When considering the priority of national security decisions through the scope of various national security strategies, the U.S. considers four basic elements. Those elements in order of importance seem to be; first, feasibility; second, need; third, cost; forth, value. A final element, which seems to be overarching of all these elements, and yet, not particularly belonging to the group is that of sovereignty. These elements don’t necessarily pertain to the level of threat under consideration as much as they pertain to selection of strategy, and in turn, implementation of policy. Each element plays its own critical role in how American national security strategy is identified.
Of the several national security strategies discussed by U.S. policy makers, no single policy tends to have a certain probability of success in all policy dilemmas. Determining the feasibility of each strategy is critical when debating and shaping U.S. national security grand strategy. As stated by Robert J. Art, some strategies are simply not feasible, while others tend to be feasible only under certain circumstances, still others tend to make sense under a great many circumstances (Art 2003, 84). The strategy of dominion for example is prohibitive in many ways. Dominion is extremely costly in monetary terms as well as in resources, too costly to be rational; it is extremely provocative to allies, enemies, and neutral states alike; and it is extremely irrational in a modern world where nuclear weapons are such a major consideration in international politics (states with nuclear weapons are not easily manipulated) (Art 2003, 89). Selective engagement, on the other hand, is extremely feasible in many instances because it encourages multilateralism which dissipates the costs and international consequences of action. Determining feasibility is important in determining which strategies will work with which potential set of circumstance.
Policy makers must consider needs in American national security strategy in terms of specific problems with which the nation is faced, as well as the general objectives and interests of those policy makers. Some strategies, when localized, can have a better effect on specific problems than other strategies. In the early 1990s, Saddam Hussein posed a specific problem for the United States. A viable and feasible strategy in this circumstance was to implement a containment strategy to prevent Hussein from further threatening his neighbors and undermining regional stability. In this case, the need was specifically addressed by a strategy not particularly suited to other areas of international conflict such as regional confrontation or inner-state humanitarian scenarios. Another clear example is the containment of the Soviet Union in the cold war when the U.S. government opted to establish road blocks to Soviet domination and communist expansion. I each case a need was identified and an adequate strategy matched to that need.
Of course no assessment of national security strategy can be made without a thorough analysis of the costs. As mentioned, the strategy of dominion is very costly, while the strategy of isolationism is relatively inexpensive. This aspect must be considered on the basis of cost/benefit analysis. Isolationism could prove more costly over the long term than other strategies but clearly has a cost advantage in the short term, as inaction is usually less costly than containment or engagement of any kind. Long term however, it may be more cost effective to engage rather than to sit out. In the case of Afghanistan in 2001/2002, a clear threat existed which may have been more costly to ignore than to engage. Although the costs have been extensive, over the long term it is likely to be more cost effective to confront the threat in Afghanistan now than to remain isolated. However, to engage in the present conflict between Congo and Rwanda and the multiple facets of insurgency, ethnic strife, and interstate confrontation going on in that region would likely be much more costly for America in both short and long term than just remaining aloof and letting the thing run its course.
Value works in conjunction with cost. If an engagement has limited value but tremendous cost, such as the conflict in Congo/Rwanda, engagement by America would be irrational. However, engagement in Afghanistan to prevent the proliferation of Islamic extremism may be quite costly but have tremendous value to American national security, the American people, and America's allies. The value of a strategy is of great importance to policy makers when considering potential strategy options.
Although it doesn't pertain directly to strategies such as dominion and isolationism, primarily because those are unilateral in nature, the issue of sovereignty is quite important when considering plausible strategy options. Especially in the cases of collective and cooperative security, a nation's sovereignty may be at stake if it is limited in either its self defense options or its ability to act in its own best interests as the result of its incorporation into an international security agreement. In the case of great powers more specifically, such involvement would be detrimental to a state's own self preservation.
Art, Robert J. A Grand Strategy for America. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press. 2003.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Humanitarian Intervention
Approval of any major action taken by the United Nations must be given by the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, any of the five permanent members of the Security Council have the ability to veto any course of action voted upon by the council. As a result, the bureaucracy within the council virtually neuters its ability to take quick, decisive action. Article II basically states that no member state can take any action within or against any other state without the approval of the UN.
