I have been waiting for years for the Democrat party to offer a true alternative to the Bush National Security Policy, specifically regarding the war on terror and policy for Iraq. Today the Democrats released thier concept, called
Real Security.
While I am happy the Democrats finally found the issue, the lack of substance has me disappointed.
National Security is a serious issue, and America needs new ideas. This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue,
the threat is very real, the problem is American, meaning everybody.
We believe America is best protected, and freedom best advanced, by national security policies -- including homeland, energy, and diplomatic strategies -- that are both tough and smart.
Starts out good. We will focus on the Homeland Security Policy, Energy Policy, and Diplomatic Strategies. These are 3 clear failures of the Bush administration in my opinion, so the target is true.
Democrats offer a plan for Real Security to rebuild our military; equip and train our first responders and others on the front lines here at home; provide needed benefits to our troops and veterans; fully man and equip our National Guard; promote alternative fuels and reduce dependence on foreign oil; and restore Americans' confidence in their government's ability to respond in the face of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
Still good so far, I support fully everything listed above and believe this is a winning strategy.
To protect the American people, we will mmediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack.
Ok, well the 9/11 commission gave us the intelligence genius of the NDI office, and so far John Negroponte has been less than impressive. Admittedly I am not an expert, but the 9/11 commission specifically recommended the creation of the NDI office to facilitate information between various agencies. This has not been successful, the whole flop in NYC when the City shut the subway down while the Dept. of Homeland Security was busy saying 'no threat' pretty much summed up the pre-9/11 problem. Nice job John Negroponte.
As for the rest, I assume you will tell us how our ports, airports, borders, mass transit systems, chemical and nuclear power plants, and food and water supplies will be protected from terrorist attack.
After September 11, all Americans trusted President Bush to take the steps necessary to keep our country safe. Since then, inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americans as safe as we should be. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina showed that the federal government was still not prepared to respond.
Hurricane Katrina is interesting, because when you look back, the response was excellent except for 2 key points. Bush was at least 24-48 hours late, and Brown was an idiot. Other than that, Katrina on paper is pretty impressive. Despite the hate for LA officials, 80% of the 1.3 million residents of the New Orleans metropolitan area were evacuated prior to the storm, which means it was the largest evacuation in domestic US history, and despite being called late, the Military still airlifted over 34,000 people, the largest disaster relief airlift in history. There were clearly failures, but there were clearly success stories as well.
Under President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress, the war in Iraq began with manipulated intelligence and no plan for success; our ports and other critical infrastructure remain vulnerable, while both soldiers in the field and first responders at home lack the basic equipment and resources they were promised.
OK, so they are aware of the problem. How will this be done? Where is the new idea here? These issues have been in Congress for years, but nobody has offered a cost effective solution yet. Where is the plan? Simply producing options for an emergency communications network during domestic emergencies would have been a huge idea to capitalize on, but this policy says nothing. Very Disappointing.
Both in the Persian Gulf and our own Gulf Coast, lucrative no-bid contracts have gone to companies such as Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and others with friends in high places and records of cheating taxpayers. And despite record high fuel prices, our country remains heavily dependent on foreign oil because of an energy policy that benefits the big oil interests.
For me, this is where stupidity starts. This sounds great at a political pep rally, but in the "Real Security" strategy, I find this somewhat annoying. Maybe the Democrats are unaware, but in the 90s all of the other companies that competed with Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown, and Root, etc. went out of business. If we aren't going to hire Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown, and Root, etc.. to do the job, who them? The Germans? Chinese? How about the UAE? The problem isn't the companies themselves, it is the lack of American competitors to those companies. I don't like it much either, but give me the US Halliburton with American workers over imported Chinese labor to rebuild US infrastructure any day.
Energy Policy? What Energy Policy? Bush doesn't have one, Clinton didn't have one, and the Democrats don't have one. Political rhetoric isn't "Real Security," if I thought it was, I'd be a Bush supporter.
Americans want and deserve change.
LOL. uh, YA!
Finally, we get to the substance, I hope.
Military Changes
Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.
Nothing new here, which is the problem. What changes regarding investments in equipment are the Democrats proposing? What changes in manpower? Are we proposing cuts in certain military programs and increases in others? Are we talking about increasing the size of the military, or just paying military personal more? What does this mean? Substance matters, this paragraph has nothing.
Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.
The protective gear and equipment debate is for military specific folks, too many military people have strong opinions for a civilian like me to get involved, so I'm going to focus on point 2.
The second point is absolutely stupid, and really needed to be proof read by somebody. Accurate intelligence? That is an oxymoron, there is no such thing. Does that mean we are never sending our troops to war? I'd rather the Dems say that than say "accurate intelligence" which might just be one of the dumbest comments in political history in any nation regarding requirements to use the military. Under that description, the US would not have done a thing after 9/11, because even the information about Afghanistan was far from accurate.
Enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that guarantees our troops -- active, reserve, and retired -- our veterans, and their families receive the pay, health care, mental health services, and other benefits they have earned and deserve.
BRAVO! Well done, a strategy that actually could be successful in keeping middle class Americans interested in military service. Top marks here.
Strengthen the National Guard, in partnership with the nation's Governors, to ensure it is fully manned, equipped and available to meet missions at home and abroad.
This sounds nice on paper, but what would be done different than Bush? Are the Dems adopting a Bush strategy? Where is the new idea?
So for the military, the GI Bill is about the only item the Dems can talk about, the rest is same ole same ole with no ideas. Unless this gets expanded considerably over the next few days, particularly regarding the first issue, touting this as "Real Security" is going to hurt Dem credibility.
War on Terror
Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.
