Are we (Americans) safer?
That’s going to be the underlying question the election hinges on.
Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary says absolutely yes.
But if anyone can think of half a dozen attacks that would get around the current security systems, then I would expect that the terrorists can think of just as many. (It is all they do afterall.)
That was what this was all about at the beginning. Remember? The Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, they were not merely talking points for Presidential candidates to stump on. They were supposed to be pivotal battles in the War on Terror. They were supposed to be pre-emptive attacks against those that could do us harm. But, whatever your view on the morality of pre-emptive strikes, these have failed even to succeed. Few people actually think the Iraq War has made Americans (or most Iraqis) any safer.
In a poll of 108 top foreign policy experts, 91% think that the world is becoming more dangerous for the US. This is up 10% from the same poll conducted in February. Apparently, not only is the world getting more unsafe, it’s doing so quickly.
Since September 11th, we’ve waged war and we’ve caught some perpetrators of terror, but we’ve done little to address the reasons that people flew planes into our buildings in the first place.
Of course, part of the reason is that these people are unstable and disaffected. But even the unstable had to become that way. And how?
On Monday, General Petraeus will ‘report’ on the effects of the surge of troops in Iraq. His report follows the GAO’s failing of Iraq on key benchmarks, including those that President Bush earlier laid out as necessary for success.
"One of the advantages about the benchmarks that we have talked about and the president talked about is they are gauges for whether that strategy is succeeding, both narrowly, in terms of the Baghdad security plan, but also more broadly, because, as you know, some of those benchmarks involve the reconciliation effort."
It also follows a report by General Jones on the failures in Iraq. Iraq is not going to be a beacon of democracy any time soon.
These reports will come out. The President and the major Presidential candidates will come out with statements. The battle in Congress over war funding will be filled with rhetoric and little purpose.
But in the meantime, there are youth in Iraq that are being terrorized, fleeing their country, watching their families die. Maybe they started out in favor of the US, maybe they don’t hate us, but we’re making it hard.
By next summer there won’t be anymore troops to deploy to Iraq. Some kind of withdrawal will be forced simply because there are no more troops. And what happens then? Do we go to war with Iran? With every country that threatens our leaders?
Perhaps it’s time to face the fact that we can’t keep building fences to keep everyone out. It doesn’t work.
If we’re going to have to live in a world with people that hate us, we really should stop pissing them off.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The Republicans: 2008
Like it or not, Fred Thompson (yes the guy from Law and Order), who officially entered the race yesterday on the Tonight Show, is probably right when he said,
“I’m certainly not disrespecting them, but it’s a lot more difficult to get on ‘The Tonight Show’ than it is to get on a presidential debate.”
Wednesday night’s 5th Republican debate did little to turn over new ground. The eight candidates opened with jabs at Thompson, including McCain’s reference that it was probably past Thompson’s bedtime. But when it came to issues of immigration, Iraq and terrorism (major concerns for GOP voters), the candidates all stuck to the same line they’ve been holding since the first debate.
Romney attacked Guliani for being “lax on immigration”, and Chris Wallace (the moderator) rebutted Romney by saying the Massachusetts Governor “didn’t even catch the illegals who were mowing your front lawn”.
[They could have had a much-needed discussion over the necessity and legality of continuing ICE raids.]
Instead, they took turns using Ron Paul’s anti-war stance as a foil for pro-Iraq soundbites. Huckabee and Paul had a particularly heated exchange:
"We've dug a hole for ourselves, and we dug a hole for our party," Paul said. "We're losing elections, and we're going down next year if we don't change it."
"Even if we lose elections," Huckabee said, to loud cheers, "we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party."
Even if Paul ends up being right, at least the Republican Party is concerned about my honor.
McCain, to the relief of many, stepped it up this week. First, attacking his rivals about their knowledge and experience of security and foreign policy issues on Tuesday and then, by most accounts, having an “A-“ debate.
Only problem is McCain’s continually been a BIG advocate of the “surge” in Iraq. And the progress of that “surge” is set to be evaluated next week. Will it turn out well? My guess is going to be no, mixed with maybe.
Not going to lie, I was a little glad that Romney got chewed out by a man with a son in Iraq for Romney’s comparison of his son’s campaign work to serving in Iraq (in Salon’s comprehensive following of the debate, at 57 minutes):
"I know you apologized a couple of days later after a firestorm started, but it was wrong, sir, and you never should have said it."
There’s just something a little creepy about Romney. Watch his new “leadership” ad, featuring him running.
“I’m certainly not disrespecting them, but it’s a lot more difficult to get on ‘The Tonight Show’ than it is to get on a presidential debate.”
Wednesday night’s 5th Republican debate did little to turn over new ground. The eight candidates opened with jabs at Thompson, including McCain’s reference that it was probably past Thompson’s bedtime. But when it came to issues of immigration, Iraq and terrorism (major concerns for GOP voters), the candidates all stuck to the same line they’ve been holding since the first debate.
