China stonewalling Bhutan on border talks

This has been a kind of one-sided negotiation. Now the Chinese are building permanent structures on Bhutanese territory, but it's just for soldiers, so don't worry.
From Kuensel Online:

Many talks, little progress

Opposition leader suggests need for the government to change its strategy
Bhutan-China Border An issue dating more than 50 years, which, despite 19 rounds of talks, yielded little in return.

This was the feeling among some Parliament members, following foreign minister in-charge Khandu Wangchuk’s update to the house on the issue of Bhutan-China border.

Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk informed the members that, with regards to the boundary to the south, the government was able to not just discuss in great detail the boundary issues with the neighbour to the south, but they had it settled. He said, however, the same could not be said about the progress vis-a-vis the boundary discussions with the neighbour to the north.
He said the boundary talks with the Chinese government began since 1984, and the country was still pushing towards reaching a decision.

“It’s been 28 years since serious discussions began,” he said. “We’ve had about 19 discussions so far, the last being held in the beginning of 2010 at Thimphu.”
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk was responding to the question the Haa parliamentarian Ugyen Tenzin raised, on how the government was progressing in the border discussion with China.
Ugyen Tenzin said the earlier temporary tents Chinese border security pitched during winters, which they bundled up in summers, is being replaced with permanent houses being built along the borders.
“This is a major cause of concern for the people of not just Haa but of the nation,” he said, adding the other issue was of the pastureland at Bjagana being taken into their boundary.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said the government was just as deeply concerned, and was constantly investigating the northern boundary issue.
Having learnt about the permanent houses being built along the borders, he informed the members that, on October 11,  2011, the Bhutanese government wrote a letter to the Chinese ambassador at Delhi about it and the subsequent concerns it generated in the Bhutanese government.
“In the letter we said the action was in violation of the Guiding Principles agreed on between the two governments in 1998,” he said, adding that an agreement on The Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity in the Bhutan-China Border Areas was also signed in 1998.
Within 11 days, on October 12, 2011, he said the Chinese government replied, saying they had conducted an investigation into the issue.
“They said,” Lyonpo informed the members, “the permanent houses were built for the border security personnel, so they would be saved the trouble of having to  pitch camps and pack them every year.”
One crucial aspect contained in the letter, he said, was that the Chinese government committed to respect and work in accordance with the agreements drawn between the two nations.
On November 15 and 16 last year the expert survey team from the two nations met to resolve differences over border land of Doklam, Charithang, Sinchulumpa and Dramana.
Despite several discussions, he said they could not reach an agreement, following which the two sides decided to continue the discussion in 2012 at Bangkok, Thailand.
Wangduephodrang Parliament representative Passang Thrinlee said the minister’s update on the Bhutan-China border contained both elements of concern and comfort.

“We hope the Chinese government will consider the plight of a small nation in relation to its boundary,” he said. “We pray they help speed up resolving the boundary issues.”
Opposition leader Tshering Tobgay said although the government had done a fair bit on its part to resolve the border dispute with China, it was time they considered changing the strategy to negotiate.
That the government has 19 rounds of peaceful discussions, drew up guiding principles, while the dialogues dragged on, and people of the two nations continuing to maintain the peace on either sides, he said, were comforting then.
“Today, that is not enough,” he said. “My earnest request to the government is to think up an alternative strategy.”
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk welcomed any alternative strategy  members of the Parliament might have in mind, and said the agreements that existed between the two nations, at the moment, served the purpose when the issue remained unresolved.
“There were issues of roads being built along the border between the two nations in the past,” he said, adding that, when the government reminded them it was in breach of the existing agreement between the two nations, they stopped immediately. “They even settled any misunderstandings between peoples of the two nations.”
By Samten Wangchuk

Military abandoning support for the GOP

Early last month, a commenter without a profile named Jason left the following:

If you think the military on the whole does not support their President, you are mistaken, and therefore attempts to characterize them as some poor captive audience that would surely speak up if they could are misguided.

The comment was in response to Bush's penchant for making speeches before military audiences, where anyone who booed him would be subject to severe punishment. March was the last time Bush made an appearance to anything but hand-picked or military audiences, when he was booed and jeered at the opening pitch of the Nationals game.
Now we see:

In its annual reader surveys, the Military Times specialist news group found Bush's approval rate among the military had plummeted from 60 percent in 2005 to just 48 percent in 2007.

Gosh, Jason, it sure seems like someone in the military might want to boo the President if they could get away with it.
Now we find out that the support for McCain among the military and their families is at most 50%. Late last year we found that that support for the Iraq effort was slipping within the military community as well. The Republicans are running a war hero whose campaign mentions his service and POW status every single day, and the military isn't buying it.

