Afghani Police: How do you train bands of idiots and turn them into a force if they have no sense of loyalty, no sense of belonging?

>


Need to see more? Here is an interesting clip on US Marines trying to train some Afghani police recruits.

_____________________



'Most of them were corrupt and stoned on opium'

A senior serving soldier reveals how the Afghan policemen in Helmand are often a danger to the British forces they work with

Thursday, 5 November 2009 Independent

When I heard the news this morning, I thought "Christ, five in one go..." I was shocked and saddened – but I was not surprised that it had happened. I'm surprised it took this long.

We went out to Helmand to mentor the Afghan National Police without understanding the level they were at. We thought we would be arresting people, helping them to police efficiently. Instead we were literally training them how to point a gun on the ranges, and telling them why you should not stop cars and demand "taxes".

Most of them were corrupt and took drugs, particularly opium. The lads would go into police stations at night and they would be stoned; sometimes they would fire indiscriminately at nothing.

They had no understanding of the basics of what it means to be a policeman. We expected to be teaching adults at a certain level and then realised we would be changing nappies. Give them 20 rounds and they will hit the target once.

The first time I saw them I realised that they had almost no training; some of them had very little ability. Their uniforms were dirty and didn't fit. Their weapon-cleaning was non-existent.

They certainly didn't have a concept of being upstanding members of the community. They had no loyalty, esprit de corps or cameraderie. That should have been incorporated in their training. They did have pride – because of the power and status they felt.

How do you train this band of idiots and turn them into a force to be reckoned with if they have no sense of loyalty, no sense of belonging?

The biggest problem was that we didn't know who we were getting. There were no security checks – they were literally allowed to come into the compound and we had to rely on the local chief of police, who recruited them. We kept a close eye on them because we didn't know or trust them – it was for our own security.

Perhaps half of them genuinely wanted to try to make the community safe: they had the right intention but the attention span of gnats. Twenty would turn up one day, none the next, then 15, then suddenly a new face would appear.

It was difficult just getting them to a basic level, to do things like man a post. They would take drugs, go to sleep, leave their post, have sex with each other. Very few were vigilant or alert.

When we went out of camp to do stop-and-searches, we became sitting ducks – nothing more than bodyguards or babysitters while they worked.

British troops felt extremely vulnerable. If they were going out on patrol they didn't tell the Afghans where, so they couldn't pass on the information – they didn't want improvised explosive devices (IEDs) laid in the area. They didn't trust them one bit.

There was an operation involving the Brits and the Afghan National Army to clear Nad-e-Ali, and it cost lives. The police were left at checkpoints, but within 48 hours all the checkpoints had been overrun or the police just buggered off. As soon as the ground was won it was lost again.

The Afghan army are a lot more switched on. They have started to stand up for themselves. But the police have not had the same investment. There is no point in pushing the army through to clear ground if you leave a void behind with the police.

Lives get lost for nothing.

The Afghan police are very good at understanding the environment and if the atmospherics have changed because they are local: they know the area and the people. They are also good at spotting IEDs, although some just pick them up and walk off with them, or put them into the back of their vehicle.

Progress is being made, but it is extremely slow. I am convinced that a lot of money has been wasted and people have lost their lives unnecessarily because it was for a political end, and not a military decision. The British Army has been pushed into doing something it should not be. This type of mentoring role could be fulfilled by our Ministry of Defence police or civilian coppers (in a secure compound).

A lot could be done without putting British soldiers' lives at risk. They should recruit the right Afghans, security check them, pay them regularly and train them properly – at least three months out of the area – all before the squaddie ever gets to see them.

The author's identity has been withheld

Better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders.

Hat tip: Desert Rat

Writing in the Guardian, Kim Howells – who had ministerial responsibility for Afghanistan until 2008 – said: "It would be better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders [and] gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain."

Kim Howells, a former minister, said the shooting dead of five British soldiers by a rogue Afghan policeman has dealt a blow to the heart of the UK's exit strategy.

Mr Howells, who now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, said the incident in the Nad-e'Ali district of Helmand province yesterday undermined the British and US strategy of building up the Afghan security forces.
"There are many people who have argued that there is only one way out of this for Britain and America and that is to train up the Afghan army and police force so that they can become responsible for their own security.

