Interesting letter to the editor of the Washington Post from retired Gen. Charles Krulak, a former commandant of the Marine Corps:

The greatest cost of Guantanamo has been to American global leadership and credibility as a nation that respects the rule of law. . . . There are not benefits to outweigh these costs. In the time that federal courts convicted 195 members of al-Qaeda and its allies, the military commissions at Guantanamo convicted three. A recent report confirmed that most Guantanamo detainees have been low-level operatives. Many were captured and turned over to the United States by poor locals hoping to cash in on a $5,000 reward. The real absurdity of the Guantanamo boondoggle is that we never needed to spend a dime to create it."

Tom: Is it my imagination, or have Marine generals and Navy admirals been more vocal about opposing torture and abuse than have Army generals?

As public attention drifts away from the disaster in Haiti, our friend Bob Maguire checks in to offer some informed common sense about how best to help the people there.  

By Robert Maguire
Best Defense Chief Haiti Correspondent

Over the past five decades Haiti has become terribly out-of-balance. Much of this is due to the rapid growth of its cities, especially Port-au-Prince and the parallel ferocious neglect of the rest of the country. 

Because of unmitigated off-the-land migration with poor people piling on top of each other on steep hillsides and in dangerous ravines, river flood plains and coastal mud flats -- seeking opportunities that were mostly a mirage -- Port-au-Prince had become a disaster waiting to happen. Those who perished on January 12th were mostly the poor crowded on marginal land and into sub-standard housing. 

Haiti had also lost its balance in social and economic equity, and in the ability of the state to care for its citizens. By 2007, 68 percent of the total national income went to the wealthiest 20 percent of the population. Haitian state institutions had virtually collapsed under the weight of generations of bad governance. International balance was off, too. Donors chose to bypass even democratically elected governments and funnel aid funds through foreign-based NGOs that enacted 'projects' drawn up outside of Haiti and that lasted only as long as the money did. 

Read on

On the morning of yet another big aftershock in Haiti, our correspondent Bob Maguire mediates on news reports that perhaps 400,000 homeless Haitians will be moved into tent camps. Or maybe a million:

By Robert Maguire

Best Defense Haiti correspondent

In 1994/95, following the US-led, UN-sponsored intervention that restored elected government to Haiti after three years of rapacious rule by the Haitian military and its allies, US Special Forces played a critical role throughout the Haitian countryside in restoring order and assisting local officials move forward with the always enormous task of providing services to citizens at the local and municipal levels. Much was written about this, but I recall it most clearly through a documentary produced by CNN called "Guardian Warriors." I recall from that documentary -- which I recorded on a VRC (it was that long ago) and is now stowed away somewhere on video tape -- that small Special Forces units around Haiti were playing a very positive role in this regard -- working with mayors; interfacing with local populations; providing technical and resource assistance. These men (I do not recall seeing any women) were portrayed as sensitive to local people and their culture and were finding ways to work within existing paradigms -- even broken ones. They were also very welcome by the local populations with which they worked.

Today word is coming out of Haiti that the Haitian government is planning to move people now literally camped out on the streets and in various open spaces within the limits of Port-au-Prince to displaced persons camps that will be established on outskirts of the city. It seems we are talking about tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. Without doubt, providing for these earthquake victims to ensure that they have more sanitary and organized places to stay is a good move. Not only will it assist with the delivery of supplies that provide relief and assistance, but this should provide, one hopes, shelters that will keep people dry when it rains. Have you  noted that since the quake it has not rained in Port-au-Prince? At least the timing of the quake was during dry season -- imagine how suffering would be compounded had it been raining over the past week. But that situation will not stand much longer, as rains, perhaps heavy ones, must inevitably fall.

Hopefully, these emergency settlements will not become permanent places of poor, displaced people yet again packed upon each other in places that offer limited opportunities for improved lives over the long term. As written in a previous post, one of the potential positives coming out of the quake is the prospect for a more decentralized Haiti -- with fewer people living in the capital city and more investment in services and economic development outside of PAP- - in the rural area and smaller cities that exist throughout Haiti and have been largely neglected in past decades.

