Democrats and the War on Terror

What are the republicans saying? It's all the same.

 

Dean, Clark, and Kerry believe that the war and occupation in Iraq are taking away resources from the war on terrorism.

 

I think they plan to assign George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz to the AQ promotional dept. to continue the exceptional job being done so far.

 

Howard Dean:

"They don't just go away

On the international front, Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mohammed Omar remain at large. Far from being destroyed, terrorist network al-Qaida has dispersed and been reconstituted - with Osama bin Laden reported to have convened a terrorist summit in the Afghan mountains just last April. The Taliban is again on the move, threatening the safety and security of whole swaths of Afghanistan.

North Korea, a known weapons proliferator, is threatening to test a nuclear bomb - the Hermit Kingdom is in such dire financial straits that selling nuclear materials is a chillingly real possibility. Progress in completing the Israel-Palestinian "road map to peace" has come to a full stop, fueling the skepticism toward the United States that much of the Middle East now exhibits. The lack of planning for the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq has led to a significantly more dangerous situation than existed before the war by creating a magnet for terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, seeking to kill Americans. Furthermore, the way the administration has arrogantly carried out the war in Iraq has alienated the friends and allies whose cooperation is integral to our success in combating terrorism, not only in Iraq, but everywhere around the world.

It is unfortunate that the issue of America's security has ever made its way into the political realm. Bipartisan statesmen and panels of experts who have examined the issue - from Warren Rudman to George Schultz to William Perry - overwhelmingly agree on what needs to be done to respond to the security threats facing our country. This clear consensus should have led to bipartisan agreement, resulting in swift passage of initiatives to make all Americans safer. Instead, lacking the will to abandon their reckless tax cuts to fund these necessary measures, the president and Republicans in Congress have questioned the patriotism of those who have challenged their policies - whether on Iraq, North Korea or other critical issues.

Before it is too late, we must take the steps that most agree will make us truly safer. This will require forcefully challenging terrorism in a united effort with other nations, improving domestic security and enlisting Arab and Muslim countries' support for the war on terror.

We're not in this alone

To win the war on terror, we must be prepared to use the iron fist of our superb military. These efforts must be aggressive and make better use of special-operations forces and CIA operatives. All aspects of U.S. power need to be more effectively employed and coordinated in a joint effort with other nations. To accomplish this, we must stop conducting a foreign policy based on petulance and stop browbeating and berating our friends and allies. Such playground politics only alienates other nations and weakens our national security - with no apparent upside.

In the past, other countries have followed our lead because they respected us. It is vital that we repair these damaged relations and regain the respect of the world. We cannot win the war on terror on our own. We will be more effective and carry less of the burden if others join us in this effort.

To defeat terrorism, we need to work vigorously to defend America at home. We must improve U.S. intelligence and step up counterterrorism collaboration. We need to systematically assess threats and vulnerabilities and fix the greatest gaps in our defenses first - safeguarding chemical facilities against attack, protecting our ports by inspecting more ships, and improving how information is shared across all federal agencies and all levels of government so that everyone can work in tandem to prevent attacks and respond effectively if they occur.

Security begins at home

We must give the nation's first defenders and responders the resources and training they need; improve communication systems; and clarify the appropriate roles for federal, state and local government. We should also make homeland security a core mission of the National Guard. And we must fund homeland security research and development, including safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals, innovative approaches to container security and better controls over nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological materials here and abroad.

We must also enlist support in the Arab and Muslim world. The United States must mount an aggressive campaign to win the hearts and minds of those less fortunate and more susceptible to being won over by terrorists' fraudulent promises.

Too many politicians think in terms of two- or four-year cycles, and we need to fundamentally change the way we approach the task. To do so, we must go beyond superficial statements declaring, "We are not against Islam." We must think and act more broadly to address the real economic and social contradictions that plague Arab and Muslim countries with a long-term plan that encourages economic reform and promotes democracy, tolerance, human rights and equal opportunity for women. We must work with our friends and allies around the world to give the people a reason to hope rather than despair."

 

The big liberal Dean is also pro-gun rights and pro-death penalty, and he cut taxes and balanced the state budget as governor of Vermont. Scandalous really.

 

Maybe if you paid more attention to what people say than the [D] by their name you wouldn't have been so surprised.

 

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I can't find a policy stance from Clark regarding the war on terror. Doesn't reflect very well on his ampaign.

 

As far as I know he has no agenda to speak of. He's going solely on his 'excellent resume'. He's way behind in the ball game, he needs to catch up fast.

 

i was looking at his website for that too. not there. he's made a lot of comments about it, enough to pull together for a comprehensive strategy (which is what his new book is), but the campaign really should have links to issue briefs up on their site.

 

About 86%.

 

This might be a good place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586482181/102-0906366-6291318?v=glance

 

I don't know about you, but I'd bet that the first one who comes out in favor of chopping the heads off babies will get Dan Looney's vote for sure.