"This is a real blow because it strikes right at the heart of that policy."
Earlier, Dr Howells broke with Government policy by calling for the phased withdrawal of British troops, arguing that the money would be better spent on police and security measures to prevent al Qaeda terror attacks in the UK.
__________________________

British soldiers killed in attack by Afghan policeman
Ministry of Defence says five soldiers died after 'rogue' policeman opened fire in Helmand province

Mark Tran, Alexandra Topping and Jon Boone in Kabul
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 4 November 2009 09.43 GMT

Five British soldiers have been killed and several others injured in a gun attack by a "rogue" Afghan policeman in Helmand province, the Ministry of Defence said today.

The soldiers – three from the Grenadier Guards and two from the Royal Military police – were killed by gunshot wounds suffered in the attack, which happened in the Nad-e'Ali district yesterday.

British and Afghan officials said the men were killed at a police checkpoint when the policeman picked up his weapon and began firing.

They said the attacker's motives were unclear, adding that the incident was being investigated by Afghan authorities and the Royal Military police.

"The soldiers concerned were mentoring Afghan police," Lieutenant Colonel David Wakefield, an army spokesman, told Sky News.

"They were working inside and living inside an Afghan national police checkpoint.

"It would appear, and it is our initial understanding, that an individual Afghan policeman, possibly acting with another, started firing within the checkpoint before fleeing the scene."

Wakefield stressed that the attack had not come as a result of any breakdown or fight between British and Afghan forces.

The casualties were evacuated to hospital at Camp Bastion, with several flown there in Chinook helicopters and a US Black Hawk.

Two injured Afghan policemen were taken to hospital at Bost, in Lashkar Gah.

Peter Galbraith, a former deputy head of the UN mission in Afghanistan – who left his post over disagreements about the presidential elections – said "rushed" attempts to train extra Afghan officers for the now cancelled presidential election runoff meant such incidents could be expected.

"It is a terrible tragedy … but it is, I won't quite say inevitable, but it is not surprising," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He said police usually received an eight-week training course, but it had been shortened to five weeks in order to have more police available for the elections, particularly in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, he added.

"The process of police training and recruiting has been very rushed," he added. "There isn't a lot of vetting of police before they are hired.

"It is not totally surprising that people were recruited who may have had Taliban sympathies or were infiltrated into the police by the Taliban, although I don't know yet whether, in this particular episode, that is exactly what happened."

The deaths make 2009 the bloodiest year for the British armed forces since the Falklands war, bringing the total so far to 93.

Until now, the worst period since the Falklands conflict had been 2007, when 89 members of the armed forces died on active service.

The death toll in Afghanistan since the conflict began in 2001 now stands at 229, and the increasing number of casualties has led to growing questioning of the eight-year war.

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, paid tribute to the soldiers, describing their deaths as a "terrible loss".

"My thoughts, condolences and sympathies go to their families, loved ones and colleagues. I know that the whole country, too, will mourn their loss," he said.

"They fought to make Afghanistan more secure, but above all to make Britain safer from the terrorism and extremism which continues to threaten us from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I pay tribute to their courage, skill and determination. They will never be forgotten."

Brown said it was his "highest priority" to ensure troops had the best possible support and equipment and "the right strategy, backed by our international partners, and by a new Afghan government ready to play its part in confronting the challenges Afghanistan faces".

The defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, offered his condolences to the families of the soldiers and emphasised the need for the country to show "resolve" in supporting the Afghan conflict.

"It continues to be a difficult year in Afghanistan for our brave people who are operating within the most challenging area of the country," he said.

"We owe it to them to show the resolve that they exhibit every day in building security and stability in Afghanistan and protecting the UK from the threat of terrorism."

Earlier this week, the MoD announced that a senior army explosives expert had been killed while defusing a bomb in southern Afghanistan.

Staff Sergeant Olaf Sean George Schmid died as he tried to make safe an improvised explosive device in the Sangin region of Helmand on Saturday.

The 30-year-old had been about to end his tour of duty after five months in Afghanistan.

