On the international front, a decision on Afghanistan is looming.  The president is expected over the next several weeks to announce whether he'll send more troops to the region.  White House officials have confirmed that Mr. Obama won't take any of the current options offered to him.  Instead he's seeking clarification on how long U.S. troops would stay in the country and how much responsibility the Afghan government will assume in the near future.

Mr. Obama's week will also include his first state dinner, where he'll host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The event usually consists of high-profile guests including lobbyists, dignitaries, lawmakers, and celebrities.  Though the White House has remained mum on the details, a large tent is currently being constructed on the South Lawn to accomodate the hundreds of guests expected.

We journeyed by bus out of the bustling, traffic-snarled capital northward on a highway called Unification Road, the first of many indications of how deeply South Korea seeks to end the nearly 60-year reign of silent tension and alienation with and from the North. The drive took just under 90 minutes.

Traveling by bus to the DMZ, passing rice paddies (All photos: courtesy of Major Garrett)

Photographs are limited due to severe security restrictions. We stopped on the edge of the Joint Security Area and met two exceptional members of the US military contingent: Infatry Maj. Michael T. Eggers, U.S. Army Joint Duty Officer, and Sgt. Robert Juarez, Security Escort.

DMZ Guide Sgt Juarez near the DMZ

Sgt Juarez during the tour inside one of the Military Armistice Commission Buildings with North Korean Chinese Peoples Volunteers JSA

Our bus stopped near Freedom House, the South Korean structure built to facilitate the reunification of North Koreans and South Koreans. Sgt. Juarez told us this was built as a sign of hope on the South Korean side, a place where family reunification could occur in privacy and with maximum security and safety. He sadly observed the modern, multi-level building, gleaming with a two-story glass covered foyer and polished marble inside, has never hosted a family reunification. No photographs of Freedom House were permitted.

From the steps on the north side of Freedom House we could see Conference Row, a set of low-slung blue rectangular buildings. On this row squat the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) Buildings. These buildings are where tense, highly formal negotiations take place between North Korean representatives and those with the United Nations Command Security Force - Joint Security Area (UNCSF-JSA).

Just north of the MAC buildings, on a slight slope, stood the imposing North Korean fortress known as Panmun-Gak. While standing on the steps, I momentarily raised my right hand to motion toward Panmun-Gak. Swiftly and curtly, Sgt. Juarez reminded to make no hand gestures at all while in sight of any North Korean soldier or structure. Juarez had warned us upon our arrival that North Korean soldiers look for any sign of provocation, no matter how small or benign. We were told not to point, wave and make any visible hand gesture of any kind. I had forgotten, but Juarez's stern reminder crystallized the unrelenting sense of tension that exists every hour along the DMZ.

I noticed a North Korean officer came out of the Panmun-Gak. I raised my camera and shot one picture. He raised his in return. We took pictures of one another.

If it's possible to feel military tension, maintained and reinforced for more than 55 years, it felt a flash of it through my viewfinder.

We went inside one of the Conference Buildings. Inside were two ROK (Republic of Korea) soldiers. They stood silent post at a stance and near-maximum physical tension: legs shoulder-length apart, gloved hands tightened into a fist, faces resolutely forward - expressionless throughout. We posed for pictures as a sign of respect. This is approved and not viewed by the US or South Korean personnel as a lark.

 Trust me, there is nothing light or informal about this experience at all. Through a thick glass window I spotted two other ROK soldiers who guard the space between the Conference Row buildings, to deter encroachment from North Korean forces.

Major Garrett & Maj. Egger

 I posed also with Maj. Egger. He's a no-nonsense officer with a dash of humor - he laughed when I introduced myself as a "fake Major, 47 years and no promotions." He worried, needlessly, that he might break the lens of my new Nikon.

