This is the first article in a multi-article set that will examine each of the policy “categories” that Sen. Obama identifies as part of his platform, and offer some critical analysis of what an Obama Presidency might mean, given what he has said.

I decided to write these series of articles after Sen. Obama commented on US policy on Iran. Iran had just launched a series of medium ranged ballistic missiles. Obama heavily criticized the President, basically saying it was all his fault that Iran had developed missiles and was developing nuclear weapons. After he finished his criticism of the President, he was asked what he (Obama) would do differently. In response, Obama said, “Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions.”

To the adoration of the media - that sounded good. Only problem was - it already is US policy. So why then is the policy complete “crap” when the President says, but it is adored and admired as “bold leadership” when Obama says it - giving Chris Matthews chills up his leg (or whatever he claims happens)?

Several of us at Right Commentary are seasoned policy wonks. So when Obama said his response, I instantly understood it to be absolutely no change in US policy. I wouldn’t expect the average Joe, however, to know what the US approach on Iran is, nor to be able to understand that Obama’s policy position is no different from US policy now. I don’t mean this in a condescending manner - the people of the United States trust that their government is staffed by people that know what they are doing. It is difficult, if not impossible, for most people to understand the intracies of the policy choices that are made by the federal government. However, when something as silly as that statement by Obama went unchallenged - that’s when I decided to write these pieces. I’ve talked with several of the cadre at RC that I know who are policy wonks as well - and all of us are going to try to write a piece between now and the election on what Obama’s “rhetoric” would actually mean in practice.

The first in this series is what I’m most familiar with - namely - defense policy.

What Obama is most well known for in the area of defense policy is of course the concept that he would have never “attacked Iraq” (we did not ‘attack’ Iraq, not in the legal sense) and that we should withdraw our troops in some immediate timeframe - not based on Iraq’s ability to manage its own stability or security.

I will address those aspects of his defense policy - however - for the moment, I want to just analyze the stuff on his website. The “bumper sticker” policy statements that he has identified relating to national defense. What is quite amusing is that these policies are a mixture of complete “fantasy” and current US polcy.

I begin first by analyzing how Mr. Obama understands “the problem” as he has it on his website.

A 20th Century Structure for 21st Century Problems: We have inherited a national security structure that was developed and organized in the late 1940s to win the Cold War. It remains a rigid bureaucracy of government agencies, relying upon a restrictive and disconnected set of legal authorities.

New Leadership and Vision is Needed: America simply cannot afford more of the old approach to our national defense. Instead, it needs a Commander-in-Chief with the right combination of judgment, vision, and leadership for the 21st century.

A Military Under Strain: Currently, our soldiers, seamen, airmen and Marines are deployed around the globe, working valiantly to defend our nation. Yet, these heroes are under-resourced and asked to do too much by a policy that has too often taken their sacrifice for granted. Due to their incredible courage and ingenuity, they persevere, but at incredible cost to themselves and their families.

Recruitment and Retention Problems: A country of 300 million strong should not struggle to find enough qualified citizens to serve. Recruiting and retention problems have been swept under the rug by an administration that does not understand the value of service to our nation.

A System Not Serving our Troops as Well as They Serve Us: As the shameful events at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the recent reports on growing numbers of homeless and unemployed veterans show, we simply are not taking proper care of our wounded warriors and veterans.

A 20th Century Structure for 21st Century Problems:

This issue is laughable. The “20/21st century” problem described just doesn’t exist in our national defense. We have our weaknesses in our national defense structure, however, the assertion that the US military is stuck in some 1940’s model is just plain wrong. The reality is that the United States military has been under constant transformation since the end of the Second World War. The most sweeping of these changes was undoubtedly the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. That law completely ended the “1940’s” structure of military governance in the Pentagon, ending the long-held service-based rivalries and control of the United States military. As someone who worked in the Pentagon for four years - I can tell you that “jointness” is not something the military pays lip-service to, it is a reality of military life in planning and execution of military operations.

Goldwater-Nichols imposed a necessary reform and resulted in the fantastic capabilities that defeated Saddam’s armies (twice), routed the Taleban in Afghanistan, and is the envy of every industrialized nation in the world. Countries send their soldiers to the Pentagon to learn about our bureaucracies and military training that Obama criticizes as being antiquated.

