. We'd cut off aid and all diplomatic ties. As such, we would wind up with more diplomatic ties with Venezuela than with Honduras.

More importantly, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the United States have all not only condemned the coup but also continue to recognize Zelaya. How long can the new government survive with all of these groups refusing to recognize it? What will happen once the government falls? Most likely, Zelaya will regain power. Then, he will impose another term and eventually lifetime rule.

Then, you create a leftist axis in Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. Our ally in the region, Colombia, has far more leftist dictators to deal with. So, where does that leave our policy in South America? Are we still going to engage with Venezuela? A coup is something you don't necessarily want to make a habit of support, but in this case, a leftist leader trying to be a dictator is even worse. By taking sides with Zelaya, we help to secure yet another dictatorship in an area in which democracies are in an ideological battle with Socialist dictators. Which side are we on exactly?

The Democrats' Terrorism Debacle

So far, this debacle is only political. Hopefully, this debacle will only stay political and it won't become a policy debacle that eventually costs people their lives. Yet, on several terrorism related fronts, the Democrats are proving once again why no matter what they simply cannot be trusted on anything related to national security.

Nancy Pelosi has changed her story so many times regarding what she knew about EIT's (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) that it's hard to keep track. Her latest story is that she was briefed but that she was assured that all these techniques were legal. Meanwhile, documents show that multiple high ranking Democrats including Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, and Jane Harman were each briefed as well. Only Harman made any written objection.

On top of this, Republicans are on the attack. Pete Hoekstra is demanding that several more classified memos be released.

Hoekstra, who requested the history of agency briefings of members of Congress, is also seeking notes made by the CIA during each briefing, documents that he said last week include “a very precise accounting of the substance of each briefing.” He said those memos would detail “not only the specific information provided, but also the degree of bipartisan consensus that existed with respect to the programs in question.”

In a letter to Hoekstra, CIA Director Leon Panetta said the classified memos describing what was said at each briefing would be available at CIA headquarters for review by congressional staff, according to an agency official.

From nearly the beginning of this fiasco, the Democrats have been on the defensive. Most polling shows that just about every part of this whole thing favors Republicans. That includes investigations into these matters and frankly the techniques themselves. At this point, the Democrats themselves aren't really even all that interested in an investigation and it's now being drive

n by some in the left wing media lead by the New York Times.

Then, there is the issue of GITMO. On this matter, what is developing is an inter Democratic party fight. This started when about $80 million out of the president's nearly 83 billion dollar war supplemental was stripped by Wisconsin Congressman David Obey. This money was supposed to go to moving the detainees at GITMO. Here is what Obey said about the matter.

So far as we can tell, there is yet no concrete program for that. And while I don't mind defending a concrete program, I'm not much interested in wasting my energy defending a theoretical program. So when they have a plan, they're welcome to come back and talk to us about it.

The president appears to have allowed his ego to write checks that policy simply couldn't cash. He was so gung ho to close that he made an announcement on his second day in office. The only problem is that he has no plan. So, now there are rumors that some, mainly the Uighers, maybe released into the United States and even given welfare.

As for the rest, no one anywhere wants to take them. Every Senator and Congressperson says not in my district. On top of this, the president decided to drop more bad news on Friday evening (the day you normally drop news that is embarrassing to you)

The Obama administration is preparing to revive the system of military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections, government officials said.

The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The military commissions have allowed the trial of terrorism suspects in a setting that favors the government and protects classified information, but they were sharply criticized during the administration of President George W. Bush. "By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure," then-candidate Barack Obama said in June 2008.

It was the estimation by then Senator Obama and even as president that these very commissions were largely responsible for the so called black eye that GITMO brought our nation. So, it appears the president has no place to put the folks currently at GITMO, no way to try them, and no money to do anything with them until he has something concrete on both these matters. I think a debacle is a proper description for this.

Case In Point: The Dangers of Shadow Diplomacy

When Nancy Pelosi met with Bashar Assad in 2007 in a mission she created all on her own, she was rightfully condemned by anyone with any sense of geopolitics. In a move of stunning hubris, Pelosi thought she could on her own broker a deal for some sort of peace between Syria and its enemies, namely Israel. Even though both the Israelis themselves and the Bush administration strongly encouraged her not to go, Pelosi met with Assad anyway. Photos of Pelosi and Assad sitting side by side were used by Assad for propaganda purposes and Pelosi was able to accomplish absolutely nothing of substance besides giving the dictator a great photo op.

Yesterday, a seven member Congressional delegation met with both Castro brothers in Cuba in defiance of at least the spirit if not the letter of a half century ban and travel embargo. Fidel Castro pronounced that the members told him that American society continues to be racist and that U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba continues to be a failure. No one from the delegation has disputed the characterization made by Castro.

So, how did the delegation describe the meetings?

The Castro government is interested in talking to the United States, a delegation of black members of Congress said Tuesday, returning from a five-day trip to Cuba where they met with Raul and Fidel Castro.

We didn’t get into any of the details,” said caucus chairwoman Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who led the trip. “We just want to see a dialogue. You don’t have to offer anything to talk.”