This was a rare light-hearted moment. Juarez said the conference building was divided in half, South Korean territory south of the wood conference table adorned with a United Nation flags, North Korean territory north of the table. Many of us "crossed over" into North Korea, finding it a bit thrilling. Juarez and Egger never crossed over. They said it's not a thrill to them, but military buisness to mind, secure and respect the line. Pretending to cross, they said, carried no thrill or sense of adventure. It only represented a chance for misunderstanding, more tension and hostility - none of which they wanted any part of. Their demeanor reminded this somewhat jocular band of reporters that we were on more than a field trip -- we were witnesses to a trip wire, a place where countless military personnel have sacrificed for years to maintain peace, an armistice, in the ever-present hope (however dim) that one day a treaty will officially end the Korean War and reunify the peninsula.

We also saw the flag pole on which the 90-yard-long flag of North Korea flies over a nearly empty propaganda village near the DMZ, a mini-city of Hollywood-style fakery meant to convey an advanced, modern-day urbanity.

 Nothing like this exists in North Korea, hence the need for a propaganda village. All that was real there was the flag pole, the massive flag and a stiff breeze that starched it against the sky.

We were also driven to the Bridge of No Return, the bridge over which all repatriated prisoners of war crossed when the armistice was signed. The returning UN soldiers would be stopped on the bridge, his identity verified before the crossing was complete.

The crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo returned to South Korea over this bridge.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489344,00.html

Though discarded as a formal crossing point now, the Bridge of No Return remains the only ground link between North and South. I shot pictures of the Bridge and a dingy sign to the left that reads "Military Demarcation Line" in English and Korean.

 Near the Bridge of No Return is a concrete memorial to Capt. Arthur Bonifas and Lt. 1st Class Mark Barrett, slain in the infamous Axe Murders of 1976: http://www.vfwpost7591.org/opn-PB.html

 The memorial stands near the spotof Bonifas' murder at the hands of axe-wielding North Koreans. The memorial is where a large Poplar tree that needed regular trimming for visibility near the Bridge of No Return and CP#3 (Checkpoint Number 3, a blue building of which I also took pictures). The story of the axe murders is indescribably brutal and heart-rending. Barrett was attacked too, but hobbled away but did not receive medical treatment in time to survive. We had only moments to take in the barbarity of what happened here but the sense of dread was nevertheless palpable. The setting sun and coming hint of twilight only deepened the sense of remorseless savagery -- and the amazing sense of calm and restraint the UN forces exercised to avoid a full-blown restart of the war.

Soon, we were on our way south to Seoul. But North Korea was still visible in the distance, its mountains crouching beneath the setting sun, its fallow rice paddies a grayish smear in valley below. As I snapped my camera to capture the sun, the low-slung hills and even a tree with a bird's nest peeking through the denuded branches, it occurred to me the sun has been setting perpetually on the North since the end of the war - never yet to rise.

The President returned from his Asia trip last night and he's got nothing on the schedule today...

Yoani Sanchez , whose blog 'Generation Y' is distributed through the website 'DesdeCuba.com', (From Cuba.com), explains that she wanted to ask the U.S. president about issues that keep her up at night.

According to the site, DesdeCuba.com is an "exercise in citizen journalism."  The site aims to "give visibility to opinions that are not found in the official Cuban media or other publications restricted by political requirements."

The site is blocked in Cuba for being anti-government.

Sanchez also wanted to know "how the [US-Cuban] dispute is going to play out, when it will cease to be the central theme in every aspect of [Cubans'] lives." 

So she came up with a list of seven questions for the U.S President, and waited for months as she tried to get her questionnaire to the White House.

(1) For years Cuba has been a U.S. foreign policy issue as well as a domestic one, in particular because of the large Cuban American community. From your perspective, in which of the two categories should the Cuban issue fit?

(2) Should your administration be willing to put an end to this dispute, would it recognize the legitimacy of the Raul Castro government as the only valid interlocutor in the eventual talks?

(3) Has the U.S. government renounced the use of military force as a way to end the dispute?

(4) Raúl Castro has said publicly that he is open to discuss any topic with the U.S. provided there is mutual respect and a level playing field. Is Raúl asking too much?

(5) In a hypothetical U.S.- Cuba dialog, would you entertain participation from the Cuban exile community, the Cuba-based opposition groups and nascent Cuban civil society groups?