That’s a fact.

There is no military combination of countries in the world that could defeat the United States and its Commonwealth partners (UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) on the battlefield.

And that’s a fact.

Our superior skill on the battlefield boils down to the training, equipment, and support for, our the United States Servicemember. Our forces fight jointly, with unity of purpose and command structure, that is flexible, reliable, and works. When our soldiers call in an airstrike on an enemy’s position, there is no doubt in that soldier’s mind that the bombs are going to come, they’re going to fall where they’re designated, and that the other components working to achieve the objective, are doing their jobs. Are there problems - yes. Are there mishaps and friendly fire - yes. But virtually no other military in the world can fight the way he United States can, on the scale and scope that the United States can field its military.

The US military has two great advantages over all other militaries in the world: money and organizational capability. The US spends eight to 10 times as much on the military as does its nearest competitor. Furthermore, it has a higher defense budget than the entire gross national products of many nations - and more than all of our direct military competitors combined. Perhaps less tangible, the organizational capability of the US military is equally imposing to any state thinking of challenging the US. That capability allows the US to operate and maintain air and naval forces that even European countries can only imitate in exceptionally small scale (with only the French and the Commonwealth able to field “blue water” naval forces).

Further, the command organization of the United States military allows the US to provide logistics support for large forces around the world and to carry out large, complicated, joint-force operations that no one else can even think of matching.

No one. Not the Europeans. Not the Russians. Not the Chinese. No one.

Other US advantages in technology, training, strategic and operational thought, and alliance support flow from advantages in money and organizational capability. Even after reductions in military spending that followed the cold war, US military capability is so dominant in the world, it continues to retain the title of the world’s only Superpower.

Now, that’s the reality of the situation. What does Sen. Obama propose we should do to fix the “problem” he identified:

As we rebuild our armed forces, we must not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. Obama believes that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.

First of all - essentially all of this already is what the US military is doing, and has been doing, for about 10 years now. Let’s take the SOF issue: the US military began focusing more resources on special forces in the early part of the Bush Administration. A look at the current Special Operations Forces numbers, and efforts already underway to expand them, clearly demonstrates this fact. Current authorization for active SOF (specifically the Green Berets, Delta Force, certain Marine Force Recon units, and Navy Seals) is about 43,000 (there are about 10,000 more in Reserve and Guard units). The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in 2004, the Pentagon’s main planning tool, calls for adding another 13,000 active-duty Special Operations Forces over the next five years. This mandate is essentially fully funded already by the National Defense Authorization Acts that have passed in 2004. One of the things not recognized by Sen. Obama is that creating SOF is a very long-term process. SOF are not minted overnight the way soldiers are - most SOF are 3 or 4 term volunteers that have specialized training, taking years to get them sufficiently capable to carry out SOF missions. They cannot be increased overnight by Congressional authorization or billeting issues.

Civil Affairs, IO, and other units, are also increasing. Are they in short supply - yes, we could always use more. However, units engaged in “post-conflict” stabilzation are already an identified need of the US military, it’s already an issue that is funded, and will take time to develop. Again, these units cannot be grown “overnight” even with massive amounts of funding. We already field the largest force of combat support troops, like CA, IO, and logistics. Some countries don’t even have CA soldiers. Thus, while by our standards and desired capabilities, yes we want more - compared to just about every force in the world - we already are at the top of the pyramid.

Moreover, if Sen. Obama really cared about these issues - where was his support for expanding the overall size of the US military while he was in the Senate? Obama offered no substantive Amendments to the last 3 NDAA’s during his time in the Senate that would have increased the size or composition of the US military - nor did he support such measures through cosponsoring legislation.

As for allied training - again - this is something that has already been identified in the QDR. We spend more money, more time, and more effort, to train our allied militaries than anyone else in the world. I have given seminars and speeches to the groups that have come through the Pentagon and I know a bit about the training we give - it is rather amazing  what we share in terms of training and resources with allied forces.

I could go through each of the “problems” he identified in such detail - but I doubt my readers care that much. But let me quickly point some other things out to you.