In some cases, member states have been compelled to circumvent the UN and its bureaucracy laden structure in order to accomplish meaningful humanitarian missions. A perfect example is the war in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security Council (Russia and China) blocked any attempt by the other powers to prevent a repetition of the 1995 Bosnia genocide. Once again, the Christian Serbs were setting out to cleanse the former Yugoslavia by getting rid of the Muslim Albanian Kosovars. Following the botched attempt by the UN at “Peacekeeping” in Bosnia, the western powers on the UN Security Council flanked the UN by engaging in Kosovo by way of NATO, the consequential trans-Atlantic military alliance.
The gamut of problems which fall under the umbrella of humanitarian crisis is extensive, ranging from mere food aid for disaster relief, to military intervention to prevent or halt genocide. The military end of the gamut is the more controversial within the UN and has a tendency to cause strife between member states.
The moral dilemma between engaging in a humanitarian crisis and ignoring it is more complex than could be covered in multiple volumes. However, the west, due to its adherence to a “superior moral compass”, has typically engaged or considered engaging in various types of humanitarian crises in order to prevent or lessen the damage caused thereby. The totalitarian history of the west’s Asian counterparts seems to lean Russia and China away from humanitarian causes.
In democratic societies, the danger of intervening is that the citizenry is typically not very keen on seeing body bags come home in exchange for humanitarian benefit in some far off land. Inasmuch as the people hold the ultimate power in a democracy, elected officials are likely more willing to listen to popular opinion and therefore less likely to take risks which would have little political value.
The dilemma lies in the moral compass. It’s obvious that it would be morally commendable to intervene in some humanitarian crisis if the cost was zero, and most Americans would probably agree. But when the perceived costs of that intervention exceed its perceived value to the public, even if the costs might be well worth the outcome to a benefitted group, officials are likely to steer away from committing to it. The advantage to elected officials in a UN intervention, rather than a unilateral one, is that they can take credit if it goes well, but shrug it off on the UN if it doesn’t. If things had gone badly wrong in Kosovo, President Clinton would have heard about it in a bad way.
A major complication with circumventing the UN, as in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, is that other states, member and non-member alike, may then use that action as justification and precedent in performing their own unilateral action. Russia may easily have used that very case when it invaded Georgia in 2008. This principle applies to humanitarian intervention as easily as military endeavors. China could easily invade a neighbor on humanitarian grounds using the precedent established by NATO in Kosovo. The advantage NATO has in this instance is that NATO is a broad coalition of numerous nations. The problem is that unilateral action undermines the international order established within the UN. If states rampantly disregard the principles of the UN, it might as well not exist.
In some cases, member states have been compelled to circumvent the UN and its bureaucracy laden structure in order to accomplish meaningful humanitarian missions. A perfect example is the war in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security Council (Russia and China) blocked any attempt by the other powers to prevent a repetition of the 1995 Bosnia genocide. Once again, the Christian Serbs were setting out to cleanse the former Yugoslavia by getting rid of the Muslim Albanian Kosovars. Following the botched attempt by the UN at “Peacekeeping” in Bosnia, the western powers on the UN Security Council flanked the UN by engaging in Kosovo by way of NATO, the consequential trans-Atlantic military alliance.
The gamut of problems which fall under the umbrella of humanitarian crisis is extensive, ranging from mere food aid for disaster relief, to military intervention to prevent or halt genocide. The military end of the gamut is the more controversial within the UN and has a tendency to cause strife between member states.
The moral dilemma between engaging in a humanitarian crisis and ignoring it is more complex than could be covered in multiple volumes. However, the west, due to its adherence to a “superior moral compass”, has typically engaged or considered engaging in various types of humanitarian crises in order to prevent or lessen the damage caused thereby. The totalitarian history of the west’s Asian counterparts seems to lean Russia and China away from humanitarian causes.
In democratic societies, the danger of intervening is that the citizenry is typically not very keen on seeing body bags come home in exchange for humanitarian benefit in some far off land. Inasmuch as the people hold the ultimate power in a democracy, elected officials are likely more willing to listen to popular opinion and therefore less likely to take risks which would have little political value.