OK. How? Are we going to invade Pakistan? What if he is in Iran? Destroy? The Taliban is currently regaining strength up and down Pakistan, and the US can't even kill high level Al Qaeda officials without controversy, and now the Dems are going to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Great! How?
Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.
These are great ideas on paper, but how does this get done in reality? Special Operations Forces are elite, standards are very high to insure they are elite, how is the US going to double the size of an elite force? Are we going to lower standards? I don't even know what to say about that last statement, considering I want political pressure on the NSA to insure they aren't spying on Americans. This is not only worded poorly, it lacks substance. This has all of the characteristics of a Bush policy by being incomprehensible, confusing, and wishful-thinking in nature.
Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.
At least this sounds better, but it lacks any substance. Many EU intelligence agencies have noted the majority of terrorist organizations are being funded from Saudi Arabia and Europe. If the Democrats can achieve the above, they will own the Terrorism issue. Without any specific idea, this statement lacks substance though.
Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.
More political rhetoric. North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan are mining Uranium in African nations that lack government facilities in the areas of the mines. There are ways to sound very smart on this issue, provide 'real security' in this regard, but without any specific idea, I'm skeptical.
Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
What would Democrats do different than Bush regarding either country? If there is an answer, it should have been in the brochure. Iran and North Korea have given no indication they intend to stop development of nuclear weapons, so how do you intend to "stop" them. Trying harder.. how? Specifics are needed if this is to be an issue for the Democrat Party, otherwise Dems will not stand out.
Homeland Security
Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.
I think this has the most potential, but I think ideas need to be floated and discussed. The 9/11 Commission Report offered recommendations, but the specifics were left to debate. Specifics matter.
Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.
Sounds great, but even the most knowledgeable and respected Democrats on the subject have taken a realistic look at this and backed away. Why platform a proposal that cannot be achieved? Sounds good on paper, but ideas have to be floated, which of coarse, the "Real Security" plan does not.
Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure -- such as ports, airports and mass transit -- to foreign interests that put America at risk.
Excellent.
Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment, and cuttingedge technology they need.
This sounds like it was written by a Bush staffer. Wake up Democrats, America doesn't require cutting edge, we require robust technologies. The latest and greatest fiber optics were useless after Katrina, but a robust communication network that can be deployed rapidly or survive a disaster would have made a huge impact on response.
That is a fundamental point that should not be taken lightly either. On every level of National Security, Bush touts the latest, "cutting edge" technology as the most important goal at every level of government security. The most cutting edge is a political policy, an expensive policy, and while sometimes it makes sense, Democrats should learn how to utilize alternatives to "cutting edge" by choosing "useful, robust" options instead.
Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.
OUTSTANDING. This identified the problem and recommended a solution in one paragraph. Finally, Real Security politics.
Iraq
To me, Dems have to get this right, or they lose gains the party has made in National Security.
Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
Good start. Somewhat neutral, but raising expectations for results can be a smart strategy. I don't think the Dems do enough of this to be honest. I think one of the most recent failures of Dem policy for Iraq has been to jump the gun too quickly. Standing the government up should be priority #1 for the Dem party, and in my opinion, stating it out loud over and over should be a goal today.
The Bush administration does not say much about the Iraqi's dragging their feet to form their government, but they should. Since they won't, Dems should, because until that step takes place it is hard to set a long term political strategy for Iraq, specifically including goals and deadlines for troop movements. Murtha's plan for example, would require that step to happen in order to be utilized. While I am not a full supporter of the Murtha plan...yet, I do not dismiss it either, because it may well be the best plan once the government stands up.
Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.
This sounds like it was stolen from a Bush speech. Nothing new here.
Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
OK. I know many people favor this, but the paper presenting the Democratic Strategy for "Real Security" is the wrong place to make the case that the strategy for Iraq is to hold Bush accountable. I find it incredibly stupid to make the strategy for solving the problem in Iraq holding Bush accountable. I'm not even against the idea, but if this is all the Democrat Party has in terms of solving the Iraq problem, Democrats have shot themselves in both feet and the temple of their brain if they think this wins credibility for "Real Security." A political fight over placing blame is not a solution for Iraq, and if the Dems think it is, they will undoubtably lose the National Security issue.
Energy Independence
Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.
Increase production of alternate fuels from America's heartland including bio-fuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives.
I am for this, don't get me wrong, but this isn't anything new. Without a platform Democrat Party Energy Policy Policy, it means nothing. I believe Dems can win the issue, but without proposals or ideas this is just rhetoric.
Personally, I am not overly impressed by this "Real Security" plan. This gives me the impression of a rough draft, with the biggest problem being that it cannot answer the most basic questions a voter will have. The question of "how?"
The lack of specifics is disappointing, and for all the attention the Democrats claim to want for the "Real Security" plan this supposedly is, the Dems will be lucky if this plan doesn't get circulated around the media much in my opinion.
The problems are way too big to be solved in what amounts to 1 page of introductions, 2 pages of platform, and a true lack of original proposal or idea. Unless this is followed up with some real substance, I don't see how this is going to add to the Democrat Party credibility on National Security, in fact I think some of it could hurt any credibility gained in recent months.
I would like to encourage the Dems to look at Research Institutes like The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, RAND, The Center for American Progress, and The Federation of American Scientists and formulate some ideas.
I find it simply amazing how many organizations oppose Bush policies with hundreds of pages of documentation while producing credible alternatives for National Security, but the Democrat Party can't publish more than 3 pages of policy on the issue.
I know many have praised the plan, but I think that is done mostly out of loyality to the party, not based on the substance of the plan itself. I can't go that far. My expectations are high on the National Security issue because I believe it is the most important issue facing America. I want leadership, and I don't feel I got that from the "Real Security" plan. Substance matters, the lack of substance in the policy is disappointing for me.