Is intelligence and counter-insurgency an issue? Yes. Already identified. Counter Insurgency (COIN) is of significant concern to the US military and the Pentagon. Substantial policy and military assets have been commited to deal with these problems, as well as increasing the ability of the services and the Combatant Commands to collect, process, and disseminate certain types of intelligence. In terms of nationally collected intelligence - the DNI has issued a new Vision 2015 which is guiding the reform of the intelligence community, and the reforms made under the 500 day plan, have received nothing but kudos from Congress.

Is the military “under strain” - yes. The reality is, however, that Congress needs to authorize a significant increase in US forces. Our military dropped from about 3 million men in active service as the height of the Cold War to about a million. Congress has dragged its feet in authorizing a larger military. However, even as presently composed, the US military is still the most potent fighting force on Earth, and if required, could rapidly be built to 3-5 million men if the Congress wanted to make that investment. However, if Obama complains now about a 700B Defense budget (with the NDAA and supplementals), he will really squeal when at least 700B will be required to build the infrastructure, bases, support, and billeting, necessary to increase the size of the US military to meet all of the committments he’s identified on his website.

All in all - what Obama says about national defense sounds “good” to his supporters, but, little do they know alot of it is already “Bush policy,” and much of it is unachievable without significant sacrifice by the United States and the Congress. Just like saying “outlaw war,” it sounds good on paper - but is it realistic? Absolutely not.

As for defense policy - there won’t be a lot of ‘change you can believe in’ in an Obama administration.

While the recent events in Russian invading Georgia are not exactly the same as the invasion in Poland in 1939, unfortunately, there are too many similarities. Russia is bullying Georgia and attempting to reconstitute its empire of satellite states. Georgia matters to the United States because, put simply, as the only world’s Super Power, how America reacts to this naked aggression can either continue general peace and stability in the world, or alternatively, encourage aggression by the Russians, the Chinese, and other powers looking to “settle old scores, and renew old empires” around the world. Unfortunately, we’re not off to a very good start it seems. We either act decisively now, or, as Chamberlain did in 1939, look the other way while a bully beats the crap out of an ally.

What does Russia want? (What’s this all about anyways?)

The conflict between Russia and Georgia isn’t all that complicated in my view. What the Russians want is simple - they’re out playing “Risk” again, and they’re looking to collect another “green” territory (you’ll need to have played risk to get the sarcasm). You can look at an old Risk game-map here. Russia’s goals are quite simple:

• End Georgian sovereignty through expulsion of Georgian troops and termination of Georgian control in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
• Remove President Mikheil Saakashvili (a democratically elected and pro-West, pro-US, leader) and install a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi.
• Prevent Georgia from joining NATO
• Send a strong message to Ukraine that its insistence on NATO membership will lead to war and/or its dismemberment, just like Georgia.
• Shift control of the Caucasus, and especially over strategic energy pipelines, to Russia.
• Restore the sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union states, by the use of force if necessary.

If you accept Russia as a rational state - it is difficult to otherwise conclude these are not their goals since there is no logical reason otherwise for Russia, a powerful state, to attack its neighbor, who was incapable of threatening it.

Let me state briefly, that there is a logical and legitimate “beef” that the Ossetians may have with the Georgian government. They have been trying to break away for awhile, and there have been several vicious periods of fighting since Georgia declared independence back in 1991. Georgia’s deployment of troops in repsonse to the South Ossetian “break away” move last week was perhaps heavy-handed. However, to put what has happened into some context, it would be equivalent of the United States invading Canada because it deployed troops to put down seperatist movement of the Quebeciose, and flattening the Canadian military in response to a perceived injustice against Quebec for Canada deploying its troops within its borders. That would not be acceptable behavior, and the world would clamor for sanctions against the United States if that were to happen. That is, in a nutshell, what happened in this case - Russia invaded the sovereign state of Georgia over an internal dispute between separatists in South Ossetia and the Georgian Republic.