The dilemma lies in the moral compass. It’s obvious that it would be morally commendable to intervene in some humanitarian crisis if the cost was zero, and most Americans would probably agree. But when the perceived costs of that intervention exceed its perceived value to the public, even if the costs might be well worth the outcome to a benefitted group, officials are likely to steer away from committing to it. The advantage to elected officials in a UN intervention, rather than a unilateral one, is that they can take credit if it goes well, but shrug it off on the UN if it doesn’t. If things had gone badly wrong in Kosovo, President Clinton would have heard about it in a bad way.
A major complication with circumventing the UN, as in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, is that other states, member and non-member alike, may then use that action as justification and precedent in performing their own unilateral action. Russia may easily have used that very case when it invaded Georgia in 2008. This principle applies to humanitarian intervention as easily as military endeavors. China could easily invade a neighbor on humanitarian grounds using the precedent established by NATO in Kosovo. The advantage NATO has in this instance is that NATO is a broad coalition of numerous nations. The problem is that unilateral action undermines the international order established within the UN. If states rampantly disregard the principles of the UN, it might as well not exist.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Election 2008: Joe Biden (D)
Foreign Policy: Energy is key to our foreign policy. Focus more on Africa. Enlarge NATO.
Iraq: Sectarian civil war. First favored, now opposes OIF. Keep Iraq unified. Withdraw most U.S. troops by end of 2007. Propose a plan for each sector (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) to share in oil revenues. Give incentives to permit Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to pursue their interests peacefully. Deal with unemployment in Iraq. Rebuild infrastructure. Deal with sectarianism.
War on Terror: Islam is not terrorism. Civilian contracts in Iraq & Afghanistan suspicious.
Taxes: Repeal tax cuts for wealthy ($1mil/year). Favors estate tax & capital gains tax. Opposes marriage penalty. No internet sales tax. Tax the rich. Give tax breaks to the poor & middle class.
Social Security: No lock-box. Give social security to illegal immigrants.
Trade: Open trade with Vietnam/China. Free trade with some, not others. Expand free trade in undeveloped countries.
Government: Favors line-item veto. Balance the budget. Favors campaign finance reform. No soft money. No gifts from lobbyists. No campaign contributions from unions or corporations.
Immigration: Permit more legal immigration. Favors guest worker & path to citizenship programs. Give illegal immigrants Social Security and welfare.
Homeland Security: Reauthorize Patriot Act. Homeland is not secure. More resources are needed. Implement 9/11 commission report recommendations. Favors national missile defense. Implement Homeland Security Trust Fund. Close more military bases. Invest in law enforcement. Restrict business linked to terrorism. Favors nuclear test ban.
Economy: Favors unions. Jobs are critical to America's success. America must compete globally. The economy must change to accommodate global changes. Raise the minimum wage. Favors climate change treaty – developing economies need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Opposes tax subsidies for off-shore corporations. Subsidize farming industry. Restrict personal bankruptcy.
Education: Education is key if America wants to compete globally. Every American should have access to higher education. Opposes school vouchers. Increase tax deductions for tuition. Expand government grants and student loan accessibility. Start high school students early applying and saving for college. Utilize technology to improve the systems. Favors education over corporations. Favors smaller class sizes. Opposes private tutors. Favors national education standards.
Health Care: Provide health care for the millions of Americans who don’t already have it. Health care costs American companies while their competitors abroad don’t bear these costs. Contain the costs of health care. Permit re-importation of prescription drugs. Favors self-employed health care tax deductions. Modernize & simplify the system. Reduce errors. System should be uniform; records, claims, billing, etc. Most vulnerable in society first.
Welfare: Revamp welfare system.
Abortion: Favors abortion. Opposes partial-birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Favors gay marriage. Sexual orientation should be included in criteria for hate crimes. Favors stricter gun control. Favors affirmative action. Favors national sex-offender registry. Favors gays in military.
Energy: Pursue energy independence. Pursue renewable and alternative sources of energy, bio-fuels, solar, hydrogen & wind energy, etc. Reduce oil consumption. Increase efficiency. Opposes oil drilling in ANWR.