I was watching one of those cable news shows, not Fox, and they showed clips of Kerry moving all over the political map on war issues, depending on the targeted market.

 

Wes Clark: General and political leader?

High command is no place for those who need consensus Gen Wesley Clark, Nato commander in the Kosovo conflict, says politicians and the military will always disagree on how to fight a modern war.

By Wesley Clark


War, as the French prime minister Georges Clemenceau is said to have observed during the First World War, is far too serious to be left to the generals. Generals must obey their political leaders.

But the reality is far more complex. In Nato's air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, the politicians' voices were at times conflicting and hesitant. Not until the Washington summit in late April 1999, more than a month into the campaign, were the heads of government able to agree Nato's precise objectives. And never was there a clear and full consensus on the measures and timing for strategic escalation beyond the air campaign if Slobodan Milosevic should fail to accept Nato's conditions. It fell to military leaders to push relentlessly - and sometimes unpopularly - for the escalations of tactics and means which would eventually bring Milosevic's concessions. But the political leaders also found the military frustrating. There were continuing instances of civilian injuries, the locations of Serb leaders were not known, and even the Milosevic regime's "centre of gravity" was in dispute. Each issue carried so much political impact that resolving it could not be left to the generals. Television coverage of the bombing, and the frequent press briefings, were political events, and occasional errors of the military briefers carried political consequences.

In modern war, there is no sharp dividing line between the matters that diplomats and politicians handle and the activities of the senior military. Consequently, there is a rough-and-tumble, push-and-shove quality within the chain of command which is seldom understood outside the inner circles. Commanders' backgrounds, competence and motivations are often questioned. Decisions are second-guessed, or reviewed before execution. Authorities are withheld. Subordinates are encouraged to give their own opinions, often at variance with the official command view. High command in war is no place for those who need consensus.

The American-British campaign against the Taliban - although spared the complications of operating within a formal alliance structure such as Nato's - will also have to deal with a range of controversial and difficult issues. While the Nato campaign was beset by the problems of targeting the use of Apache helicopters and the possible commitment of ground forces, the war against terror will have to face not only these, but also additional problems. How should operations be conducted best to disrupt al-Qa'eda and seize or eliminate Osama bin Laden? How can the coalition of interests between the US-UK and Pakistan be sustained, with rising tensions in Pakistan as the military operations in Afghanistan continue? What can be done to isolate the Taliban and al-Qa'eda from reinforcement and resupply? How much risk should be taken to accelerate the campaign? Should the military effort be slowed to enable development of a post-Taliban governmental structure? How can other Islamic nations be induced to play a more active and constructive role? And what of Iraq and its endless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction?

The campaign against terror has been a difficult military as well as geostrategic problem. Cruise missile strikes, available within hours, had been tried in August 1998 with little result. A major land invasion, such as the Soviets sustained for almost a decade, was virtually out of the question - too slow and not likely to be fully successful. An extended air campaign alone was already recognised as inadequate. Diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement and economic pressures also had important roles to play.

And so a hybrid military option emerged, consisting of a sustained air campaign supplemented by ground operations executed by special operations forces, leading to the elimination of the Taliban and the support it was providing to al-Qa'eda, and ultimately exposing the terrorist network to precision attack from the air and the ground.

So far as the public can ascertain, there have been no lucky breaks thus far. Bin Laden hasn't been taken out, nor has the Taliban collapsed. But by reasonable standards, the operation has gone well so far. The military operations appear well planned and well executed, despite the inevitable injuries of innocent civilians. But it has a long way to go.

And during the course of the campaign, adaptations of the plan will doubtless emerge. Greater diplomatic efforts and deeper engagement with the UN will probably occur. New dangers may appear more salient, such as a possible nuclear threat from terrorists. And all of this is likely to be accompanied, even from within this comparatively disciplined US Administration, by rumours of displeasure or hints of internal disagreements.

Differences of opinion may give rise to concerns about competence. But it would be a mistake for the public to lose confidence; nor is it necessary for the Administration to project a mantle of consensus when really tough issues remain to be resolved.

Some degree of public discussion of the issues is likely to be useful in building public support and understanding, but the need for privacy in governmental decision-making has to be respected.

This is perhaps the most important political-military struggle in American history and probably the most complex. Time is going to be required to bring the diplomacy into play, to track the funding trail and to conduct ground reconnaissance. It may take dozens of fruitless searches before the al-Qa'eda headquarters are found.

But if the public is asked for patience in the absence of insider knowledge, it has a right to expect those in the know to face up to the problems of waging this campaign. However private the proceedings may be, the results will eventually be public.

As one business leader said to me during the Kosovo campaign: "We don't know everything you're doing, and we don't need to. We expect you guys to do your jobs." And those expectations must be met.

http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/albsa-info/2001-October/002461.html