McCain has long had a "problem" with veterans groups for his stinginess on vet benefits. Backing the neocon vision of Eternal War hasn't helped win over military families, either. It's somewhat ironic that, while the wingnuts froth over "military service" and re-define the word "patriotism" to mean "complete support of the Republican agenda", more than half of those people actually serving would be considered unpatriotic by the Right because they don't support Bush, McCain, or the premise of the Iraq occupation. Thus we have a complete logical breakdown on the wingnut end: criticising the troops is unpatriotic, but the troops don't support Bush, so the troops are unpatriotic, but that is criticism, so the wingnuts are unpatriotic.

The neocons and wingnuts overplayed their hand years ago when they conflated dissent on the Iraq occupation to treason. Too many people knew too many dissenters whose patriotism was not in question for that to work. Now a strong majority says that Iraq was a mistake or not worth fighting for - in other words, unpatriotic traitors, America-haters, and defeatists. With that sorry gambit, the wingnuts lost the magic talismanic power of the word "traitor", much like the words "liberal", "appeaser", and "terrorist sympathiser" no longer elicit guaranteed rage from the public. Republicans, however, have not realised this because they know that such words work on them. Thus, the GOP will continue its bizarre effort to cast 60% of Americans as treasonous, while simultaneously imagining that these 'traitors' will vote for them. And they will continue to invoke 'the troops' in attempts to stifle dissent, even though half of those troops disagree with the GOP.

full story from AFP:

Iraq undercuts Republican support among military

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Five years into an unpopular war in Iraq, many US military voters are eschewing their traditional Republican ties to support Democrat Barack Obama for president against John McCain, observers say.
...
"I think now you're going to see -- not that it's going to be overwhelming -- but a back away from the Republican Party ... At least (the military vote will) be split this year rather than overwhelmingly Republican," said Korb, a deputy defense secretary under president Ronald Reagan.
He predicted that McCain, the 71-year-old Republican senator for Arizona, will get "at most half of the military votes," instead of the three-to-one ratio that Republican President George W. Bush won in 2004.
The main reason for the defection is the Iraq war, where 4,113 US troops have died since the 2003 invasion and for which the US government has come under fire even from the military, despite recent security improvements.
...
A Los Angeles Times survey of 1,467 people, including 631 soldiers, veterans and their families, in late 2007 found that 57 percent of military respondents believed the Iraq war was not worth fighting -- nearly the same as the overall population (60 percent).
Asked which party they trusted most to handle important issues, the military families chose Democrats over Republicans 39-35 percent, compared to a 39-31 percent ratio among the general population.

And clueless Republicans are still looking backward to 2000 and 2004 for confidence, even though things have changed radically for the GOP.

Qualifications?

Let's look at the comment by Gen. Wesley Clark that seems to have the wingnuts all up in arms and completely rabid:

CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has travelled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

What, exactly, is untrue about Clark's statement of opinion?
If "riding in a fighter plane and being shot down" really is a qualification to become President, then we have never had a qualified President, have we?
It's hard for me to see how the general is "attacking McCain's military service". McCain and his supporters have made a great deal about McCain's military service. Hillary even joined in with her "threshold for Commander in Chief" remark. Clark is merely stating that McCain's particular military service, however honourable, does not automatically make him qualified.

I have a very good friend who served in the Navy handling heavy construction equipment. Does this make him qualified to be President? If I say "no", am I attacking his service?
Just as it would be highly unlikely that a President would be called upon to handle heavy construction equipment, it would be highly unlikely that a President would be called upon to fly a fighter jet, even he or she weren't 70 years old. And Commander in Chief is only one of the roles the President has to play, as Clark pointed out. In the same interview, immediately previous to the remarks above, Clark specifically honoured McCain's service.

The real issue, however, is that one particular Party devoted itself to smearing a Presidential candidate's military record four years ago. One particular Party mocked that candidate's Purple Heart by handing out purple Band-Aids. One particular Party contended that non-combat service in the National Guard was far more honourable than another candidate's combat experience in the same war. How does this happen?

It happens because Republicans want us to believe that military service only matters if you are a Republican. They have no problem attacking a former four-star general who has been decorated by portraying him as a traitor and anti-military. It's perfectly "patriotic", in their view, to attack the military service of Gen. Wesley Clark, while simultaneously beating him up for putatively doing the exact same thing. This is not about military service. It's all about calling anyone who disagrees with you a traitor, and that is simply un-American.

But Obama hasn't served in the military? So what? McCain is one mentioning his time as a POW on an almost daily basis and having his surrogates tell us about how McCain's military service makes him the only qualified candidate. If Obama said that going to college in Hawaii made him the only qualified candidate, certainly the Republicans would question that premise. And would they be "attacking his educational achievements" if they did so? No, just the premise that this makes him uniquely qualified for executive office.