It’s time to talk to Cuba,” Lee said. “We are convinced, based on the meetings, that the Cubans do want dialogue, they do want talks and they do want normal relations with the United States of America, and I believe it’s in the United States’ best interest to do that.”

So, in one fell swoop, these folks allowed a vicious dictator to characterize the U.S. as both "racist" and having a failed policy toward that country. Furthermore, the delegation also allowed Cuba's dictators to be characterized as folks ready to talk and dialogue. There was no mention of human rights abuses and imprisonment of political dissidents. The delegation allowed the Castros to characterize the U.S. as the bad guys at the same time they also allowed Cuba to characterize itself as a country ready for peace and dialogue.

To say that this group is nothing more than a bunch of useful idiots is to insult useful idiots.

The Grass is Always Greener: The Economic Edition

How do countries respond to economic crises? In the Western World, with a tradition of Democracy, they respond with quasi Socialist government intervention. First, we saw massive bailouts of financial institutions all over the world. Now, many in the Western world expect governments to take a stake in banks, and effectively they will nationalize banks.

Cuba has also been hit by an economic crisis. An already weak economy was ravaged by two successive hurricanes. The situation was so dire that the Cuban government was forced to take its own drastic action, privatization.

A recent spate of hurricanes and tropical storms has drenched Cuba's farmland and ruined many of its crops (Bloomberg). The storms were a significant blow to Cuba's farmers and could mean an economic pinch for a country that was already expected to import nearly $2.5 billion worth of food this year (NYT). Cuba is in the midst of significant changes in its agriculture industry, however, as President Raul Castro presses a series of reforms aimed at boosting crop production. It's too early to see the results of these efforts, but analysts say their long-term impact could be substantial, and might herald further economic changes to come.

The reforms of the younger Castro, who officially took charge from his ailing brother Fidel in February, shift control of Cuban agriculture from Havana to nearly one hundred local councils. This decentralization aims to increase food production and decrease the country's dependence on imports. "This is the first substantial reform to Cuba's economic model carried out by Raul," Jorge Pinon, a researcher of the University of Miami's Institute for Cuba and Cuban-American studies, told Bloomberg. Farmers can now use any farm equipment they can afford, and they also have the right to cultivate up to ninety-nine acres of unused government land for ten years. Some economists, including Oscar Espinosa Chepe, argue that it would be
preferable (PDF) to turn over the land as property, instead of on a ten-year lease. This, he writes, would give young people a stronger incentive to farm.

It's unclear how much latitude farmers will have under the new laws to sell their produce on the open market. Philip Peters of the Lexington Institute, whose CubanTriangle blog is a good source of expert analysis on the island, writes that in some cases producers might not have contracts that require them to sell their crops to the state. Currently, big agricultural producers sell 80 percent of their output to the state at set prices. Small urban farms, or organoponicos, can legally sell directly to the public and keep their profits (FT). Organic farmers from around the world have praised (Harper's) these small farms for their efficient method of farming.
"Cuba has a chance to be a real role model for Latin America, as the region tries to figure out how to survive the coming global economic transition from high waste to high efficiency," writes Patrick Doherty of the New America Foundation. But he cautions that "economic change has to come faster than Raul is presently orchestrating."

Raul Castro is hoping that more individual control of farms will spurn farmers to grow more food and in greater varieties. Clearly, in this time of crisis, he sees the free market as the best driver out rather than his own state. The irony couldn't be thicker.

This can be viewed as merely a token jesture, however in a country as totalitarian as Cuba, any move toward privatization can be seen as monumental. Furthermore, how a country responds to crisis certainly says a lot about how it views the world. It's a bit disheartening to watch the major governments of the world move towards Socialization because that inherently says that our leaders don't see free markets as the best answer. Still, in Cuba, where everything is nationalized, they move towards Capitalism during a crisis.

We saw a similar phenomenon in France a couple years back. To combat a stagnant economy, Nicholas Sarkozy proposed a series of free market, capitalistic reforms. The French people, after seeing their economy sputter through a series Socialistic jaunts, responded by overwhelmingly electing Sarkozy on his free market platform.

Certainly, no one will mistake Cuba for the former Wall Street anytime soon, however, as much of the capitalistic world dismisses free markets during this crisis, we may want to look over and see how a truly nationalized society views nationalization in the midst of crisis as well.

Joe Conason's Confused and Disingenuous Energy Policy

Joe Conason has come with an alternative energy policy. Times are tough and these desperative times call for equally desperate action. So, Joe Conason believes it's time to lift the embargo with Cuba.

Now there is at least one more incentive to change course. With its huge potential for producing clean, renewable, sugar-based ethanol, Cuba represents a significant source of energy that will remain unavailable to American consumers unless we undo the embargo. Agricultural experts have estimated that Cuba could eventually provide more than 3 billion gallons of fuel annually, perhaps even more when new technologies for extracting energy from sugar cane waste (known as "bagasse") come online -- placing the island third in world ethanol production, behind the U.S. and Brazil. Given the relatively small demand for auto fuel in Cuba, nearly all of that ethanol would be available for export to its nearest neighbor.