Russia’s actions are in direct contravention of international law. Casus belli under international law is rather explicit. Essentially, there are two broad frameworks for lawful conflict - either the Security Council can declare a breach of the peace and forces are committed to stop the “aggressor,” or, as was the case of the United States in Afghanistan, the United States exercised its inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Critics who are equivocating US action in Iraq and Russia’s invasion of South Ossetia are significantly misguided in their comparison. US action in Iraq is lawful and justifiable on the basis of enforcement of UNSCR (United Nations Security Council Resolution) 1441, a resolution that explicitly stated that the sanction for non-compliance with prior resolutions, “it [Iraq] will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of it obligations[.]” Further, under Article 51, the United States reasonably argued that Iraq’s support for al Qaida, and one of three known state supporters of international terrorist regimes such as Hezbollah and Hamas, placed it in conflict with the United States and represented a threat to its national security. While I grant you that with hindsight now, these arguments might have been evaluated differently, both in the context of when they took place, are lawful and legitimate. Those who quote equivocate US action in Iraq as being “the same” as Russia’s invasion of Georgia misstate the legal context for both actions.

Georgia is a democratic state that is pro-US and pro-West. They have modernized and flourished since leaving the Communist sphere in 1991. It is a prospering nation that, up until the Russians decided to flatten it, controlled significant gas and oil wealth, had access to international shipping, and was a candidate for NATO membership. Georgia’s democratically-elected government has instituted far-reaching reforms and ended the endemic corruption that defined life under Soviet rule. It has a burgeoning economy that grew 12 percent last year alone.

Russia wants to destroy all of that. That’s why this matters.

Even if you accept the criticisms of Iraq - this isn’t Iraq. Georgia is an ally. They are Democratic. Russia is our enemy. They are beating the snot out of our ally. If we don’t back our friends - then our credibility will be shot - and we will encourage tyranny.

No WMD. No nonsense. I’m not saying the Russians will be standing on our doorsteps tomorrow. But just as Czechoslovakia was the opening gambit in 1939, Georgia is Russia’s opening gambit in 2008. What stewards of world peace can we claim to be if, like Europe did in 1939, we stand by idly while peace and democracy dies in a former Soviet state?

I believe in what I have called the “jail house” model of international politics. In the jail house yard, if you want to prove you’re tough and control others, you find the biggest guy in the yard, and beat the snot out of him. That demonstration puts on notice everyone else that you are so tough, you just beat the crap out of the bully that everyone was sure was strong. Georgia is being made an example of - the strongest of the breakaway republics, Russia intends to beat the crap out of them as warning to others not to interfere in its new “sphere” of influence, and to warn states like Ukraine - if you even think about cozying up to the West anymore, robbery, rape, beatings, murder, and T72’s standing on your house are in the near future for you.

Just as President Bush in 1990 understood, I am hoping President Bush today understands, such naked aggression cannot go unchallenged. It is time to ratchet up the pressure on Russia. I would recommend the following:

• Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile.
• Embarrass the Russians by disbanding the G8 and reconstituting it as the G7.
• Seek immediate condemnation and sanction by the UNSC against Russia’s violation of international law by invading Georgia.
• Convene NATO to disband the NATO/Russia working groups.
• Declare our intention to begin immediately obstructing Russia’s accession into the WTO (the equivalent of blocking their full membership into the WTO)

And if that doesn’t get their attention:

• Request the Congress to immediately tariff 100% all Russian goods entering the United States.
• Stop all flows of money out of the United States to the Russia federation
• Seize Russian assets that may be located in US banks
• Withdraw the United States from the 2014 Olympic Games and encourage others to follow, hosting a Pan-democracy games in either the US or Europe.

And if that doesn’t get their attention:

• Provide foreign military assistance to Georgia on an emergency basis
• Provide the Georgian government with intelligence and weapons support for their forces to fight the Russians until they withdraw

And if that doesn’t work and they still don’t get it:

• PNG the Russian Ambassador to the US.
• Seek a UNSCR resolution that a state of war exists in Georgia and that it calls upon the allied powers of the US-EU to restore order and security.
• Put in “advisers” and deploy covert forces to “interrupt” Soviet efforts.

Do not be fooled that because Russians are making nice on TV that the reality is they are withdrawing. There are continuing reports of serious human rights violations and breaches of the law of war. Moreover, there are also reports of the Russians arming militias and then letting them run wild through Georgian cities, raping, pillaging, and stealing.

Hopefully some of you have seen with your own eyes the video of the reporter being sniped, or have read about the UNHCR incident where the Russian troops stole their vehicles and fired on them as they fled with reporters from the Wall Street Journal.

Bush may have looked into the eyes of Putin and found he had a good heart…

… but I’ll stick with the facts that Putin’s demonstrated himself to be nothing more than a classic commie in Stalin style.