Compare Joe Biden's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Election 2008: Newt Gingrich (R)
Foreign Policy: Broaden our global reach in combating terror. Iran and nuclear terror are issues of paramount importance. Favors regime change in Iran. Information warfare on Iran (radio, television, internet). Support pro-Western governments with financing, arms and trade. U.S. military is overextended. Take the lead in information. Bolster and utilize U.S. intelligence assets abroad. Opposes Kyoto Protocol. U.S. troops under U.S. command in U.N.
Iraq: Iraq is a problem. Strategy is a mess.
War on Terror: War on Terror could last 30 – 70 years (like the cold war - a war of ideologies). Will be long and difficult, but must be waged. Maintain a strong military.
Taxes: Cut taxes. Tax incentives for space enterprise. Change tax structure to give our corporations the edge around the world. No off-shore taxing. Support families. Tax breaks for raising wages and creating jobs. Eliminate marriage tax. Cut taxes for middle class.
Social Security: Stop spending social security funds and prohibit future social security spending. Permit private savings accounts.
Trade: Opposes protectionism. Favors free trade. Compete with China and India.
Government: Republicans need a change of direction. Favors line-item veto. Quit over-spending. Balance the budget. Cut taxes. Government is typically cumbersome and inefficient. Favors term limits in congress. Transform education, taxation, regulation, litigation, environmental and health policies to favor corporations as they try to compete abroad. Put God back in the public arena.
Immigration: Secure the border. Open borders are a grave national security concern. Improve immigration procedures. Immigrants should learn to be American. Enforce current immigration laws and policies. Punish employers that employ illegal immigrants. Educate in English. Integrate legal immigrants.
Homeland Security: Secure the border.
Economy: Incentives, incentives, incentives. Economy and environment go hand in hand. Support corporations in their efforts to compete globally.
Education: Improve and strengthen education. Use college level courses and college instructors in high school classes. Schools and teachers should compete with each other. No free ride. Our quality of life depends on the education we give our children. Favors prayer in schools. Teach children in schools how to be patriots.
Health Care: Favors the free market in health care. Favors health savings accounts.
Welfare: Improve opportunity for poor. Limit welfare to 2 years.
Abortion: Opposes abortion.
Civil Rights: Opposes gay marriage. Favors death penalty. Opposes gun control.
Energy: Conserve. Use technology to develop alternative energy sources. Utilize renewable energy sources. Develop oil reserves in an environmentally responsible fashion. Favors developing ANWR for oil drilling.
Compare Newt Gingrich's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Joe Biden
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Election 2008: Sam Brownback (R)
Foreign Policy: Fight for human rights globally. Protect innocent life at home and abroad. U.N. = lofty ideals + poor execution. U.S forces under U.S. command in U.N. Bear less of the U.N. burden. Expand NATO.
Iraq: Favored OIF. Situation in Iraq is precarious. Turn Iraq over to its people. Voted “No” on redeploying troops out of Iraq by mid 2007.
War on Terror: Islam is not terrorism.
Taxes: Reform tax code. Lower taxes. Opposes all tax increases. Favors flat tax rate for all. Permanently repeal the estate tax. Cut taxes on capital gains and dividends. Favors marriage tax. Opposes increasing deductions for college tuition.
Social Security: Social Security is in crisis. Give Social Security to illegal immigrants. Keep our commitment to retirees. Modernize the Socail Security System. Favors lock-box. Favors personal retirement accounts.
Trade: Favors free trade all around. Trade with China at all cost (even if they are selling weapons to our enemies).
Government: Balance the budget. Pay down the national debt. Reduce spending. Allow lobbyist gifts to congress. Allow soft money. Allow campaign contributions from unions and corporations. Opposes campaign finance reform. Favors big business.
Immigration: Favors guest worker and path to citizenship programs. Opposes welfare for immigrants. Permit more immigration.
Homeland Security: Voted for Patriot Act. Favors missile defense. Opposes nuclear test ban. Favors chemical weapons. Opposes restrictions on companies with links to terrorism. Opposes more base closures. Opposes federal financing for first responders.
Economy: Favors outsourcing. Favors restricting personal bankruptcy. Opposes minimum wage hike. Anti-union.
Education: More students need high quality education. Choice in education crucial. Fix the achievement gap. Reform failing schools. Favors corporations over education. Favors private tutors. Opposes smaller class sizes. Favors school vouchers.