The President is more of a CEO than a military commander. Which candidate admits that he doesn't know how to use a computer? What corporation would hire a CEO with that lack of skills? Which candidate graduated near the bottom of his class? Shouldn't this be considered for qualification for such a position?

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

Unfortunately, we have one particular Party that does not have much going for it on the issues, and that Party is relying on military service as a defining qualification. Nearly eight years of practical experience has shown us, however, that a President with military experience has made a complete disaster of the military efforts he engaged in. Thus, it's not particularly abstract to consider that "riding in a fighter plane" really doesn't provide you with any critical insights needed to wage a successful military effort. Experience has, indeed, validated General Clark's opinion.

China turns away U.S. naval flotilla

I don't want to read too much into this, but there's not much Bush can do about it. 4 ships and a sub get turned away from a Chinese-controlled port. Bureaucratic mix-up or political message?

China has a rapidly-growing naval force with a growing number of submarines, a few of them nuclear and modern. Many of their naval weapons systems are domestically developed, and they have modern shipyards capable of producing dozens of ships of various classes each year.

U.S. warships refused entry to Hong Kong

CASSIE BIGGS

Associated Press

November 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM EST

HONG KONG — A flotilla of U.S. warships carrying as many as 8,000 American sailors heading for a four-day Thanksgiving holiday visit to China's port of Hong Kong has been refused entry, the U.S. Navy said Thursday.
It was not immediately clear why the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier and its support vessels were barred Wednesday. Port officials said they had not been notified of the previously scheduled visit. But the incident added an unusual twist to China-U.S. relations, strained in recent months by disputes over trade and Iran's nuclear program.
In the past, China has banned all U.S. ships from the former British colony during times of tense relations. But current relations are not too bad, said David Zweig, a professor of China relations at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology said.
“This is a surprise,” Mr. Zweig said. “I haven't heard of ships being turned away like this before. I'm also disappointed and saddened for the families who have flown here expecting to see their relatives and are not now going to have their reunions.”
The Kitty Hawk and five support vessels including a nuclear fast attack submarine were expected to dock in Hong Kong's deep water port Wednesday morning.
But the group was refused entry, Lt. Cmdr. Amy Derrick-Frost told The Associated Press by telephone from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii.
“There is no information as to why they were not allowed to pull into the port for the scheduled visit,” she said.
The group of vessels were on their way to home ports, she said.
Hong Kong has long been a favoured port of call for the U.S. military but Beijing's approval has been required since July 1, 1997, when Britain handed this former colony back to China.
Hong Kong's Marine Department, which handles logistic arrangements for ships docking in Hong Kong's deep-water port, said Thursday it had not received the documentation it normally would receive from other agencies clearing the arrival of foreign military ships.
The Hong Kong office of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it would look into what happened.
China banned U.S. ships entering Hong Kong waters in 1999 when NATO planes bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis and refused port calls for several months after a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet in April, 2001.
Plans for many of the sailors to spend Thanksgiving with American families living in Hong Kong have had to be cancelled, said Shirlee Algire, a volunteer who organizes the home meals. Some 47 families had offered to host 202 sailors on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, Ms. Algire told the AP.
The 46-year-old Kitty Hawk, which is based in the Japanese port city of Yokosuka, is the only U.S. aircraft carrier permanently deployed abroad.
The diesel-powered ship will be decommissioned next year and replaced by the nuclear-powered USS George Washington.
Relations between China and the United States have improved in recent years, but the two powers are at odds over how to resolve Iran's failure to halt enrichment of uranium and the growing trade deficit in the U.S.

Military meets most recruiting goals in August

While the Army National Guard and Air National Guard failed to meet their recruiting goals in August, the regular services managed to pull it off after failures earlier in the year.
Of course, it took a $20,000 bonus to do this. One wonders if these recruits are motivated by Bush's rhetoric or by the desire to get their families out debt or pay medical bills.

Either way, the recruiter's task is getting tougher. The numbers for both mothers and fathers encouraging their children to go into the military is sharply declining, and young people themselves decreasingly see a future in the military.

Even with the new bribe programme, the Army surpassed its goals by only 528 recruits. The Marines got only 372 more than the goal. The Navy and Air Force just squeaked by with their target numbers.