Today the Cuban government manufactures only nominal amounts of ethanol, mainly because of government policies favoring table sugar and rum instead. Fidel Castro reportedly feels that using cane for fuel instead of food is a capitalist crime against the poor. Having ceded power to his brother Raúl, however, the aging ruler may no longer control economic policy -- and Raúl is widely viewed as the more flexible and pragmatic Castro. A revitalized ethanol industry in Cuba would have an enormous ready market only 90 miles away. It is also worth noting that sugar ethanol not only seems to burn cleaner than the kind made from grain but could also
reduce pressure on food prices. (Besides, everyone would be better off eating less sugar.)

Now, I confess that I don't know much about Cuba's resources, sugar or otherwise. I do, however, know somethings about geopolitics. Imagine what would happen to our geopolitical standing if an energy crisis forced us to lift a ban with an enemy of more than half a century. What sort of message would that send to other enemies like Iran? To be fair to Conason, he wants to lift the ban with Cuba, energy crisis or not. Thus, the energy crisis is nothing more than a red herring to achieve other ends. That said, let's take a look at how disingenuously and dishonestly he comes to this conclusion.

Listening to the mouthpieces of the oil industry on talk radio and cable television -- as well as in the Bush White House -- one gets the impression that we must start drilling in America's coastal waters immediately. If only we unleash the oilmen to explore and exploit, then the price of gasoline will start to fall, the scheming petroleum cartel will collapse, and the United States will be independent once again. And if we don't unleash the oilmen, then the Chinese communists will siphon off all the oil from the coast of Cuba before we can even launch a rowboat into the Caribbean.

None of that is true, of course. Producing oil from new offshore wells requires decades, and even when those resources come online they will have little impact on world prices, according to the government's own studies. Fouling our shores with clots of tar will bring us no closer to freedom from foreign oil in the near, medium or long term.

First, drilling off shore doesn't require decades of wait but rather a couple years or less. Second, the oil market is being driven by emotion not supply and demand. The mere serious attempt by the U.S. to produce domestic energy would have a significant effect on oil prices.

Furthermore, whatever difficulties we would have in bringing drilled oil to the market, it would still be a significantly shorter time than developing any alternative energy and having that come to market. There is nothing more disingenuous than someone that claims that off shore drilling will take a long time to have an effect and then proposes some sort of alternative energy that is a figment in their own imagination.

I have nothing against ethanol made from sugar. We have already seen it work brilliantly in Brazil. On the other hand, no alternative energy is anywhere close to being ready be marketed on anything close to a mass scale.

Of course, this is really not about energy independence. Rather, this is about Conason's obsession with blaming America for an ill in the world. Even if that means excusing a dictatorship and weakening our own geopolitical position by making a significant geopolitical concession because we are facing an energy crisis.

The Perverted Geopolitical Vision of Barack Obama

A confluence of events this week got me thinking about Barack Obama's foreign policy vision. First, Fidel Castro resigned. Here is what the Obama campaign said in response.

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.

This isn't the first time that Obama has shown a willingness to sit down with one of our enemeis. Obama has already indicated that he would have unconditional talks with rogue leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His top foreign policy advisor recently met with Bashar Assad in Damascus. Since Obama doesn't specify what will and won't be said, I can only assume that trade will be a topic. In fact, I suspect trade would be an important part of any bilateral talks between the heads of nations. By showing a willingness to meet with our enemies, and not taking trade off the table, Obama has shown a willingness to tacitly move towards normalizing trade relations with our enemies.

This is an important thing to keep in mind because the Obama campaign was in Ohio bashing NAFTA this past week.

Said Obama, "One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."

NAFTA is of course not the only free trade agreement that he has bashed. Barack Obama has consistently been against all trade with Latin America and our other neighbors. Thus, when it comes to our own neighbors and immediate geographic allies Obama would like to use trade to weaken our geopolitical relationship. He wants to do the exact opposite with our main enemies. Thus, on the topic of free trade, Obama has a geopolitical vision of subsequenty punishing our neighbors and rewarding most of our biggest enemies.


This is important to keep in mind when you consider Obama's generally open borders stance on illegal immigration. This means a President Obama would generally try and cut off trade with countries like Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, and he would also invite folks of those countries to come across a generally wide open border. It doesn't take much intuition to predict the disaster that combination would be.

Thus, A President Obama would be criss crossing the Continents stopping in Damascus, Tehran, Havana, and possibly even Pyonyang. While he is doing that, he will subsequently practice nativist and protectionist trade policy with our nearest geographic allies. At the same time, he would open our borders wide for all the folks whose economies he just ruined when he cut trade off with their home nations.

His geopolitical views much like his economic views are disjointed, naive, and totally without any logic or reason. It's clear to me that the only reason that Obama is against NAFTA, CAFTA, and other free trade agreements like them is because his base of union support is against them. He appears to be for unconditional face to face meetings with our enemies because that is something Bush refused to do. I am not sure why he is open borders though I could come up with dozens of motives. None of these reasons have anything to do with making good policy. This sort of policy based on pleasing a base, or demagoguing a political enemy, or any other politically opportunistic motivation usually leads to exactly the sort of perverted vision that this one does.