Health Care: HMOs over patients. Brownback pretty much opposes anything having to do with health care, public health, tax deductions for health care costs, etc. Brownback favors Social Darwinism when it comes to health care.
Welfare: Opposes welfare for immigrants.
Abortion: Opposes abortion.
Civil Rights: Opposes gay marriage. Opposes sexual orientation inclusion in hate crimes. Pro-guns. Enforce current gun laws. Favors death penalty. Favors wiretapping.
Energy: America in energy crisis. Energy demand outpaces supply. Reduce oil consumption. Utilize technology and renewable fuels. Favors energy independence. Favors opening ANWR to oil drilling. Opposes reduction in fuel efficiency standards. Favors removal of fuel efficiency standards. Favors renewable and solar energy.
Compare Sam Brownback's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Election 2008: Bill Richardson (D)
Foreign Policy: Restore world respect and U.S. reputation abroad. Tough/smart foreign policy. Strong military. Promote freedom, alleviate poverty and stop global warming.
Iraq: Get us out of Iraq. Our presence in Iraq is no longer helping. Iraqis should be responsible for their own security. Engage neighbors and allies in Iraq. Rebuild Iraq. Create jobs for Iraqis (40% unemployment).
War on Terror: Number one challenge – defeat terrorism.
Taxes: Opposed sales tax on food (NM).Tax credits for businesses that create jobs. Tax credits for high tech startups. Cut taxes for middle class. Tax big corporations. Restructure tax code.
Social Security: Illegal immigrants pay Social Security, let them collect it.
Trade: Trade with Mexico. Favors free trade/NAFTA.
Government: Washington is broken. Return to bipartisanship. Balance the budget. Responsible spending. Ideological warfare – bad. Favor minorities with government contracts. Eradicate waste & fraud.
Immigration: Crack down on illegal activity. Protect our citizens. Illegal immigrants should pay taxes and learn English. Secure the border. U.S. is a country of immigrants. Reform immigration policy. Increase legal immigration. Path to citizenship. No right to citizenship for illegal children. No fence. Increase border patrol.
Homeland Security: Mexican border a state of emergency. No missile defense. Fight base closures.
Economy: Economy should work for the middle class. Create well paying jobs. Create high tech jobs.
Education: Increase teacher pay. Favors charter schools. Opposes vouchers. Divert funds from administration to the classroom. Increase teacher standards. Banned junk food in public schools (NM). Give 7th graders laptops.
Health Care: Quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Help seniors with prescription drug costs. Assist children, working families, small businesses get affordable health care. Immunize children. Include mental health and substance abuse therapy.
Welfare: Non governmental charities. Higher tax deductions for charitable contributions.
Abortion: Favors abortion. Favors partial-birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Favors civil unions. Favors gays in the military. Favors affirmative action. Favors death penalty. Loves guns.
Energy: Stop global warming. Energy independence. Renewable energy sources. Improve fuel efficiency standards. Develop alternative energies: wind & solar.
Compare Bill Richardson's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Election 2008: Mitt Romney (R)
Foreign Policy: Encouraged MA to assist tsunami relief efforts. Do what is in the country’s collective best interests – not what people want to hear for political points. Wishful thinking is an irrational strategy. Favors strong but rational foreign policy.
Iraq: Must win in Iraq. George W. Bush offered too little too late. Strategy flawed. Continue in Iraq as long as there is a “reasonable probability of success.” You know you’ve failed if you have a “Red Zone.”
War on Terror: Use diplomacy and military to win War on Terror. Bolster intelligence gathering capability. Only one way to lose War on Terror – Inaction. Support and promote western-friendly Muslim governments.
Taxes: No increase in taxes. Tax breaks for inner city investment. Tax free shopping day in MA. Tax relief for seniors.
Trade: Asia is an opportunity. We need to compete with China for future dominance. Educate our children to compete.
Government: Balance the budget. Favors line-item veto. Cut the pork. Evaluate and reorganize for efficiency. Turned deficit into budget surplus w/o raising taxes. “New American Dream” – Strong families, great schools, health care for everyone, a safe and prosperous nation.
Immigration: Favors English immersion. Educate adult immigrants. Legal immigration is critical to our nation’s survival. Documentation and verification. Secure our borders.