The failure for us to act now and decisively will be far reaching. While Putin and Bush are sitting next together at the Olympics, Russian tanks were mowing down Georgia. What does it say to the rest of the world, to our allies, when America will not stand up for Democracy or for its allies?

How do you think the Chinese viewed what happened - with their ever wandering eye towards “one China” in Tiawan, or the Spratly Islands?

How do you think Ukraine understood what’s going on?

And what does it say to the world when Sarkozy is the voice of reason and stability? The cease-fire was a joke. Essentially, the French said, “okay - um - will you agree to stop shooting when you’ve killed all the Georgian military assets?” And the Russians said, “sure, okay!”

If we do not want the re-emergence of dangerous state empires - the US must act now, and decisively, to ensure that as we said in 1990, “this will not stand!” Otherwise, our national security is directly threatened by thinking we can somehow bargain it away through hollow agreements.

All that is missing  from 1939 analogy is if Sarko had come back from Moscow and proclaimed, “Mes bons amis, pour la deuxième fois dedans notre histoire, la France est retournés de Moscou apportant la paix avec l’honneur. Je crois que c’est paix pendant notre temps.”

Peace in our time indeed.

I spent the majority of my time last week up on Capitol Hill attending a seminar on intelligence operations and Congress. It was a fascinating seminar put on by the people at the Georgetown Institute. These are great courses (and I encourage any policy governmental employees to check them out) because they get members of Congress as well as senior staff, lobbyists, and other people “on the hill” who work there every day to provide presentations and background briefings. It provides a great condense “insight” into an issue. While the issue last week was supposed to be Intelligence budgeting and larger broad questions - as a former detainee policy director I was taken aback by the routine discussion about Detainees at Guantanamo and interrogation. All of the discussions essentially come to this question - what’s next for Guantanamo?

The concern about GTMO on Capitol Hill is not idle curiosity I presume. I was a bit taken back by many whom I would consider “deeply on the other side of the isle,” finally making the realization that the ruling by the Supreme Court could result in detainees successfully petitioning the Courts for their freedom, and the possibility that other Constitutional protections beyond Habeas may have inured to them during their detention in Guantanamo as a result of the ruling. Without question, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Boumedienne will have far-reaching implications.

The GTMO question however is really two problems - what happens to the people who are already at GTMO, and what will happen going forward in the Global War on Terrorism. The first problem will be solved before the General Election. The second problem - unfortunately - will have to be solved by the next President.

Let me begin by saying I have no particular insights or information about how the federal court will handle all of these cases. However, it appears obvious to me that the DC District Court has decided to expeditiously handle the habeas petitions (as it should). The vast majority of cases have been consolidated with one judge - Judge Hogan. Judge Hogan ordered counsel (the Justice Department and the defendant counsel) to provide status as to their cases by July 14, 2008 (about two weeks ago). The purpose of the order, I presume, was to get a sense of just how to proceed in the habeas corpus proceedings. I also gathered from reading his order that Judge Hogan is looking to proceed as expeditiously as possible.

I also presume that the status results will essentially say this - the government still wants the individual detained and was lawfully detained under the AUMF; defendants arguing they were not subject to the AUMF and/or their determination of enemy combatant was unlawful and factually in error, and thus, demand immediate habeas relief and release. With 270+ cases essentially log-jamming - it will be a challenge for the court to sort out the cases in a logical way.

I believe that the court will begin having Habeas hearings by late August or early September. The other detainee cases moved swiftly after the Supreme Court’s ruling - and I expect that the DC District Court is taking this very seriously and wants to move in a logical, but expeditious way. If I am correct, these hearings are likely to occur just after the two national conventions - and will undoubtedly galvanize many Americans as the first of the “worst of the worst” come before courts for their hearings on habeas. While cameras are not allowed in federal courts, it is undoubtedly to be of national interest on how the court rules (something I will get to in a minute in more detail). With potentially 270+ cases for the court to decide, and potential intertwining facts between detainees, it will be quite a complex process to expeditiously hear all of the cases - however - it is clear to me that such a task is exactly what Judge Hogan is seeking to do. The Chief Judge for the DC District (Judge Royce Lamberth) said in a statement that, “guidance from Congress on these difficult subjects is, of course, always welcome. Because we are on a fast track, however, such guidance sooner, rather than later, would certainly be most helpful.”

