WASHINGTON (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama for the most part has enjoyed a good start since he took office four months ago.

One of his thorny jams, however, has been the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other related national security matters.
There has been no sign that Guantanamo problems could endanger Obama’s ambitious domestic and foreign agenda but the emotional issue has become a tricky quandary with no quick solution in sight.
The president, trying to regain the initiative on the matter, gave a televised speech on major policies Thursday and promised that he would finally get Guantanamo right.
However, Obama’s remarks apparently were not especially convincing because congressional leaders said they are waiting fora more detailed plan from the president.
Why Obama so determined to close Guantanamo
Obama made it clear in his speech that he would stick to his plan to close the military prison within one year.
“There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world,” the president said, “By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.”
The main reason behind Obama’s determination to shutter the prison is that he is trying to keep a key promise made during last year’s presidential campaign.
The Bush administration opened the prison in 2002 to hold prisoners captured in Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks.
The revelation of harsh and inhumane treatment of inmates at the facility infuriated many in the United States and in the international community.
In fact, Guantanamo’s very presence has become a symbol of America’s “moral deficit” in its so-called war on terror.
Democrats frequently raised that issue to attack former President George W. Bush’s national security policies.
As a leading Democrat, Obama has been aware of the problem for a long time. Obama’s core supporters during his presidential campaign included many people steadfastly opposed to the prison.
Shutting the prison also would be a significant symbol for Obama’s campaign theme: change.
Internationally, Guantanamo is at the center of a decline in America’s image, especially in Arab countries where most of the prison’s inmates came from. By ordering the shutdown, the president sends a goodwill message to the world.
Americans are increasingly aware of the negative impact of the prison. The number of people in favor of closing the facility has been growing since 2005.
Even Bush conceded that shutting Guantanamo would be a goal although he never went any further.
Why it is so hard to close Guantanamo
Observers say the real issue concerning the debate on Guantanamo is not if it should be closed but how to do it. More than 800 prisoners have been there since 2002 and about 240 still remain.
In his speech, Obama divide the prisoners into five categories: those who are fit to be released according to court orders; those fit to be transferred to other countries; those who will stand trial in federal courts; those who will be tried at special military tribunals and those who need to be held indefinitely.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said about 60 prisoners belong in the first and second categories while about 80 should be tried in courts. The rest could be held indefinitely.
However, dealing with each of the categories is not easy. Obama has been trying to persuade other countries to accept the prisoners in categories one and two but few have responded.
Among NATO allies, France agreed to take just one prisoner. In the Middle East, Egypt and Jordan said they were willing to accept some but both countries refused to follow U.S. advice on how to monitor those they would take.
For those inmates in the three other categories, the closure of Guantanamo would mean they would be brought to U.S. soil for trial or detention.
A Fox News survey, however, shows that 55 percent of Americans say they don’t want those prisoners in the U.S.
Congress holds a similar position and denied the funding that Obama sought in order to close the prison. The Senate also voted to bar any Guantanamo prisoner from stepping onto U.S. soil.
There are also technical and moral issues at play. Some legal experts say that if the Guantanamo prisoners are tried in federal courts, there is always the chance they could be acquitted. However, could the Obama administration withstand the political pressure and just let them go after such decisions?
Why it becomes more complicated
Although the closure of Guantanamo is a legal matter in its own right, it also has fed the traditional sparring on national security issues between the two major parties. With partisan politics at play, the issue becomes more complicated.
As Princeton scholar Julian E. Zelizer points out, when it comes to national security, Obama seems to lose the confidence he so evidently has on other major issues.
On April 16, the Justice Department released memos showing that the Bush administration authorized harsh interrogation techniques on terror suspects.
Civil rights groups and left-wing Democrats saw that as an opportunity to prosecute Bush administration officials for their roles in the torture and abuse scandals.
Republicans fought back, however, and alleged that leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were implicated in authorizing the techniques in 2002.
Pelosi has had to defend herself and says she was not aware that those techniques are being employed at the time.
To avoid an all-out bipartisan war, Obama reversed his position on a court-mandated release of photos that show U.S. personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He also announced that he would restore the military tribunal created by the Bush White House to try some Guantanamo detainees.
However, some Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, saw Obama’s compromises as an opening.
They stepped up their attacks on the president’s plan to close Guantanamo and successfully persuaded his Senate allies to join the Republicans in denying funds for the prison’s closure.
Historians said Democrats’ lack of confidence on national security issues is a kind of tradition. Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton also dealt with similar situations.
The Democrats lost presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 partly because their candidates were perceived to be “weak” on national security. That will explain much of Obama’s political headache concerning Guantanamo.
If he follows his liberal supporters’ advice, he may worry about being seen as “weak” on national security. But if he concedes to the Republicans, some of his core supporters will blame him