Homeland Security: Intelligence in identifying potential threats is critical to counter-terrorism efforts. Inter-agency communication is key. Increased homeland security funding in MA by $45 million. Anti-terror initiatives on public transit. Developed regional homeland security councils to assess risk, allocate dollars, and plan strategy. Expand benefits for military families.
Economy: Americans should be able to save. Environment tied to economy. Created more jobs in MA. Promotes training and re-education. Favors investment and entrepreneurialism. Prevent job outsourcing. Favors first-time-home buyer grants. Welcomed many large corporations to MA.
Education: Favors charter schools and vouchers. Education is the civil rights issue of our time. Free college education for members of the National Guard. Education is an essential investment necessary to stay ahead. Close the achievement gap. Improve quality of teachers through incentives and training. Adams Scholarship (MA) allows students scoring in the top 25% (by school district) on MCAS to get public university education (4 years) at no cost. Our children must be educated in order to compete on a global level.
Health Care: Favors universal health care. Subsidize low income health coverage. Favors prescription drug coverage for seniors. Banned smoking in public places.
Welfare: Work for welfare. Eliminate homelessness through efficiency and adequate assistance. Provided fuel assistance for poor in MA. Extended jobless benefits in MA. Improved housing accessibility in MA. Create more jobs. Help recipients get on their feet. Supports faith-based programs.
Abortion: Opposed to abortion but keep it legal, keep it safe. Life of the mother, rape & incest.
Civil Rights: Opposes gay marriage. Gays should have the same benefits as married couples. Favors death penalty. No assault weapons. Child locks on guns. Every American deserves equal opportunity.
Energy: Open ANWR to oil drilling. Pursue alternative energy. Enforce regulations. Energy independence is crucial.
Compare Mitt Romney's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Election 2008: John Edwards (D)
Foreign Policy: Expand NATO. Favors multilateralism. Lead world by hand, not fist. AIDS/Africa should be a priority. Keep U.S. forces under U.S. command in U.N. Favors sanctions on Iran.
Iraq: Voted for invasion – later said it was a mistake. Preemption unwise. Wrong strategy, not wrong war. Saddam Hussein wasn’t an imminent threat. Engage allies/U.N. in Iraq. Halliburton – bad. Engage NATO. Support troops.
War on Terror: Islam is not Terrorism. America needs its allies - international approach. Iraq is not the War on Terror.
Taxes: Opposed Bush tax cuts – rich pay less dollar for dollar. Reduce marriage penalty. Favors estate tax. Favors tax break for tuition. Close corporate tax loopholes. Favors tax cuts for middle class. Tax wealth, not work.
Social Security: No private accounts. No lock-box.
Trade: Favors free-trade with some, not others. Trade with China/Vietnam. Necessitate labor/environmental standards. Protect U.S. jobs.
Government: Pay down national debt. Publicly fund elections. Ban soft money & donations from lobbyists, special interests, unions, businesses. Poverty, education, health care, defense should be higher priorities.
Immigration: Immigrants earn citizenship. Filter terrorists from immigrants.
Homeland Security: Filter terrorists from immigrants. Use National Guard at home. Favors missile defense. Modernize military. Favors nuclear test ban. Improve intelligence & counter-terrorism capabilities.
Economy: Increase minimum wage. Pay down national debt. Regulate CEO pay. Favors unions. Restrict personal bankruptcy. Keep jobs in U.S. Help farmers, not the rich.
Education: Opposes vouchers. Opposes private tutors. Favors smaller classes, more teachers. Increase funding. Increase teacher pay. Improve access to college education.
Health Care: Every child should have adequate health care. Help poor, seniors, kids, not HMOs. Bush doesn’t care about health care for the poor. Favors prescription drugs in Medicare. Favors re-importation of prescription drugs.
Welfare: Working parents should get tax breaks and school assistance. Poverty is a moral issue. People with full time jobs should not have to live in poverty.
Abortion: Favors abortion. Favors partial-birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Every American should be equal under the law. Gun control OK for kids/felons. Gay marriage – let the states decide. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Pro- Affirmative Action. Favors death penalty.