Abdullah Abdullah, President Hamid Karzai's closest challenger in the disputed Afghan presidential election, also offered his condolences to the relatives of the dead soldiers and stressed the need for international troops.

"Eight years down the road, we still need more troops in the absence of a credible and legitimate partner," Abdullah, a former foreign minister, said. "More soldiers and more resources are the only thing we can resort to."

The latest fatalities came as a major rift opened in the British government's support for the Afghan war, with the former Foreign Office minister Kim Howells calling for the phased withdrawal of UK troops from Helmand.

Howells, who is now Brown's intelligence and security watchdog, said the billions of pounds saved should be redirected to defending the UK from terrorist attacks by al-Qaida.

Writing in the Guardian, Howells – who had ministerial responsibility for Afghanistan until 2008 – said: "It would be better to bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate, instead, on using the money saved to secure our own borders [and] gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain."

Corzine goes down in flames. Obama will get scorched.

Republican wins in the top three spots in Virginia and now in New Jersey is bad news for Obama. This will be a game changer for the agenda to no where, which is exactly where it is going now.

"As long as Iran has friends like Russia and China, Iran can afford to be dismissive."

An interesting synopsis of why the US policy towards Iran is failing. I have bulleted the points made by the author. The entire article follows the outline:

China and Iran

• Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task -- performed by the U.S. in recent recessions -- has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power.
• Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated $120 billion dollars -- so far -- to Iran's energy industry.
• Iran, with the second largest oil as well as gas reserves in the world, looms large in the strategic plans of Beijing.
• Chinese oil corporations have already started shipping gasoline to Iran to fill the gap caused by a stoppage of supplies from British and Indian companies anticipating Washington's possible move.
• Iran's national oil corporation has also invited its Chinese counterparts to participate in a $42.8 billion project to construct seven oil refineries and a 1,000 mile trans-Iran pipeline that will facilitate pumping petroleum to China. The Chinese want to import Iran's petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to U.S. naval interdiction.

Russia and Iran

• Russia is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran.
• A sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged.
• Russia is making serious money from its dealings with Iran.

The US and Iran

• Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq and overthrow its president, Saddam Hussein, on trumped-up charges involving his supposed program to produce weapons of mass destruction.
• Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a budget of $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime.
• Insecure regimes seek security in nuclear arms. History shows that joining the nuclear club has, in fact, proven an effective strategy for survival. Israel and North Korea provide striking examples of this.
• Israel has acquired an arsenal of 80 to 200 nuclear weapons.
• Once North Korea tested its first atomic bomb in October 2006, the Bush administration softened its stance towards it.
• North Korea got its name removed from the Bush State Department's list of nations that support international terrorism.
• Under eight years of George Bush the United States effectively went broke while Chinese and Russian wealth and influence exploded.

_____________________

October 29, 2009

Why Obama’s Iran Policy Will Fail

Dilip Hiro: The Administration Remains Stuck in Bush Mode in a Changed World

CBS

While the tone of the Obama administration is different from that of its predecessor, and some of its foreign policies diverge from those of George W. Bush, at their core both administrations subscribe to the same doctrine: Whatever the White House perceives as a threat -- whether it be Iran, North Korea, or the proliferation of long-range missiles -- must be viewed as such by Moscow and Beijing.

In addition, by the evidence available, Barack Obama has not drawn the right conclusion from his predecessor's failed Iran policy. A paradigm of sticks-and-carrots simply is not going to work in the case of the Islamic Republic. Here, a lesson is readily available, if only the Obama White House were willing to consider Iran's recent history. It is unrealistic to expect that a regime which fought Saddam Hussein's Iraq (then backed by the United States) to a standstill in a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s, unaided by any foreign power, and has for 30 years withstood the consequences of U.S.-imposed economic sanctions will be alarmed by Washington's fresh threats of "crippling sanctions."

Most important, the Obama administration is ignoring the altered international order that has emerged in the wake of the global financial crisis triggered by Wall Street's excesses. While its stimulus package, funded by taxpayers and foreign borrowing, has arrested the decline in the nation's gross domestic product, Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task -- performed by the U.S. in recent recessions -- has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power.