(6) You strongly support the development of new communication and information technologies. But, Cubans continue to have limited access to the internet. How much of this is due to the U.S. embargo and how much of it is the responsibility of the Cuban government?

(7)Would you be willing to travel to our country?

 Thursday she posted the answers she received from Mr. Obama.   Keep reading to see his responses.   (Sanchez also submitted a questionnaire to Cuban President Raul Castro, no word back from him yet though.)

From President Obama:

Thank you for this opportunity to exchange views with you and your readers in Cuba and around the world and congratulations on receiving the Maria Moore Cabot Prize award from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism for coverage of Latin America that furthers inter-American understanding. You richly deserve the award. I was disappointed you were denied the ability to travel to receive the award in person.

Your blog provides the world a unique window into the realities of daily life in Cuba. It is telling that the Internet has provided you and other courageous Cuban bloggers with an outlet to express yourself so freely, and I applaud your collective efforts to empower fellow Cubans to express themselves through the use of technology. The government and people of the United States join all of you in looking forward to the day all Cubans can freely express themselves in public without fear and without reprisals.

QUESTION #1. FOR YEARS, CUBA HAS BEEN A U.S. FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE AS WELL AS A DOMESTIC ONE, IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF THE LARGE CUBAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, IN WHICH OF THE TWO CATEGORIES SHOULD THE CUBAN ISSUE FIT?

All foreign policy issues involve domestic components, especially issues concerning neighbors like Cuba from which the United States has a large immigrant population and with which we have a long history of relations. Our commitment to protect and support free speech, human rights, and democratic governance at home and around the world also cuts across the foreign policy/domestic policy divide. Also, many of the challenges shared by our two countries, including migration, drug trafficking, and economic issues, involve traditional domestic and foreign policy concerns. Thus, U.S. relations with Cuba are rightly seen in both a foreign and domestic policy context.

QUESTION 2: SHOULD YOUR ADMINISTRATION BE WILLING TO PUT AN END TO THIS DISPUTE, WOULD IT RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE RAUL CASTRO GOVERNMENT AS THE ONLY VALID INTERLOCUTOR IN THE EVENTUAL TALKS?

As I have said before, I am prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a range of issues of mutual interest as we have already done in the migration and direct mail talks. It is also my intent to facilitate greater contact with the Cuban people, especially among divided Cuban families, which I have done by removing U.S. restrictions on family visits and remittances.

We seek to engage with Cubans outside of government as we do elsewhere around the world, as the government, of course, is not the only voice that matters in Cuba. We take every opportunity to interact with the full range of Cuban society and look forward to the day when the government reflects the freely expressed will of the Cuban people.

QUESTION 3: HAS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RENOUNCED THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AS THE WAY TO END THE DISPUTE?

The United States has no intention of using military force in Cuba. The United States supports increased respect for human rights and for political and economic freedoms in Cuba, and hopes that the Cuban government will respond to the desire of the Cuban people to enjoy the benefits of democracy and be able to freely determine Cuba’s future. Only the Cuban people can bring about positive change in Cuba and it is our hope that they will soon be able to exercise their full potential.

QUESTION 4: RAUL CASTRO HAS SAID PUBLICALLY THAT HE IS OPEN TO DISCUSS ANY TOPIC WITH THE U.S. PROVIDED THERE IS MUTUAL RESPECT AND A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. IS RAUL ASKING TOO MUCH?

For years, I have said that it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, without preconditions, with friends and foes alike. I am not interested, however, in talking for the sake of talking. In the case of Cuba, such diplomacy should create opportunities to advance the interests of the United States and the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

We have already initiated a dialogue on areas of mutual concern – safe, legal, and orderly migration, and reestablishing direct mail service. These are small steps, but an important part of a process to move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new and more positive, direction. Achieving a more normal relationship, however, will require action by the Cuban government.

QUESTION 5: IN A HYPOTHETICAL U.S.-CUBA DIALOGUE, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN PARTICIPATION FROM THE CUBAN EXILE COMMUNITY, THE CUBA-BASED OPPOSITION GROUPS AND NASCENT CUBAN CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS?

