Democrat Defense Policy

[The Big Dog]

Jul 21, 2008 14:00:11 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

As I am not an expert on Zarqawi I turn to those who are.

What was your source for the above passage? Curious to know who the experts you are citing might be.

[jgaffney]

The current conflict in Georgia is a good excuse to revive this topic because certain Dems are stumbling to the mike to give their spin on the issue. Predictably, it's all Bush's fault. The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today has this:

What to do about Russia's aggression against its erstwhile colony Georgia? It's not clear that there is a good answer to that question, but New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson has a very bad one. Here is what he had to say on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" yesterday, as reported by National Journal's Hotline:

My view is that the United States--if we had a stronger relationship with Russia, we could exercise strong diplomacy to stop this effort against Georgia. We should immediately go to the United Nations Security Council, condemn Russia's action, and then get the Security Council to pass a strong resolution getting the Russians to show some restraint, and possibly at the same time generate some U.N. peacekeeping troops. The problem, though, is that we don't have the kind of influence and strength in our relationship with Russia to persuade them. This has been one of the failures of the Bush administration, failing to build a strong relationship, a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, so we'd have the kind of influence to persuade them to stop some of these very, very dangerous efforts within their territory.

As Ed Morrissey notes, Richardson commits several errors here. For one, unlike previous Russian operations in Chechnya, Georgia is not "within their territory." It has been an independent country since 1991.

For another, seeking a Security Council resolution would be futile, since Russia has a veto on the Security Council. Oh well, Richardson was U.N. ambassador for only a year and a half, perhaps not enough time to learn the ropes.

As it turns out, though, the Bush administration has been seeking action from the Security Council even though it is a futile effort, as the New York Sun reports:

The Security Council is mired in a Cold War-like paralysis that will likely lead in the next few days to a Russian veto on a proposed cease-fire resolution, diplomats say.

In yesterday's emergency session, the American U.N. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, accused Moscow of attempting to orchestrate a "regime change" in Tbilisi and said Russia's "campaign of terror" in Georgia could have a serious effect on its relations with America and the rest of the world.

Georgia, America, the United Nations, and France as the president of the European Union have called for a cease-fire and a return to the situation that existed before the latest hostilities in Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia region were launched on Friday. France is said to be preparing a Security Council resolution along those lines.

But the Russian U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said such calls miss the "complex" nature of the situation. The only acceptable solution, he said, is a complete and unilateral withdrawal of Georgian troops. Former Russian "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia, he added, are now on a "peacemaking" operation.

In the course of yesterday's council session, Mr. Churkin said the United Nations itself was biased against his country, scoring America on its actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Russia's ally Serbia. Also, he said, America barred the council for more than a month in 2006 from imposing a cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hezbollah.

Reuters notes that this was the council's "fourth meeting on the subject since late-night Thursday." No doubt there will be many more meetings, all equally productive. After six decades' experience, it should be clear that the U.N. is incapable of doing much to combat international aggression, especially when the aggressor is a permanent member of the Security Council. When men like Richardson act as if they expect otherwise, they are engaging in a sort of idol worship.

Here's what's going to happen next: Someone will argue that America lacks the "moral standing" to oppose Russian intervention in Georgia, because we intervened in Iraq "without U.N. approval." When the U.S. liberated Iraq, of course, it was acting to enforce the Security Council's own resolutions. So America's acting to overcome U.N. fecklessness will be invoked as an excuse for Russia's unprovoked violation of another country's sovereignty. U.N. idolatry runs counter to the U.N.'s own purported reason for existing.

Yes, if the Messiah were only in the White House, none of this would be happening. I wonder what, exactly, Obama would do to defuse this crisis.

[The Big Dog]

Jul 23, 2008 19:21:47 GMT -5 The Big Dog said:

Jul 21, 2008 14:00:11 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

As I am not an expert on Zarqawi I turn to those who are.

Still waiting for those experts Suanterelle. So far they sound suspiciously like crickets.

[jgaffney]

As we get closer to the general election, Obama is "refining" his positions. The Hill has this:

As president, Barack Obama will keep a large military budget and will involve the defense industry much more than it has been in the past, according to one of the candidate’s senior national security advisers.

An Obama White House, however, would trim the emergency supplemental requests, said former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig.

The Bush administration has been pouring about $600 billion into the Pentagon’s budget to cover not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the acquisition of several large new weapons systems.