Backed by more than $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the state-owned Chinese oil corporations have been locking up hydrocarbon resources as far away as Brazil. Not surprisingly, Iran, with the second largest oil as well as gas reserves in the world, looms large in the strategic plans of Beijing. The Chinese want to import Iran's petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to U.S. naval interdiction. As this is an integral part of China's energy security policy, little wonder that Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated $120 billion dollars -- so far -- to Iran's energy industry.

During a recent meeting with Iran's first vice president, Muhammad Reza Rahimi, in Beijing, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao stressed the importance of cooperation between the two countries when it comes to hydrocarbons and trade (at $29 billion a year, and rising), as well as "greater coordination in international affairs." Little wonder, then, that China has already moved to neutralize any sanctions that the United States -- backed by Britain, France and Germany -- might impose on Iran without United Nations authorization.
Foremost among these would be a ban on the export of gasoline to Iran, whose oil refining capacity falls significantly short of domestic demand. Chinese oil corporations have already started shipping gasoline to Iran to fill the gap caused by a stoppage of supplies from British and Indian companies anticipating Washington's possible move. Between June and August 2009, China signed $8 billion worth of contracts with Iran to help expand two existing Iranian oil refineries to produce more gasoline domestically and to help develop the gigantic South Pars natural gas field. Iran's national oil corporation has also invited its Chinese counterparts to participate in a $42.8 billion project to construct seven oil refineries and a 1,000 mile trans-Iran pipeline that will facilitate pumping petroleum to China.

Tehran and Moscow

When it comes to Russia, Tehran and Moscow have a long history of close relations, going back to Tsarist times. During that period and the subsequent Soviet era, the two states shared the inland Caspian Sea. Now, as two of the five littoral states of the Caspian, Iran and Russia still share a common fluvial border.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, relations between the Islamic Republic and Russia warmed. Defying pressures from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Russia's state-owned nuclear power company continued building a civilian nuclear power plant near the Iranian port city of Bushehr. It is scheduled to begin generating electricity next year.

As for nuclear threats, the Kremlin's perspective varies from Washington's. It is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran. Significantly, it was during his recent trip to Beijing to conclude ambitious hydrocarbon agreements with China that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, "If we speak about some kind of sanctions [on Iran] now, before we take concrete steps, we will fail to create favorable conditions for negotiations. That is why we consider such talk premature."

The negotiations that Putin mentioned are now ongoing between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., Britain, China, France, and Russia) as well as Germany. According to Western sources, the agenda of the talks is initially to center on a "freeze for freeze"agreement. Iran would suspend its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for the U.N. Security Council not strengthening its present nominal economic sanctions. If these reports are accurate, then the chances of a major breakthrough may be slim indeed.

At the heart of this issue lies Iran's potential ability to enrich uranium to a level usable as fuel for a nuclear weapon. This, in turn, is linked to the way Iran's leaders view national security. As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is, in fact, entitled to enrich uranium. The key point is the degree of enrichment: 5% enriched uranium for use as fuel in an electricity generating plant (called low enriched uranium, LEU); 20% enriched for use as feedstock for producing medical isotopes (categorized as medium enriched uranium, MEU); and 90%-plus for bomb-grade fuel (known as high enriched uranium, HEU).

So far, what Iran has produced at its Natanz nuclear plant is LEU. At the Iran-Six Powers meeting in Geneva on October 1st, Iran agreed in principle to send three-quarters of its present stock of 1,600 kilograms (3,500 pounds) of LEU to Russia to be enriched into MEU and shipped back to its existing Tehran Research Reactor to produce medical isotopes. If this agreement is fleshed out and finalized by all the parties under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency, then the proportion of Iran's LEU with a potential of being turned into HEU would diminish dramatically.

When it comes to the nuclear conundrum, what distinguishes China and Russia from the U.S. is that they have conferred unconditional diplomatic recognition and acceptance on the Islamic Republic of Iran. So their is far more concerned with the actual threat posed by some of Pakistan's estimated 75 nuclear weapons falling into militant Islamist hands than with the theoretical one from Tehran.. Indeed, a sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged. In other words, the foundation is being laid for the emergence of a Russia-Iran-China diplomatic triad in the not-too-distant future, while Washington remains stuck in an old groove of imposing "punishing"sanctions against Tehran for its nuclear program.