When considering any policy decision, it is critical to listen to as many diverse voices as possible. When it comes to Cuba, we do exactly that. The U.S. government regularly talks with groups and individuals inside and outside of Cuba that have an interest in our relations. Many do not always agree with the Cuban government; many do not always agree with the United States government; and many do not agree with each other. What we should all be able to agree on moving forward is the need to listen to the concerns of Cubans who live on the island. This is why everything you are doing to project your voice is so important – not just for the advancement of the freedom of expression itself, but also for people outside of Cuba to gain a better understanding of the life, struggles, joys, and dreams of Cubans on the island.

QUESTION 6: YOU STRONGLY SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES. BUT, CUBANS CONTINUE TO HAVE LIMITED ACCESS TO THE INTERNET. HOW MUCH OF THIS IS DUE TO THE U.S. EMBARGO AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT?

My administration has taken important steps to promote the free flow of information to and from the Cuban people particularly through new technologies. We have made possible greater telecommunications links to advance interaction between Cuban citizens and the outside world. This will increase the means through which Cubans on the island can communicate with each other and with persons outside of Cuba, for example, by expanding opportunities for fiber optic and satellite transmissions to and from Cuba. This will not happen overnight. Nor will it have its full effect without positive actions by the Cuban government. I understand the Cuban government has announced a plan to provide Cubans greater access to the Internet at post offices. I am following this development with interest and urge the government to allow its people to enjoy unrestricted access to the internet and to information. In addition, we welcome suggestions regarding areas in which we can further support the free flow of information within, from, and to Cuba.

QUESTION 7: WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO TRAVEL TO OUR COUNTRY?

I would never rule out a course of action that could advance the interests of the United States and advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people. At the same time, diplomatic tools should only be used after careful preparation and as part of a clear strategy. I look forward to visit a Cuba in which all citizens enjoy the same rights and opportunities as other citizens in the hemisphere.

            Take look for yourself…

Presidents Obama and Lee shake hands after press conference in Seoul, South Korea (AP Photo)

President Obama and President Lee in an embrace in Seoul Thursday (AP Photo)

There’s a lot of back-slapping and hand-shaking at these types of events, but the full-on embrace is rare. I guess that’s what you call direct diplomacy.  

It all took place just before the press left their hotel for the Blue House (the Presidential compound) in Seoul, South Korea, where Mr. Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak held meetings and a press conference.

The press who attended these events was first made to get their temperature taken, in the event that they had some sort of fever, which could make the South Korean President sick. There was no indication that any of the press was in fact sick, but due to the high temperature of the van they had been traveling in, some in the press were concerned they wouldn’t pass muster.

So what did they do? Took off their jackets and stood outside in the frigid 37 degree Seoul air.

In the end, however, none of this mattered. The electronic thermometer the South Koreans were using apparently malfunctioned. Thinking it was a battery issue, a US sound technician offered up another. Still nothing.

The whole thing was then called off and the press was allowed to enter the building and do their jobs. One South Korean official jokingly concluded that the thermometer must have been made in China.

OBAMA: Good to see you

 GARRET: And on behalf of the news channel, let me wish you, Michelle, Sasha and Malia a very happy and joyous 2009 holiday season.

OBAMA: That's so nice, I appreciate it, to the Fox family let me say the same.

GARRETT: Very good. Ah, we have a lot of ground to cover, kind of a lightening round nature to this, I’ll have short questions, indulge yourself if you will in short answers. A couple on health care. 

Dick Durbin said the new deadline for signing legislation is now State of the Union. Why is that delay acceptable to you? And how upset are you about it?

OBAMA: You know, I want this done as soon as possible; and, I think the American people do. We've had a long debate, but, you know, there's a reason why Health Care hasn't been reformed in forty, fifty, seventy years. It is a big, complicated piece of business. And frankly, Congress is not accustomed lately to doing big complicated pieces of business like this.