Tens of thousands, if not more, city dwellers have been leading an exodus out of the city toward the countryside in recent days. Hopefully, as Haitians increasingly flee the destruction, death and nightmares of Port-au-Prince -- something we continue to see in increasing numbers -- we and Haitian authorities can catch up with and get ahead of this curve. Catching up with this curve, as suggested previously, could - indeed, should - come in the form of organized structures that can welcome the displaced people back home and provide them opportunities (alongside those already in these impoverished decentralized locations) to engage in programs of public works to help rebuild the country's infrastructure, restore the damaged environment, provide the framework for a disaster response mechanism, and provide people with wages, a sense of dignity through work, and greater ownership in the future or their own country. The mechanism for all of this will be a Haitian variant of New Deal programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps, Work Progress Administration -- that helped lift the US out of joblessness and depression, and helped to rebuild our nation at that time.

This is where the reflection on the prior role of the Special Forces comes in. The envisaged public works program -- a "Haitian Civic Service Corps" -- will require structure. It will require leadership that can impose a regime of 'tough love' much as occurred during the New Deal, when members of the US Forestry Service apparently played a key role in making sure that program participants showed up on time, became a disciplined work force, and got the job done. Haiti does not have much of a forestry service that can perform this role. Indeed, Haiti is going to require assistance in standing this kind of program and in managing it. Might some of those members of the US Special Forces who served in Haiti in the mid-1990's be interested in returning to Haiti to play a role in helping to build a new and decentralized country? Might they work alongside Haitian counterparts to help provide the tough-love discipline required?

I have worked on this idea of a national civic service with well-placed Haitian authorities even before the quake. They are keen on the idea. Yesterday, I had an opportunity to discuss the idea with a senior official in the Obama administration. There is considerable interest in it. Might there be interest from among 'our guys' who have been to Haiti; know and respect the country and its people; and are willing to try to make a difference in this time of Haiti's greatest need and, yet, perhaps of its greatest opportunity.

Meanwhile, here is an interesting website that is compiling information on needs and incidents in Haiti.

Would it be possible to use the nuclear generators aboard an American aircraft carrier or submarine to provide electricity to Port-au-Prince? Cdr. Herb Carmen, Best Defense's pirates columnist, points out an interesting precedent -- in 1929, when the city of Tacoma, Washington, couldn't generate enough hydroelectricity because of a severe drought, the USS Lexington hooked up and powered the city for a month.

Here's a Friday special for you. Or, Monty Python would say, something completely different.

Another of the great things about CNAS is our military fellows program, which brings in smart officers from the military services, as well as the Air Force. They are a major part of the institution, bringing recent experiences in the field into our discussions, and tending to help focus the conversation on effectiveness. CNAS doesn't care about ideology, it cares about what works.

One thing a think tank should do is look at tomorrow as well as today. So, while everyone else in town who can spell "counterinsurgency" is honking on about Afghanistan and Iran, Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Goodes, a CNAS fellow, has been mulling a problem closer to home: Cuba. He's a three tour vet of Iraq who before coming to CNAS commanded Marine Wing Communications Squadron 28  in Cherry Point, N.C.

Cuba is something that could get very big, just as soon as Fidel dies-and that, for all we know, could be tomorrow. So it is best to start thinking about it now:

The Obama administration's decision to extend the U.S. economic trade embargo on Cuba for an additional year is detrimental to our national and regional security and further emboldens our economic, military, and infrastructure rivals.  What is most perplexing is the fact that earlier this summer the Obama administration decided to relax some of the regulations regarding personal travel and personal money transfers from Cuban-Americans to their relatives in Cuba, as well as telecommunication exchanges between private U.S. and state-run Cuban companies: all are steps in the right direction for U.S. interests - but are not enough.  While these relaxed restrictions are certainly a step forward in normalizing relations, these steps do not outweigh the heavy diplomatic, information, and economic influence of Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Russia, India, and Iran, all of whom support the Cuban government and all of whom seek to be peer competitors with the United States.     