Tehran and Washington

There is, of course, a deep and painful legacy of animosity and ill-feeling between the 30-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S. Iran was an early victim of Washington's subversive activities when the six-year-old CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadiq in 1953. That scar on Iran's body politic has not healed yet. Half a century later, the Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq and overthrow its president, Saddam Hussein, on trumped-up charges involving his supposed program to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's leaders know that during his second term in office -- as Seymour Hersh revealed in the New Yorker -- Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a budget of $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime. They are also aware that the CIA has focused on stoking disaffection among Sunni ethnic minorities in Shiite-ruled Iran. These include ethnic Arabs in the oil-rich province of Khuzistan adjoining Iraq, and ethnic Baluchis in Sistan-Baluchistan Province abutting the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Little wonder that Tehran pointed an accusing finger at the U.S. for the recent assassination of six commanders of its Revolutionary Guard Corps in Sistan-Baluchistan by two suicide bombers belonging to Jundallah (the Army of Allah), an extremist Sunni organization. As yet, there is no sign, overt or covert, that President Obama has canceled or repudiated his predecessor's program to destabilize the Iranian regime.

Insecure regimes seek security in nuclear arms. History shows that joining the nuclear club has, in fact, proven an effective strategy for survival. Israel and North Korea provide striking examples of this.

Unsure of Western military assistance in a conventional war with Arab nations, and of its ability to maintain its traditional armed superiority over its Arab adversaries, Israel's leaders embarked on a nuclear weapons program in the mid-1950s. They succeeded in their project a decade later. Since then Israel has acquired an arsenal of 80 to 200 nuclear weapons.

In the North Korean case, once the country had tested its first atomic bomb in October 2006, the Bush administration softened its stance towards it. In the bargaining that followed, North Korea got its name removed from the State Department's list of nations that support international terrorism. In the on-again-off-again bilateral negotiations that followed, the Pyongyang regime as an official nuclear state has been seeking a guarantee against attack or subversion by the United States.

Without saying so publicly, Iran's leaders want a similar guarantee from the U.S. Conversely, unless Washington ends its clandestine program to destabilize the Iranian state, and caps it with an offer of diplomatic acceptance and normal relations, there is no prospect of Tehran abandoning its right to enrich uranium. On the other hand, the continuation of a policy of destabilization, coupled with ongoing threats of "crippling"sanctions and military strikes (whether by the Pentagon or Israel), can only drive the Iranians toward a nuclear breakout capability.

During George W. Bush's eight-year presidency, the U.S. position in the world underwent a sea change. From the Clinton administration, Bush had inherited a legacy of 92 months of continuous economic prosperity, a budget in surplus, and the transformation of the U.N. Security Council into a handmaiden of the State Department. What he passed on to Barack Obama was the Great Recession in a world where America's popularity had hit rock bottom and its economic strength was visibly ebbing. All this paved the way for the economic and political rise of China, as well as the strengthening of Russia as an energy giant capable of extending its influence in Europe and challenging American dominance in the Middle East.

In this new environment expecting the leaders of Iran, backed by China and Russia, to do the bidding of Washington means placing a bet on the inconceivable.

Where will revenue come from with increasing unemployment, increased consumer saving and government deficits?

I wish I had more confidence in the Obama Administration's ability to handle the financial mess but his obsession in picking this time to try and recreate and expand the US health care system is deeply concerning.

Obama should have no greater focus than fixing the economic engine of a mighty big ship.

Instead we have a race to fulfill an agenda to redistribute wealth to a political constituency, regardless of cost, and at a time when composite wealth is diminishing.

Obama seems tone death to the ugly rumbles coming up from the economic tectonic plates.

The filing for bankruptcy by CIT will clearly be bad for employment at the thousands of small firms served by CIT will have to trim spending, employment, and business expansion. The loss of the two billion plus TARP funds lent to CIT will be insignificant to the losses in those same firms served by CIT. This is no time for weak companies to be looking for alternative sources of funding.