We are pushing and prodding as hard as we can. I do think that a lot of the delay has been that the Congressional Budget Office, which scores or determines how much things cost, how much they might save- they’ve been overloaded. And it's taken a lot longer for us to get that, and I think it's entirely appropriate for legislators to say we want to make sure we get final numbers on any piece of legislation before we actually vote on it

 GARRETT: So the end of the year? That's going?

OBAMA: Well, no I haven’t given up on it. We're going to keep on pushing as hard as we can to make that happen.

GARRETT: Will you sign legislation on Health Care that includes the Stupak language? 

OBAMA: You know, I think that there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde amendment - what existed before we reformed Health Care.

I believe in the basic idea that federal dollars shouldn't pay for abortions. But I also think we shouldn't restrict women's choices, so, I think there's some negotiations going on, not just on the Democratic side, but I think among people of good will on both sides, to see if we can arrive at something that meets that criteria and I'm confident we can do that.

GARRETT: Yes or no, does the Stupak language strike that balance?

OBAMA: Not yet

GARRETT: Very good, a couple on the economy, you have a jobs summit next month. You want a jobs bill in 2010. Will that jobs bill raise the deficit or will you demand that it be deficit neutral?

OBAMA: You know, our first job was to get the economy to recover; and, we're now seeing that. We've seen economic growth; we anticipate economic growth next quarter as well. I always said the job growth would lag behind economic growth. The question now is: how can we accelerate it?

There may be some ways that we can accelerate it without spending money. For example, one of the keys to this Asia trip is to start promoting the notion of balanced growth where the US is an exporter again. This is a region where right now we're sending about 25-26 percent of our exports. If we just boosted our share of exports by one percent, that might be 250,000 well paying jobs in the United States. So export promotion would be an example of something we could do without spending money.

There may be some tax provisions that can encourage businesses to hire sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines; so, we're taking a look at those. I think it is important though to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the US economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.

And so one of the trickiest things we're doing right now, is to on the one hand make sure the recovery is supported and not withdraw a lot of money either with tax increases or big spending cuts - and states, for example, need a lot of support to keep hiring teachers and so forth - at the same time, making sure that we're setting up a pathway longterm for deficit reduction. It's about as hard of a play as there is, but it's what we have to do and whatever jobs, additional jobs legislation comes out, has to fit into that broader framework

GARRETT: Does it raise the deficit or does it not?

OBAMA: Well, the.

GARRETT: Or you haven't made up your mind on that?

OBAMA: We haven't seen that, and that's part of a reason why I think we want to take a look at the summit.

GARRETT: You mentioned trade. Will you make a commitment to in 2010 having Congress pass the pending South Korea trade agreement?

OBAMA: We are going to be discussing this with South Korea. I want to get the deal done.

GARRETT: In 2010?

OBAMA: Well, the question is whether we can get it done in the beginning of 2010, whether we can get it done at the end of 2010, there's still some details that need to be worked out. Overall, I think it's a potential good deal for US exporters. But there's certain sectors of the economy that aren't dealt with as affectively and that's something that I'm going to be talking to talking to President Lee about.

GARRETT: David Obey said yesterday that erroneous estimates from the Administration on the job creating power of the stimulus bill - and I'm quoting now - are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct these ludicrous mistakes. Your reaction?

OBAMA: Look I understand David Obey's frustration- I think that we made a decision very early on, on the biggest stimulus package in history. And, every economic model that we looked at at the time said that if you start economic growth, that unemployment will cap out at a certain rate. Now, there is no doubt that unemployment's been worse than any of the economic models that occurred at the time.

GARRETT: But his criticism isn't about the job creating part, it's just about what you have said about the job creating. Have there been mistakes and do they need to be corrected?

OBAMA: Look, I think this is an inexact science. We're talking about a multitrillion dollar economy that went through the worst economic crisis since 1933. The first measure of success of the economic recovery is: did we pull ourselves back from the brink? We did. Have we gotten economic growth going again? We have.