The Attorney General was up on the hill a couple of weeks ago basically telling Congress - DO SOMETHING! Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on Congress to craft legislation that would dictate the form of Guantanamo Bay cases in federal court, setting ground rules for evidence, and the extent to which detainees may participate in the proceedings, and the judiciary’s authority to order their release.

Mukasey said the legislation should include a statement of the executive’s right to detain, indefinitely, “those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated organization.” The Bush administration has long asserted this principle, but its foundation has been buffeted by one legal challenge after the next.

Mukasey said Congress should bar federal judges from ordering the release of detainees into the United States, even if they prevail in their habeas cases. And in the context of the court proceedings, the judges should not be permitted to order the government to bring detainees into the United States to participate, Mukasey said, adding that a video link would be “remote and safe.”

Nor should soldiers be required “to leave the front lines” to testify as witnesses or to create arrest reports on the battlefield, like law enforcement officers in the United States, with later court hearings in mind, he said. “Affidavits, prepared after battlefield activities have ceased, should be enough.” Mukasey said.

Mukasey said the habeas proceedings should not delay the trials of detainees charged with war crimes at the naval base. So far, 20 detainees have been charged in the military commissions.

Mukasey also urged Congress to restrict discovery in the habeas proceedings, giving deference to the government’s interest in guarding national security secrets. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering a case that could determine what kinds of evidence the government may withhold from detainees and their lawyers.

Finally, Mukasey argued that the legislation should also include a provision that gives the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo habeas cases, and it should require a coordinating judge on the court to handle all the common issues. While Judge Hogan has been given most of the cases Judge Richard Leon and Judge Emmet Sullivan opted out of the coordination.

I believe that the Attorney General was right to get Congress involved. Unfortunately, he seems to be the only one who thought this was a good idea (since the White House does not seem to be actively pursuing the Hill and getting them to act). Moreover, the reality of the Congressional calendar is - they’re out of time. While there are a few more days until the recess - it is unlikely there will be much done on detainee issues before the August recess. I cannot imagine that this will be ramrodded before the General Election. Thus, I suspect the Federal Courts have to proceed based on the rules they have now - essentially criminal federal procedure. I just don’t see Congress (particularly the Democrats in Congress) deciding to clarify the issue greatly. It is unfortunate but there is “too much political hay” to be made hanging the Administration out to dry on the detainee issue. Democrats want this to be ugly - and they may get more than wish for…

In my discussions with staffers and other people on the Hill, Congress has little sense of what is the right course of action is on the GTMO issue. While Sen. Levin continues to actively investigate detainee issues, the reality is the “really big show” is going to come after Federal Courts start gaveling detainees “free” on habeas. Moreover, the government may be placed in a difficult situation - either reveal as required by the courts the information they used to determine if the detainee was an enemy combatant (and in some cases expose the Administration to embarrassment regarding harsh interrogation techniques) - or be unable to make their case for detention, and thus, have the detainee go free as a result. When the court starts making decisions in favor of detainees (either on factual grounds or because the Government cannot sufficiently make its case) - Congress (especially Democrats who have been waiting to nail the Administration on this issue) is going to pinwheel into the ceiling. On top of the embarrassment of findings of cruel and mistreatment of detainees in the context of habeas hearings - I can’t imagine Democrats in Congress would pass up the opportunity to have more hearings on the entire framework of the detainee issue, demanding to know why the “worst of the worst” are being “let go” by Federal courts.

… in short - it’s going to be a serious mess (potentially) in the fall. But I do think it will be all over (one way or another) by Election Day. I suppose “that’s the good news.”

While a lot of political misfortune and turmoil is going to come as a result of the habeas cases - that’s not the really long term problem. Courts can handle the habeas cases, and the Republic will survive. The judicial review of the detainees is perhaps long-overdue given how the Administration chose to construct the legal framework. However, these decisions will have long-term implications in the GWOT - implications that neither the Congress nor the courts have yet to fully consider.