Rising unemployment means less taxes and less private sector spending, greater consumer caution and increased savings and of course, greater federal deficits. The increased savings would be desirable if the savings were being recycled to domestic investment, but the fear in the banking sector is not allowing that to happen.

Obama and almost no one around him has ever run a business or worked for one. Biden has been in congress since he had first growth hair. When they talk about saving jobs they talk about an industry they understand and that is government. Obama talks about saving government jobs, municipal workers and teachers, important but not revenue producers from the private sector.

Unemployment numbers for this week will be telling. On Sunday, Timmy Boy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, said, "unemployment is worse than almost everybody expected, but growth is back a little more quickly."

Reassuring isn't it?

__________________

Mother of all carry trades faces an inevitable bust
By Nouriel Roubini
Published: November 1 2009
From the Financial Times:

...while the US and global economy have begun a modest recovery, asset prices have gone through the roof since March in a major and synchronised rally. While asset prices were falling sharply in 2008, when the dollar was rallying, they have recovered sharply since March while the dollar is tanking. Risky asset prices have risen too much, too soon and too fast compared with macroeconomic fundamentals.

So what is behind this massive rally? Certainly it has been helped by a wave of liquidity from near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing. But a more important factor fuelling this asset bubble is the weakness of the US dollar, driven by the mother of all carry trades. The US dollar has become the major funding currency of carry trades as the Fed has kept interest rates on hold and is expected to do so for a long time. Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates – as low as negative 10 or 20 per cent annualised – as the fall in the US dollar leads to massive capital gains on short dollar positions.

Let us sum up: traders are borrowing at negative 20 per cent rates to invest on a highly leveraged basis on a mass of risky global assets that are rising in price due to excess liquidity and a massive carry trade. Every investor who plays this risky game looks like a genius – even if they are just riding a huge bubble financed by a large negative cost of borrowing – as the total returns have been in the 50-70 per cent range since March.

(continue)

Will Christie win Jersey cause he is fat?

Presidential salutes

I don't like Presidents saluting. I didn't like it when Reagan did it it and do not recall anyone including Eisenhower doing it before Reagan. I suppose it is harmless but It reminds me of third world dictatorships and worse. It also adds a link to the military that IMO is dangerous for a US president, especially those that never served and might be reluctant to overrule military decisions when necessary. I may have cracked a tooth or two watching Clinton getting the hang of it.

Saluting comes with style. George Bush saluted like the BS smirky salutes you always expected from fighter pilots. Marine honor guards clearly saluted better than air force enlistees. With civilian presidents, it always looks slightly out of sync.

Saluting is a symbol respecting senior rank of uniform. A general out of uniform does not require a salute. Not returning a salulte is a strong message especially when you have the power and right not to so. the President has that power and should use it by not returning salutes.

I think it better that a president appear that he has more important things on his mind than returning salutes. Let them know who is boss.

The New York Times has some different thoughts:


___________________

A Final Verdict on the Presidential Salute

NY Times
By CAREY WINFREY
Published: October 31, 2009

FOR nearly three decades, I’ve felt conflicted about presidential salutes. After all, my United States Marine Corps instructors drilled into me the idea that “you never salute without a cover” which, in civilian, meant without a hat.

President Obama at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Oct. 29, 2009.
My fellow Marines and I were also informed, in no uncertain terms, that we weren’t to salute out of uniform. (I don’t think that presidential blue suits, white shirts and red ties quite qualify.) So whenever I saw a president stepping off a helicopter and bringing hand to brow, my drill instructor’s unambiguous words came back to me with much of their original force.

Then there were the salutes themselves, which ranged from halfhearted to jaunty. None of them fulfilled the characteristically succinct prescription that Capt. Jack O’Donnell of the Marine Corps delivered, in 1963, to my platoon of freshly minted second lieutenants at basic school in Quantico, Va.: “Your salute,” he pronounced, “must be impeccable,” by which we took him to mean like his: a straight line running from elbow to fingertips, the fingers and thumb forming a seamless whole, the arm brought swiftly to the brim of the cap, no palm showing, and then lowered smartly to the side.