The question now is: can we make sure we're accelerating job growth? That's my number one job. Nobody's been more disappointed than I have to see how high the unemployment rate has gotten. And, I spend every waking hour, when I'm talking to my economic team, about how we are going to put people back to work.

GARRETT: So this is a side issue? The estimate thing?

OBAMA: This is a side issue.

GARRET: Got it.

Do you support or oppose GM using bailout funds for its overseas operations, specifically Opel?

OBAMA: What I have said is that we are not going to meddle in GM's decisions. They now owe the US government money. We are a share holder but we are not an active shareholder. We have specifically said that we are not in the business of running a car company; we want to make sure that you did not have the collapse of the US auto industry in the midst of a very fragile economic situation. But we want to get out of that business as soon possible.

I was pleased to see that GM thinks it may be able to repay some of the US government loans sooner than anticipated- that's something we’d encourage, in the meantime, we're not being involved, we’re not getting involved in day to day management.

GARRETT: By how much will you miss the deadline to close Guantanamo by the expiration of an executive order and how disappointed are you in that?

OBAMA: You know I'm not disappointed, I knew this was going to be hard, ah, it’s hard not only because of the politics, people I think understandably are fearful after a lot of years where they were told that Guantanamo was critical to keeping terrorists out. So, I understood that that had to be processed, but it’s also just technically hard because of the fact that

GARRETT: Harder than you thought it would be?

OBAMA: No, as hard, I just think as usual in Washington things move slower than I anticipated.

One of the things we knew very early on, there are a set of detainees in Guantanamo that can be convicted, and they will be convicted. There are a set of detainees that can be deported and sent to other countries, and they will be. There is a set of detainees though that are dangerous to the United States, but unfortunately evidence against them may be tainted. Figuring out how to deal with them always was going to be difficult, ah, and we are on a path and a process where I would anticipate that Guantanamo will be closed next year.

I'm not going to set an exact date because a lot of this is also going to depend upon cooperation from Congress.

GARRETT: You said in Shanghai, quote "it makes me a better leader" this is talking about criticism that you receive, "it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear" Can you give me an example?

OBAMA: Oh I figured, I would...

GARRETT: What criticism has made you a better leader?

OBAMA: Well I, you know, I think for example, when I'm thinking about Afghanistan right now, ah, you've got strong voices on both sides, in a very complex issue. There are voices who say "this is a quagmire and we're wasting our resources and endangering our young men and women's lives and we should just focus on Pakistan, and Al- Qaeda that's in Pakistan.

There are those who say "we’ve gotta go all in and commit and rebuild Afghanistan so it’s a stable just society."

If I was just hearing one side, then I would probably not be getting the full reality of what's going on in Afghanistan: which is that, yes we have a vital interest there, yes we have to make sure that we don’t get mission creep and that we define our interests narrowly to make sure we're just going after extremists and preventing them from having safe havens. Yes, we have got to have an effective Afghan government and right now we don’t have the kind of partner that we'd like; yes we've got to have Pakistan cooperating; yes we've got to have more civilian ah cooperation; so all those variable then go into the decision making process and as I said if I was just listening to hawks or doves on either side of the debate, then I probably wouldn't be making a very good decision.

GARRETT: Yes or no, are you going to read Sarah Palin’s book?

OBAMA: (laughs) You know, I probably will not, but I wish her well, you know, it looks like she's going to do very well without my readership. 

GARRETT: the Israelis have announced intentions to put more settlements in Gilo, I believe is the name of the city, how helpful or hurtful to the process it that and do you consider it a rebuke of your efforts to stop those settlements?

OBAMA: Well there is no doubt that I haven't been able to stop the settlements; and, there is also no doubt from my perspective that it’s in, not only the US interests but  actually Israeli interests to not build settlements.

Look, the situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I’ve said repeatedly and I’ll say again, Israel’s security is a vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure. 

I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security, I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors, I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous, and it makes, makes it hard to re-launch any kind of serious talks about how you achieve s two state solution

GARRETT: Mr. President, thank you very much for your time

OBAMA: Appreciate it, thank you.