Danzig would not give a number for the yearly defense budget under an Obama administration, but said that the funding will be substantial. He stressed that money is needed to repair worn equipment and revitalize a military that has been at war for seven years.

However, he said, “supplementals will be reduced as a funding source.”

So, the whole idea of bringing the soldiers home and putting us on a peace footing just went out the window. What other issues that Obama promised during the primary campaign will be jettisoned before November?

[jgaffney]

The Wall Street Journal today has this analysis of Obama's foreign relations:

The warrior's garb sits uneasily on Barack Obama's shoulders: Mr. Obama seeks to reassure Americans that he and his supporters are heirs of Roosevelt and Kennedy; that he, too, could order soldiers to war, stand up to autocracies and rogue regimes. But the widespread skepticism about his ability to do so is warranted.

The crowds in Berlin and Paris that took to him knew their man. He had once presented his willingness to negotiate with Iran as the mark of his diplomacy, the break with the Bush years and the Bush style. But he stepped back from that pledge, and in a blatant echo of President Bush's mantra on Iran, he was to say that "no options would be off the table" when dealing with Iran. The change came on a visit to Israel, the conversion transparent and not particularly convincing.

Mr. Obama truly believes that he can offer the world beyond America's shores his biography, his sympathies with strangers. In the great debate over anti-Americanism and its sources, the two candidates couldn't be more different. Mr. Obama proceeds from the notion of American guilt: We called up the furies, he believes. Our war on terror and our war in Iraq triggered more animus. He proposes to repair for that, and offers himself (again, the biography) as a bridge to the world.

Mr. McCain, well, he's not particularly articulate on this question. But he shares the widespread attitude of broad swaths of the country that are not consumed with worries about America's standing in foreign lands. Mr. McCain is not eager to be loved by foreigners. In November, the country will have a choice between a Republican candidate forged in the verities of the 1950s, and a Democratic rival who walks out of the 1990s.

For Mr. McCain, the race seems a matter of duty and obligation. He is a man taking up this quest after a life of military and public service, the presidency as a capstone of a long career. Mr. McCain could speak with more nuance about the great issues upon us. When it comes to the Islamic world, for example, it's not enough merely to evoke the threat of radical Islamism as the pre-eminent security challenge of our time. But his approach and demeanor have proven their electoral appeal before.

For Mr. Obama, the race is about the claims of modernism. There is "cool," and the confidence of the meritocracy in him. The Obama way is glib: It glides over the world without really taking it in. It has to it that fluency with political and economic matters that can be acquired in a hurry, an impatience with great moral and political complications. The lightning overseas trip, the quick briefing, and above all a breezy knowingness. Mr. Obama's way is the way of his peers among the liberal, professional elite.

The recent conflict in Georgia and the intransigence of Iran prove that we live in very dangerous times. Now that we have al Qaeda on the run in Iraq and we are ready to refocus our efforts on rooting them out of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, now is not the time for America to go soft. The EU's weak-kneed response to Russia's actions shows that America is still the pre-emminent power in the world, the guardian of freedom that Ronald Reagan envisioned.

[mrbose]

NObama '08

[mrroqout]

The Obamaheads have been AWFULLY quiet as of late..

Me thinks they are realizing the emptiness of the suit, they have been propping up like a scarecrow....

NObama 08!!

[bolverk]

Yeah, where is saunterelle, by the way.

[subdjoe]

"The Obama way is glib: It glides over the world without really taking it in. It has to it that fluency with political and economic matters that can be acquired in a hurry, an impatience with great moral and political complications. "

Geez, the WSJ makes him sound like the intellectual equivilent of the Platt River - "a mile wide and an inch deep."

[jgaffney]

Subjoe, the term is "astroturf": grassroots with no roots.

Just to prove that, if given unbridled power, the Dems will run our defense into the ground, The Hill has this:

A little-noticed earmark tucked into the 2009 defense-spending bill by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) would fund a $2.4 million independent study on withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The study could bolster arguments by Democrats and their presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), that the United States should withdraw troops from Iraq and send more soldiers to Afghanistan.

Obama’s rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has opposed any drastic troop reductions in Iraq. If McCain wins the presidency, the study could give Senate Democrats leverage in their effort to force a troop withdrawal.

The provision includes no “justification” language describing exactly what the study would entail. The RAND Corporation is assigned to conduct the study, which is expected to be completed within four months to coincide with the inauguration of a new president.

Kennedy and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), both fierce opponents of the Iraq war, suggest the study would determine the impact of withdrawing troops from Iraq.