Presidents have long been saluted, but they began returning salutes relatively recently. Ronald Reagan was thought to be the first, in 1981. He had sought advice on the matter from Gen. Robert Barrow, commandant of the Marine Corps. According to John Kline, then Mr. Reagan’s military aide and today a member of Congress from Minnesota, General Barrow told the president that as commander in chief he could salute anybody he wished. And so it began.

Mr. Reagan’s successors continued the practice, and I continued to be conflicted — believing that when it comes to salutes (and one or two other matters), presidents deserved to be cut some slack, but also feeling a little uneasy about the whole thing.

My ambivalence came to an end last week, when I saw a videotape of the president’s midnight trip to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where he had participated, very early that morning, in the “dignified transfer” of 15 Army soldiers and three Drug Enforcement Administration agents killed that week in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama stood ramrod straight and saluted as six soldiers carried the coffin bearing the body of Sgt. Dale Griffin of Indiana off a C-17 transport aircraft and into a waiting van. His salute, it struck me, was impeccable in every way.

Carey Winfrey is the editor of Smithsonian magazine.

A Pakistani view of the Clinton visit.

Clinton's call

The News

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Hillary Clinton's three-day visit to Pakistan, her first as US secretary of state, marks a fairly distinct break with the past. Unlike her tough-talking and deliberately abrasive predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, Ms Clinton went out of her way to be charming, open and to talk to a wide range of people. Her experiences in the US Senate also meant she brought in a mature handling of queries and a better understanding of how complex the regional situation is. The interaction with students at the Government College University in Lahore should have been especially instructive for the person who will be playing a key role in devising foreign policy in Washington. The students who lined up to question her were not hostile. But they made it clear they shared with the majority of citizens a lack of trust for the US and scepticism about intentions. To her credit Ms Clinton accepted there were good grounds for this lack of faith. Her assurance that the Obama administration represented real change is one that will need though to be proven through deeds and not just words. The sometimes startled response from the secretary of state to the far tougher questions thrown at her by a TV panel made up of top anchor people suggests the government functionaries she met in Islamabad may have offered up a typically sanitized picture of prevailing sentiments. It is, therefore, encouraging that despite the immense security concerns Hillary Clinton made it a point to see the 'real' Pakistan, also holding a meeting with Mian Nawaz Sharif in his home city.

But for all her pleasant smiles, Ms Clinton did not shy away from making some things quite clear. She stated that she believed the Al Qaeda leadership was indeed in Pakistan, she stressed an all-out effort on every front was needed against terrorism and she focused on how much Pakistan had to gain, especially in economic terms, by normalizing ties with India. If we are honest, we cannot deny that much of what she said was true. For reasons buried in ideology, many of us, whether we draw influence from the right or the left of the political spectrum, have difficulty in suggesting that an alliance with the US could benefit Pakistan. It would also be naïve to assume that Washington wishes to 'help' Pakistan as an ally. International relations are after all geared around self-interest and self-preservation. There is nothing noble about Washington's focus on Islamabad. But it is possible that at this particular moment in history the interests of both nations coincide. This is something we should use to our advantage.

Overcoming the militant threat and entering in to a less acrimonious relationship with India would benefit most citizens. There are segments that would stand to lose, but ways must be found to prevent them from subverting the interests of the majority. They have done so repeatedly through the decades since 1947. The current US setup seems to have recognized some of this. Ms Clinton also emphasized in this respect a dramatic change in policy from those of the George W Bush-led team. The Bush administration's virtually blind backing for former president Musharraf created a number of the problems we face today. Our political leaders must assess the way we can most effectively counter these. In realistic terms, going beyond rhetoric or wishful thinking, it is inevitable that we will need to work with the US at least for some years to come. We cannot on our own hope to conquer that monster of terrorism that Washington's policies helped create. Nor do we have the economic or moral wherewithal to do this. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to better understand concerns in Pakistan and to open wider the doors of communication. There are still plenty of reasons to be wary of US intentions. But for now, the opportunities for a more open relation laid out by the secretary of state need to be seized and utilized to pull our country out of the pit into which it has stumbled as a result of errors made in the past.