The reality is - the United States needs a place like GTMO for the long-term detention of some members of Al Qaida and affiliated terrorist organizations. I doubt very much the American people want to see the 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), go free. I also doubt much that the American people want to see the other 9-11 conspirators, and the other “high value” detainees go free. I do not believe their habeas petitions will be successful. However, I am also skeptical as to the likelihood that the Government will prevail in a military commissions case against them (if they all wind up being subject to it). So, the reality for both Congress and the public is that the United States is going to detainee some pretty significant people in the war on terrorism - probably the rest of their lives (in all likelihood) and will need a facility and a legal framework that supports that detention.

The United States is also engaged in the GWOT around the world - and that fight is not rhetorical. Our forces are “bringing the fight to the enemy” in many parts of the world. The reality is - terrorists are going to be “scooped up” as a part of our military and law enforcement activities. What is to be done with them if they are not going to go to GTMO? The Boumedienne case I believe casts significant doubts on bringing them to the US without having to provide them some sort of “due process” (most likely Habeas Corpus hearings). While Habeas Corpus hearings are not necessarily impossible to meet (let’s face it - the majority of habeas petitions in Court do not result in the incarcerated being released) - it is not something that the United States has set up a good framework for doing for people who are not incarcerated as a result of a criminal process. The habeas hearings in the fall may be the first indicators of all the problems and pitfalls of attempting to apply criminal standards to battlefield captures.

Moreover, it’s clear they won’t go to GTMO. Both Presidential candidates have sworn to close the place - McCain wanting to put one hand on the Bible on the platform of the Inauguration - and then place it on a button that nukes Guantanamo - making his first act to close GTMO and send them all to Leavenworth. (YouTube is a real pain when you’re running for office - see http://youtube.com/watch?v=X5Co7×3A12s.) I can’t say that I blame McCain (or Obama) for wanting to just end the place. As executed, GTMO has been a public policy disaster, and has unraveled everything that the Administration wanted to protect as its Presidential power in the GWOT.

Reality is - however - we need a place like GTMO. Otherwise, we’ll be forced to hold detainees away from US shores - in temporary holding facilities. What got Congress most upset in the last 7 years was the lack of oversight over the big facilities - imagine their frustration if the US has to set up a temporary holding facility in every region it is operating. In short - Congress isn’t thinking this through very well.

If GTMO is to close - and the process we are looking at is subjecting detainees to some sort of habeas review - then the Congress needs to act and help define what that looks like. We can set up “terror courts” to hear the detainee cases - provide them high clearances and make the rules acceptable to protect both national security, but ensure the detainees get their “habeas review” as the Supreme Court requires.

I suspect in the next administration - we will have to build “a new GTMO” - somewhere in the US. The detainees who are judged to be “free” as a result of the habeas hearings will ultimately be released to their home government (subject to our treaty obligations under international law). The remaining detainees will be brought to the US - probably NOT Leavenworth (despite the hype - we need Leavenworth as a US detention barracks for soldiers).

The new Administration will have to deal with this issue - because - I find it highly unlikely al Qaida will surrender and end the conflict between now and January 20th, 2009.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed Friday to include a “general time horizon” for U.S. troop withdrawals as part of a pending bilateral security agreement (SOFA - Status of Forces Agreement), the White House said.

“Improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals - such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq,” the White House said in a statement.

In recent weeks, Bush and senior officials have hinted that they would be open to “aspirational” goals for removing U.S. troops, as Maliki and other Iraqi politicians have voiced increasing discontent with the idea of an open-ended U.S. troop presence in their country.

The White House has also been under pressure from top military officers to make more U.S. forces available for the war in Afghanistan, and that would be possible only by reducing the number of troops in Iraq, administration officials said. U.S. troop levels there have been decreasing in recent months, as they return to the 15 combat brigades present before Bush ordered a troop increase last year.

Senior military officials have made clear that they expect troop levels in Iraq to drop even further this fall, following a 45-day period of assessment by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. In a statement issued yesterday, after the conversation between Bush and Maliki, the White House went further than it has in previous official statements to indicate that it shares that expectation.

“In the area of security cooperation, the president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals,” the statement said. It said those goals include turning over more control to Iraqi security forces and “the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel downplayed the notion that the administration was moving towards the long-held Democratic position on troop withdrawals.

“Discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground,” Stanzel said. “All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that.”