We simply are not seeing large numbers lining up for the Decider's vision. With some elements of the Reserves missing their goals, it would seem that those already in are opting out of further devotion to Bush's endless war strategy.

full story from Washington Post

The Army had been regularly meeting its monthly recruiting goals until the service missed its active-duty targets in May and June, prompting new initiatives aimed at boosting Army enlistments amid one of the most difficult recruiting environments in the history of the all-volunteer Army. Because the Army has stringent qualification standards and must compete in the open market for soldiers, the effort encounters difficulties during good economic times and during protracted wars, when potential recruits realize they could be deployed to a fight.
Particularly troubling to the Army is the declining perceptions of the "influencers" -- such as parents, coaches and teachers -- who are increasingly discouraging young people from joining the military as a career. Bostick said the willingness of mothers to send their children to the Army has dropped from 40 percent in March 2004 to 25 percent now, according to Army data, while the willingness of fathers has dropped from 50 percent to 33 percent over the same period.
The Army continues to try to reach influencers while also making aggressive efforts to reach out to young people directly. Bostick said he considers the Army not just an all-volunteer Army but nearly an all-recruited Army.
"Not many folks are just walking into the recruiting station saying this is what they want to do," Bostick said. Later, he added: "This is not just a challenge for the Army; it's a challenge for the nation."
Also worrisome for the Army is the dropping desire of young adults to serve in the military. Bostick said that 20 years ago, approximately 25 percent of people ages 17 to 24 showed a desire to serve in the military, a figure that has dropped to 15.7 percent today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army's Recruiting Goal Lags For Second Month in a Row

By Josh White

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, July 10, 2007; Page A07

The U.S. Army fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal for June by about 15 percent, defense officials said yesterday. It is the second consecutive month the service's enlistment effort has faltered amid the American public's growing discontent over the war in Iraq.

Army officials confirmed yesterday that the service missed its June target -- the first time its recruiters have missed their monthly mark twice in a row since they were hit hard in 2005 -- but declined to discuss specific numbers before a scheduled release today. Three defense officials said the Army fell short by about 1,400 soldiers, well shy of its goal of 8,400 for June.

Because recruiters consistently exceeded their targets throughout the first half of fiscal 2007, the Army still remains above its year-to-date goal by about 700 recruits.

July, August and September are traditionally the best months for military recruiters, and this year the Army hopes to take in more than a third of its expected 80,000 new recruits in that period. According to Army recruiting statistics, the service aims for 28,850 new soldiers between now and the end of the fiscal year in September -- an average of more than 9,600 each month.

"To date, we're still ahead for the year," said Col. Dan Baggio, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "Obviously, we're concerned, but we're not panicking. We are ahead for the year, and we're just going to have to work hard to make our numbers."

The Army has met its recruiting numbers in the past two years by mobilizing a larger force of recruiters, offering higher incentives to join and broadening its potential pool by offering waivers -- for physical conditions and violating the law -- to people who normally would not qualify.

Mirroring concerns in 2005, when the Army fell thousands short of its monthly goals during much of the year, defense officials said that a good economy and lack of encouragement for military service from parents, coaches and other "influencers" have caused the recruiting slump. The Iraq war's sharp decline in popularity has also made recruiting far more difficult, as many recruits almost certainly will deploy to the battlefield.

"If you don't think that's affecting the influencers, then you have your head under a rock," said one Pentagon official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the June numbers have not yet been released.

Pentagon officials acknowledge that the coming months will be challenging because the potential recruit market is difficult and they did not anticipate the Army's total slipping as much as it did in June.

Service officials, however, are encouraged by steady retention rates in the active-duty Army and the Army Reserve and point to successes earlier in the year as evidence that the numbers can recover this summer. The Army recruited 9,309 new soldiers in January, nearly 1,000 more than its goal.

Edwin Dorn, a former undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness who is now with the University of Texas, said the Army has always had more trouble recruiting than other services, and he noted that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make it far harder.

"To me, the big surprise is that Army recruiting has remained as healthy as it has been, given the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war," Dorn said. "The mystery is not why they are falling short; to me, it's how they have succeeded as well."

Staff writer Ann Scot

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the July 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER (host): The U.S. Army is stretched thin and facing new recruiting problems, but it may have come up with a solution. Let's go to our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr -- Barbara.

STARR: Wolf, the Army's been having trouble signing up new recruits. So, it's got a new idea: a $20,000 bonus if you sign up and you agree to ship out for training within 30 days. It applies not to just new recruits, but soldiers who may have gotten out of the Army and want to come back in.

The Army's been trying this out at some recruiting stations in Ohio. It's worked so well that within the next few days, they're going to announce that the program has gone nationwide. And being the military, they have a name for it all. That $20,000 bonus, it's called the "quick shipper" bonus. Thirty days to training, and then most likely on to Iraq or Afghanistan -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Barbara Starr, reporting for us from the Pentagon. Thank you, Barbara.