Michael Yon

How could the corruption of Democrats in housing market be left off. B.Frank and C.Dodds should be identified as prime forces in the housing fiasco. The Congress has not done the citizens well.

I think the prediction of greatly improved relations with Europe is wishful thinking. The differences are much deeper than just George Bush. Europe will continue to shirk its responsibilities, and will continue to express outrage when America is finally forced to act, to confront rogue state and non-state actors. You will see this sooner rather than later, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and most dramatically when NK collapses, and possibly with Russia as well. I believe Europe would quickly surrender if there were a serious external attack.

McCaffrey's prediction that US - European relations would improve dramatically with the new administration was more wishful thinking that sound analysis. The reaction of NATO to Joe Biden's recent visit, specifically regarding help in Afghanistan, was quite predictable. McCaffrey apparently preferred to believe that the only reason we got less help from NATO than one would expect for 50 years of protecting Europe from the USSR is that George W Bush's style was too harsh, independent, etc. The truth is, as it always has been, NATO is pretty much a one way street, with the US doing the heavy lifting, if you'll pardon the metaphors, just as was the US help to save Europe from the effects of WW I and WW II, Gulf War I, Bosnia, and the Iraq War. Our NATO allies talk a good game, but, with the exception of the newer Eastern European countries in NATO, don't really care about international security, only their own economic security. As long as there are American servicemen willing to risk their lives to stabilize the world and US taxpayers to pay for it, the Europeans, for the most part, give only lip service to the NATO Charter.

- No mention of corrupt US politicians, e.g., Dodd, Frank, Rangel. - Iran will go nuclear - over Israel's dead body. - Relations with Europe will improve - over France's dead body. - View very centered on the US. See Barnett's TED talk for a wider perspe

I believe that McCaffrey, who I admire, misses the Elephant in the Room, which is the decline in importance of NATO to the United States. The US can achieve most of its objectives in Afghanistan w/o NATO support, and this lack of support among "old Europe" will spell the death of the alliance as political support for it declines among the American people. BTW, props should have been given to former Secretary of State Rice, who did much to rebuild relations with the Europeans. However, the fact that this "alliance" remains a one-way street isn't something that will be solved by her successor. Our interests are diverging.

Whilst I do not disagree that the majority of european nations could be doing more, I think your broadbrush statements are very damning when it comes to the contribution made by some of the posters in this forum. Britain has an Army with a trained strength of approx 100K. What exactly would the Americans like us to send to Afghan. We are losing young men daily in your war on terror. Our soldiers on the ground ask no questions and perform at the very highest levels winning some valuable victories. We do not have a massive armed forces and are committed heavily world wide. Your comments about winning WW1 & WW2 etc are wildly innacurate and you forget that Britain fought on her own for nearly 3 years whilst America gave us a debt that would take 60 years to pay to bolster your economy. Whilst we may not see eye to eye on a political level Britain has never shirked it's responsibilities on the battlefield. In respect of NATO you will find that most of the UK wholly supports it.

I agree with most of the comments posted. NATO has always been a figure head so to speak with no real intestinal fortitude of any sort. The comment about Dodd and Franks is on the money, as well as the comment about our relationship with Europe. Can't really figure what we did that made Europe so pissed at us anyway. Other than the fact that we expect them to stand up in the face of tyranny. I really don't see McCaffery's last bullet point. How does our health care system, social security, and medicare have anything to do with national security? I can see the impact of having stricter immigration policies and improving the transportation infrastrutcer to support evacuations routes where necessary, but the rest leaves me questioning the intent of putting that in the briefing. Seems that it's more of a political statement than a tactical assessment. McCaffery makes an excellent point of conveying the terrorist intention during Obama's term. However, I do wonder why it wasn't the first point made. Apparently it was more important to highlight how much India likes us first. Don't get that at all. I am all for trying to ensure our world image is improved, but, I am not interested in being involved in a love-fest with anyone. Sometimes you go into a fight alone. Sometimes your friends will help you out, other times they may let you get your butt kicked because you deserved it. I think Iraq has proven to us who our friends are and we should continue to strenghten our relationships with the Dane's, Aussies, Brits, and Lith's and others who are taking it to the terrorists. Those are the relationships I would make sure are solid. Do I really care what Russia, Portugal, or Spain think?