He declined to specify exactly what the conditions or schedule for further troop withdrawals might be and would not discuss the scope of the agreement currently being negotiated by the two governments. But he said “we still have the end of the month as a goal for reaching this agreement.”

Maliki and other senior Iraqi officials have demanded that withdrawal timelines be included in any security pacts.

The U.N. mandate under which coalition forces operate in Iraq expires at the end of this year. The two governments have been negotiating a bilateral agreement under which U.S. forces would remain in Iraq; the withdrawal timeline would be a part of that deal, the White House said.

Bush has insisted such a deal would not need congressional approval, but Democrats have demanded a say in the agreement.

The House version of the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill (HR 5658) would require congressional authorization for any agreement between the United States and Iraq that obligated the U.S. military to defend Iraq. That has drawn a veto threat from the president.

The version of the defense bill approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S 3001) has no provision requiring congressional approval of a U.S.-Iraq pact, but Carl Levin , D-Mich., the panel’s chairman, said a similar amendment could offered when the bill comes to the Senate floor.

I have been thinking all day today about Gen. Wes Clark (Ret.) argument against Sen. McCain that he lacks “command experience” because his military career is essentially one of dropping bombs on innocent civilians and getting captured and tortured.

Sen. McCain’s service to his country in Vietnam was honorable. That story is a difficult one to tell, and Sen. McCain has attempted to be open and has written about his time in captivity and the things he experienced. In that war, he was captured by the North Vietnamese, who tortured him for years. Ever since, McCain cannot raise one of his arms above his shoulder and he obviously has mental issues to deal with. I believe he has overcome such adversity remarkably well, seeing as many of his colleagues who were similarly treated have had difficult lives after the end of the War.

What possessed Clark to say what he said is just beyond me. It is completely idiotic. Clark’s criticism is valid - but irrelevant. It is a reasonable observation to say that Sen. McCain did not have “command experience” while he was on active duty. McCain was not promoted to flag officer, was not a Combatant Commander (or a CINC as it would have been called at the time), nor did McCain hold a post where he commanded active combat forces. Clark’s career was one where he had that type of service. Clark was a brigade, divison, and Combatant Commander (CDR, US Southern Command and European Command). I can tell you from my time in the Pentagon, there is always some tension it seems between officers who have combat command experience, and those who do not. A distinction I think that has become considerably less relevant now that we have fought two wars for over six years; it’s quite difficult to find a senior officer in the military who doesn’t have at least ONE combat patch of some sort. So Clark’s statements about McCain, quite frankly, don’t surprise me all that much. This is an argument I’ve heard quite a number of times in the Pentagon.

However, Clark makes it seem like all McCain did was like get coffee or something. That assertion is just wrong. As the son and grandson of distinguished Navy admirals, John McCain deeply values duty, honor and service of country.

McCain attended college at the United States Naval Academy, and launched a 22-year career as a naval aviator upon his graduation. He continued the McCain tradition of service to country passed down to him from his father and grandfather when he asked to serve in the Vietnam War.

On July 29 1967, he narrowly survived the first of many near-death experiences during his lifetime while preparing to take off on a bombing mission over North Vietnam from his ship, the USS Forrestal. A missile accidentally fired from a nearby plane struck the fuel tanks on John’s plane and created a deadly inferno aboard the ship. John barely escaped the fiery disaster that killed 134 men, injured hundreds more and destroyed 20 planes.

Instead of taking the option to return home after the Forrestal disaster, John McCain volunteered for more combat duty - a decision that would separate him from his family, and country, for five and a half years.

During his 23rd bombing mission on October 26, 1967, a missile struck McCain’s plane and forced him to eject, knocking him unconscious and breaking both his arms and his leg. He was then taken as a prisoner of war into the now infamous “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was tortured by the enemy.

McCain spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement. When he was finally released and able to return home years later, he continued his service by regaining his naval flight status.

Senator McCain’s last Navy duty assignment was to serve as the naval liaison to the United States Senate. He retired from the Navy in 1981 as a Captain.

His Naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

My question to Wes Clark is - tell me Wes, what honors did Barrack Obama obtain that makes him qualified to be Commander in Chief? What Combatant Command did he obtain? Or heck Wes, what service did he serve in?

Clark is a boob. Obama should just fire him off the campaign.