“Sen. Kennedy believes that the best way to protect our troops and our national security is to set a realistic timetable that encourages Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future,” Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley told The Hill in an e-mail statement. “He believes strongly that it’s past time for us to change course, and this analysis will provide an objective and independent perspective on how best to do that.”

"Sen. Kennedy believes that the best way to protect our troops is to keep them at home where they won't get shot at." Meanwhile, America will take a drubbing, much worse than what we get now, for leaving the poor people of Iraq to fend for themselves against al Qaeda and Iran. The blood will be on your hands, Mink.

[saunterelle]

Oct 8, 2008 11:32:22 GMT -5 jgaffney said:

Subjoe, the term is "astroturf": grassroots with no roots.

Just to prove that, if given unbridled power, the Dems will run our defense into the ground, The Hill has this:

A little-noticed earmark tucked into the 2009 defense-spending bill by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) would fund a $2.4 million independent study on withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The study could bolster arguments by Democrats and their presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), that the United States should withdraw troops from Iraq and send more soldiers to Afghanistan.

Obama’s rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has opposed any drastic troop reductions in Iraq. If McCain wins the presidency, the study could give Senate Democrats leverage in their effort to force a troop withdrawal.

The provision includes no “justification” language describing exactly what the study would entail. The RAND Corporation is assigned to conduct the study, which is expected to be completed within four months to coincide with the inauguration of a new president.

Kennedy and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), both fierce opponents of the Iraq war, suggest the study would determine the impact of withdrawing troops from Iraq.

“Sen. Kennedy believes that the best way to protect our troops and our national security is to set a realistic timetable that encourages Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future,” Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley told The Hill in an e-mail statement. “He believes strongly that it’s past time for us to change course, and this analysis will provide an objective and independent perspective on how best to do that.”

"Sen. Kennedy believes that the best way to protect our troops is to keep them at home where they won't get shot at." Meanwhile, America will take a drubbing, much worse than what we get now, for leaving the poor people of Iraq to fend for themselves against al Qaeda and Iran. The blood will be on your hands, Mink.

Why wouldn't we want to study the consequences of withdrawing our troops from Iraq? It will help us make a wise decision when it comes to setting a timetable. If the Bush administration had been as careful going in, many American troops and Iraqi civillians would not have lost their lives.

Jgaffney, I think you're misreading the situation. We need our troops out of Iraq so that we can fight al Qaeda where they are regrouping in Afghanistan and the hills of Pakistan. The Bush Administration took their eye off the ball by turning our focus to Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden is in his cave, ripe for the picking, planning another attack against America. Shouldn't we go get him? Or do you not care if more Americans die so long as we can "win" in Iraq?

[jgaffney]

Oct 8, 2008 13:03:10 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Why wouldn't we want to study the consequences of withdrawing our troops from Iraq? It will help us make a wise decision when it comes to setting a timetable. If the Bush administration had been as careful going in, many American troops and Iraqi civillians would not have lost their lives.

If all the study was for was the implications of withdrawing troops from Iraq, that would be fine. However, given that the bill specifies that the study will be done by the RAND Corporation, the same group of fellows that brought us "Vietnamization," I'm afraid that it will be used as cover for an Obama administration to withdraw prematurely.

Jgaffney, I think you're misreading the situation. We need our troops out of Iraq so that we can fight al Qaeda where they are regrouping in Afghanistan and the hills of Pakistan. The Bush Administration took their eye off the ball by turning our focus to Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden is in his cave, ripe for the picking, planning another attack against America. Shouldn't we go get him? Or do you not care if more Americans die so long as we can "win" in Iraq?

I know 3 young men that are currently serving in Iraq. To suggest that I don't care if they die as long as I am proven right is offensive. It is just another case of you projecting your values onto me. They don't stick, Saunterelle.

Before you claim that we HAVE to pull out of Iraq in order to deploy more troops in Afghanistan, you should do more research on the size of the standing forces in America. We have over a million men and women in uniform, and slightly over 140,000 in Iraq. In case you are numerically challenged, that's less than 15% of the total. Why should we pull out of Iraq in a hurry when we have 30-40,000 troops cooling their heels in Europe? Exact numbers are hard to come by because the Pentagon does not want to give away our strategies, but the underlying idea is clear: we are nowhere near our force maximum.

I think that many progressives will change their tune about shifting from Iraq to Afghanistan when body bags start coming home from Kabul and the PeeDee publishes the list of names every morning.