In short, the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to retard regional security and stability, and further serve to erode our influence in the Americas at a time when U.S. credibility is globally scrutinized.  The arguably outdated and undeniably ineffective embargo will continue to halt progress at every turn; more specifically, the diplomatic influence and credibility of the U.S., the social and political progress of Cuba, and the security and stability progress of the region.  The U.S. embargo will continue to impede potential and future cultural and scientific trade investments, shared agricultural advancements, and pertinent meteorological and environmental exchanges regarding the shared Florida Straits ecology.

Furthermore, the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to encourage Cuba to partner with Russia, China, and Brazil for off-shore oil and natural gas exploration within the shared U.S. and Cuban economic exclusion zone.  The U.S. embargo will continue to endear many of the poor Caribbean and Central American nations to the Chavez Venezuelan PetroCaribe initiative, and the embargo will ensure that no official U.S. - Cuban dialogue and/or planned cooperative action occurs with regards to such crucial issues as regional and transnational criminal organizations, illegal immigration and extortion issues, and the growing Islamic influence on Latin American from Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese diasporas.

We must face the facts: the U.S. efforts to isolate and force a regime change in Cuba for nearly half a century have failed.  These 50 years have successfully driven Cuba to aggressively seek support elsewhere, as is evident in their forming and fostering diplomatic ties, seeking infrastructure support, establishing  military liaisons, and accepting economic support from every government in the Americas - to include Canada - with the exception of the United States.  Most of Cuba's economic and diplomatic partners have "Leftist" governments with close ties to state and non-state Islamic fundamentalists, porous national borders and often rampant organized crime cartels coupled with violent gang warfare fueled by drug trafficking, human trafficking, and extortion.  After all, Cuba has the backing of Hugo Chavez' endorsed ALBA and doctors for oil initiative, Evo Morales' endorsed MAS, China's $600M economic and trade stimulus grant, and Brazil's $300M infrastructure and modernization credit to list a few.   To be sure, the United States should be very concerned with the company that Cubans keep.

A less adversarial tone with Cuba will reestablish much needed dialogue in the region and help address shared national border security vulnerabilities, transnational and regional crime consortiums, and environmental and ecological initiatives.  The necessity for the Obama administration to lift the U.S. economic embargo is painfully obvious.  It would enhance the region's security, promote economic prosperity, establish shared environmental regulations, and help re-establish our credibility and leadership vis-à-vis some of our most prominent global allies and competitors.  Lastly, let's ask ourselves, "Has our 50 year embargo brought Cuba any closer to democracy, or have we denied the Cubans an opportunity to see the best that our free and democratic society offers?"

I think the colonel is right. The embargo has been Fidel's best friend, and hasn't done the Cuban people any good. It is time to change this. 

Remember yesterday I mentioned David Wood as a good defense reporter? He has a terrific column today about what is going wrong in Afghanistan. I'll summarize it here, but only if you promise to click on this link and read the whole thing.

Wood begins with a good strong "lede" that manages to combine action and policy:

When a warning crackled over the radio of a suspected ambush ahead, Lt. Col. Rob Campbell swore softly and ordered his three armored trucks to a halt. What happened next illustrates why the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is failing, why commanders here are asking for more manpower -- and why they are pleading for more time.

Then his main character strides into the picture, along with a succinct statement of the problem:

Leaping out with his M-4 carbine, Campbell, a tall cavalry officer with sandy hair and freckles, strode through the empty, sun-baked fields flanking the road while his men fanned out, checking the ground for IEDs, sweeping the fields for snipers. The Afghan police assigned to patrol this stretch of road? Nowhere in sight.

Campbell comes off as a good, thoughtful officer doing well, but conscious that time is running out. Anyway, read the whole thing -- one of the best things I've read on Afghanistan in awhile.

Meanwhile, NATO aircraft hit some hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, killing a bunch of people. Some of them were insurgents, some of them children and other civilians trying to get the fuel the Taliban was distributing from the trucks for free. The total is somewhere between 50 and 90, it appears. My question: Does this air strike  pass the Petraeus test, which I saw him apply in Mosul back in 2003-2004: Before taking any action, consider whether it will create more opponents than it stops. Anyway, this makes me wonder if NATO forces got snookered into the attack.

Paula Bronstein/Getty Images