Romney attacked Guliani for being “lax on immigration”, and Chris Wallace (the moderator) rebutted Romney by saying the Massachusetts Governor “didn’t even catch the illegals who were mowing your front lawn”.
[They could have had a much-needed discussion over the necessity and legality of continuing ICE raids.]
Instead, they took turns using Ron Paul’s anti-war stance as a foil for pro-Iraq soundbites. Huckabee and Paul had a particularly heated exchange:
"We've dug a hole for ourselves, and we dug a hole for our party," Paul said. "We're losing elections, and we're going down next year if we don't change it."
"Even if we lose elections," Huckabee said, to loud cheers, "we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party."
Even if Paul ends up being right, at least the Republican Party is concerned about my honor.
McCain, to the relief of many, stepped it up this week. First, attacking his rivals about their knowledge and experience of security and foreign policy issues on Tuesday and then, by most accounts, having an “A-“ debate.
Only problem is McCain’s continually been a BIG advocate of the “surge” in Iraq. And the progress of that “surge” is set to be evaluated next week. Will it turn out well? My guess is going to be no, mixed with maybe.
Not going to lie, I was a little glad that Romney got chewed out by a man with a son in Iraq for Romney’s comparison of his son’s campaign work to serving in Iraq (in Salon’s comprehensive following of the debate, at 57 minutes):
"I know you apologized a couple of days later after a firestorm started, but it was wrong, sir, and you never should have said it."
There’s just something a little creepy about Romney. Watch his new “leadership” ad, featuring him running.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Democrats: 2008
All sides of the Democratic debates have so far been focused on experience, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. Having it, not having it, not even wanting it.
(And let’s never talk about the whole Clinton-Obama ‘would I-wouldn’t I talk to korea’ scuffle again.)
This Labor Day weekend, traditionally the marker for the real race to start (what were the last 4 months then?) Clinton unveiled a new speech and a new ad.
“I know some people think you have to choose between change and experience. Well, with me, you don’t have to choose.”
Obama and Edwards came back with their own attacks on the system Clinton touted.
“…the system isn’t working for us and hasn’t in a long time.”
But outside their whole hardened veteran vs. idealistic outsider ‘narratives’, does experience even matter?
When it comes to foreign policy, presidential experts are saying no.
Besides…
Unless being first lady counts as a foreign policy credential, Mrs. Clinton does not have that much on her resume.
The real problem for the Democrats is that even though foreign policy (read: Iraq) is a big issue in this election, and one that could play well for them considering the mess a Republican government has made [The Washington Post leads with a story on the situation and on the GAO's recent report that the government has failed to meet 11 of 15 benchmarks set], none of the front contenders really have anything useful to say about how to fix the situation. Or win this supposed War on Terror.
From the The LA Times:
The Democrats all want to talk about getting out of Iraq, but not so much about Al Qaeda or terrorism. The Republicans all want to talk about terrorism, but not so much about Iraq.
Clinton makes the valid point that a terror attack would be a GOP boost. Of course, she was attacked for pointing this out, but that doesn’t make it not true.
If the Democrats don’t figure out how to change the foreign policy debate and control it, it won’t matter how messed up Iraq is. They aren’t going to make it (or America) any safer.
What about where the terrorists came from in the first place? There’s plenty of room for policy addressing the roots of poverty and disease as a breeding ground for terror and violence.
(And let’s never talk about the whole Clinton-Obama ‘would I-wouldn’t I talk to korea’ scuffle again.)
This Labor Day weekend, traditionally the marker for the real race to start (what were the last 4 months then?) Clinton unveiled a new speech and a new ad.
“I know some people think you have to choose between change and experience. Well, with me, you don’t have to choose.”
Obama and Edwards came back with their own attacks on the system Clinton touted.
“…the system isn’t working for us and hasn’t in a long time.”
But outside their whole hardened veteran vs. idealistic outsider ‘narratives’, does experience even matter?
When it comes to foreign policy, presidential experts are saying no.
Besides…
Unless being first lady counts as a foreign policy credential, Mrs. Clinton does not have that much on her resume.
The real problem for the Democrats is that even though foreign policy (read: Iraq) is a big issue in this election, and one that could play well for them considering the mess a Republican government has made [The Washington Post leads with a story on the situation and on the GAO's recent report that the government has failed to meet 11 of 15 benchmarks set], none of the front contenders really have anything useful to say about how to fix the situation. Or win this supposed War on Terror.
From the The LA Times:
The Democrats all want to talk about getting out of Iraq, but not so much about Al Qaeda or terrorism. The Republicans all want to talk about terrorism, but not so much about Iraq.
Clinton makes the valid point that a terror attack would be a GOP boost. Of course, she was attacked for pointing this out, but that doesn’t make it not true.
If the Democrats don’t figure out how to change the foreign policy debate and control it, it won’t matter how messed up Iraq is. They aren’t going to make it (or America) any safer.
What about where the terrorists came from in the first place? There’s plenty of room for policy addressing the roots of poverty and disease as a breeding ground for terror and violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)