(Cameron and Obama - meanwhile, back in the UK . . . .)

Seems there is an air of confusion everywhere as to just what our Afghanistan withdrawal policy is going to be. As Prime Minister David Cameron was meeting with Pres. Obama two weeks ago, back home Deputy Minister Nick Clegg was hemming and hawing with Parliament as to just what was supposed to happen.

Nick Clegg: “No timetable can be chiseled in stone, but we are absolutely determined, given how long we’ve been in Afghanistan, given that we are six months into an eighteen month military strategy embarking on a new political strategy that we must be out, in a combat role, by 2015.”

And after some howls he backtracked a few minutes later and it came out like this:

Nick Clegg: “First, lest there’s any confusion on the vital issue of Afghanistan, which I hope well continue to enjoy cross-party support, let me be absolutely clear that we will see our troops withdrawn from Afghanistan from a combat role by 2015, that is what we are determined to see happen.”

As this episode from the BBC Radio program Politics UK from July 23rd points out, the relationship is a long and sometimes confused one, certainly not helped by a muddled policy towards Afghanistan laid out by the Bush Administration.

It is a very tangled web. One with no easy solutions.

Newstalgia Note: We've put Newstalgia World Week on hiatus for a bit, at least until the new site debuts. In the interim, I will be putting these overseas news pieces, hopefully on a daily basis and see how that goes.

(Immigration Reform Protests 2006 - didn't just happen overnight)

With the Obama Administration's focus on Immigration reform, I thought I would start with a series of attempts, arguments, legislations and problems over the last several decades associated with revamping and reforming a hopelessly outdated system. I'm going to try and go back to the 1930's in an attempt to give you some overview at what the Immigration issue has become over the years and what has happened as a result. Like Healthcare reform, it is no easy fix and has been ingrained in our society for a very long time. Many attempts have been made over the years to bring a solution - a lot have been mired in partisan rhetoric, many have suffered from bad timing. But each was an attempt to try and fix a broken system.

The first post up, and most recent was the attempt at Immigration reform by way of a military solution in 2006 under the Bush Administration in this address from May 15, 2006.

Bush: “It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters and to help secure our border. The United States is not going to militarize the Southern Border.”

Senator Dick Durbin offered a rebuttal:

Dick Durbin: “All Americans agree we must act now to secure our borders and fix our broken immigration system, but we don’t need a military solution to break a political stalemate. We need leadership.”

A week before the address, on April 20th, ABC News Nightline ran a segment on the Immigration issue with this telling comment:

Migrant Farm Worker: “I have worked since I was seven years old in the fields, and not once have I seen an Anglo-American pick alongside me.”

The last segment probably goes more to the heart of the matter than anything else. But who wants to admit that?

In the coming days I'll be posting items going back to give you an idea of the complexity of this issue and how long its been going on.

History is loaded with repeats.

(U.S. Troops in Haiti in 2004 - ten years after we put the guy we're getting rid of in power . . confused?)

After invading Haiti in 1994 to unseat Military dictator Raoul Cedras, and reinstate Jean Bertrand Aristide as President of the country, ten years later we're getting rid of Aristide in favor of someone else.

Now you know why the Haitians are a bit nervous around U.S. Marines? Wouldn't you?

The 2004 coup was murky at best. Generally acknowledged to have been aided and abetted by the U.S. government, the Bush Administration put U.S. troops ashore to "establish order and set up a democratic government" - or words to that effect.

One of the key players in the overthrow was a right wing think tank known as Haiti Democracy Project, their spokesman Lawrence Pezullo was interviewed by the BBC on February 26:

Lawrence Pezullo (Haiti Democracy Project): “I think the Haitian people have had enough experience with something short of democracy, and have had a lot of experience looking at the means to put governments together that might offer participation by the citizens. And I think the leadership level, certainly that you see today is mature enough to at least put the form together whether or not they have the means to educate the people and contain it remains to be seen.”

The 2004 coup and our involvement was only the latest in a long line of "excursions" into the business of our Caribbean neighbors going back to the beginning of the last century. It further establishes a certain skittishness where the subject of American aid is concerned, even in humanitarian terms. The concept of "once bitten, twice shy" seems more than appropriate here.

Above is a capsule rundown of events on March 2, 2004 as reported by the BBC.

And for our French friends, or readers who are fluent, I am adding a bonus broadcast from Radio France International concerning the situation in Haiti and the ouster of Aristide. A special program from RFI Soir on February 26, 2004 with interviews and actualities of the situation on the ground.

Two points of view. One big mess.

(Katrina aftermath - grief rides a puffy white cloud)

As the news filters in, and each new report brings the tragedy of Haiti into sharper perspective, I'm reminded of disasters we've faced in the past, and some in the not too distant past. As someone who lives in Southern California and who has been through the 1971 and 1994 earthquakes (and countless "aftershocks" in between) I know how horrifying an earthquake can be. There is nothing like it - oh, maybe a terrorist bombing comes close. Most all other disasters you can see coming and there is some window, however short, to escape or prepare. An earthquake is sudden and violent and disorienting and its destruction is instant and complete. The initial terror and shock become compounded as aftershocks rumble on for hours, days and weeks afterward - you continue to never know when the next one will hit. But somehow you can never convey the true sense of terror of an earthquake until you've been in one and experienced it. You will never forget it.

Needless to say, since Haiti was not considered part of "Earthquake Country", the shock and terror are double fold. And the amount of death and destruction surely reflects a place that hasn't experienced one in a long, long time. I heard a report last night that the last time an earthquake hit that region was in the 1700s. At this point its a miracle anything is left standing.

But I bring up Hurricane Katrina as a reminder of how devastating a disaster can be, no matter what the circumstances. The past few hours have seen a reaction from the comfortable and smug as to why President Obama reacted as quickly to the disaster as he did. Katrina is a reminder of a President who acted in the opposite - and the reaction is still being felt, almost five years later.

President Bush: "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job!"

So, as a refresher course in disasters past and how we, of all people, aren't immune to them, here is a radio documentary produced by CBS Radio in September of 2005 "Katrina: A National Disaster".

(And some still think otherwise)

It's incredible that at this late date there are people still convinced the idea of Global Warming is the thing of hoaxes and myths. Even more incredible to think we had an administration so wrapped around the fingers of the Petroleum Industry that the EPA, an agency brought about for the protection of just plain folks, was gutted to the point of extinction because arrogance had the upper hand and propaganda still pollutes the discussion.

In 2004 BBC Radio 4 ran a series of documentaries on Global Warming where much of the fault was laid at the odoriferous feet of the Bush Administration and the arrogant denial anything could possibly be wrong. And anyone with the audacity to question was sent packing.

Jeremy Simons (former EPA chief under Clinton): “Often in the climate change debate new scientific studies emerge, and there was a new scientific study at the time that was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. It’s been very controversial. They wanted that study referenced and they wanted to take out language that had been approved by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences that said climate change was a real and established threat. They wanted to basically sow confusion into the debate on the science . . . there has definitely been a growing rift between the White House and EPA. EPA really is an agency in crisis right now. Because the White House has an agenda, they know what their environmental agenda is – it’s closely aligned with what Industry wants it to pursue, and that doesn’t often match up with what the sciences . . .EPA staff objectives are actually fairly straightforward; it’s to get good information out, and that’s been a conflict with the spin that the White House has wanted to put on environmental measures.”

And five years later . . .