Energy: Develop alternative energy sources. Opposes oil drilling in ANWR. Conserve energy. Increase fuel efficiency standards. Voted against funding for renewable energy.
Compare John Edwards' views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Election 2008: John McCain (R)
Foreign Policy: Favors NATO. Don’t deal with Cuba. U.N. needs reform. Favors removal of rogue governments. China needs cautious encouragement. Europe needs more focus on defense.
Iraq: Finish the job in Iraq. Dramatically increase troop levels, don’t redeploy them. Increase funding. Iraq war is just, necessary, noble.
War on Terror: Good vs. Evil. More emphasis on counter-terrorism. Spend more on War on Terror (War on Terror does not equate to Iraq).
Taxes: Simplify taxes (flat tax rate). No charitable contribution deductions. Eliminate tax “loopholes”. Eliminate estate tax. Eliminate marriage penalty. No internet tax. Tax off-shore business.
Social Security: Apply budget surplus to Social Security. Lock Box. Favors private accounts for retirement.
Trade: Favors free trade. Favors free trade. Favors free trade.
Government: Reduce government spending. Balance the budget. Enforce limits on spending. Presidential line-item veto for pork. Campaign finance reform crucial. No soft money. Prohibit gifts from lobbyists…but not all lobbyists ($$$). Corporate welfare BAD. Free market GOOD. Favors term limits on congress. Small government is better government.
Immigration: Favors guest worker and path to citizenship programs. Give Social Security to illegal immigrants. No bilingual education. Opposes welfare for immigrants
Homeland Security: Favors Patriot Act. More emphasis on Intelligence. Favors Missile Defense. Opposes nuclear test ban. Military experience is needed in top levels of civilian leadership. Pork should be eliminated from national security.
Economy: Favors off-shore business. Favors limits on personal bankruptcy. Opposes unions.
Education: Favors charter schools and vouchers. No national testing standards - leave it to the states. Corporations over education ($$$). Favors private tutors for failing students. Favors tax-free education savings accounts.
Health Care: Children deserve health care. Limit but allow tax credits for health coverage. Favors re-importation of prescription drugs.
Welfare: Give HUD homes away. Federal aid for food stamps. Tax breaks for homeless. Overhaul welfare system. Jobs are key. Welfare responsibility should be shared between government and faith based groups.
Abortion: Opposes abortion except in the case of Rape or Incest. Favors alternative measures such as adoption
Civil Rights: Favors cell phone wiretapping. Hate crimes should not include sexual orientation. School prayer should be permitted. 50/50 on affirmative action. Favors death penalty. Opposes gay marriage (let the states decide). Supportive of Hispanic culture. Favors national sex-offender registry. Ban assault weapons.
Energy: Reduce greenhouse gasses. Opposes oil drilling in ANWR. Develop alternative sources of energy. Opposes renewable energy. Opposes ethanol. Opposes drastic reduction in oil consumption. Opposes Kyoto Protocol.
Compare John McCain's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
WMD In Iraq
I served 14 months in Iraq back when the Iraqis had visions of sugar-plumbs dancing in their heads, back then they were actually glad we were there. I never had anyone give me flowers but men would come up to me on the street and kiss me, kids followed us around wanting to take a picture with us or get a treat. The women would wave as we went by and we would wave back. Only twice in the hundred or so trips I made out into Baghdad do I remember someone actually doing or saying something disparaging toward us.
Upon my arrival in early 2003, I began work on a SST (Site Survey Team) working for the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) which was responsible for the search for WMD in Iraq and answered directly to Don Rumsfeld. Everyday we would visit two or three sites in Baghdad which had been previously designated by U.S. intelligence as possible WMD related facilities. We made a great many trips out into Baghdad with our convoy of 6-8 vehicles, toting all kinds of detection equipment, chemical detectors, geiger counters and radiation detectors, sniffers, all kinds of protective equipment, forced entry gear, EOD people, medics, intel, security, etc. Every day, for several months, we went out into the city to search for some remnant of Saddam’s notorious WMD program. We never found even a trace of this supposedly lethal and burgeoning WMD program. We were only one out of a dozen teams that were assigned specifically to Baghdad and there must have been a hundred or more other teams all over the country (although I don’t have specific knowledge of exactly what ISG had going on in other parts of Iraq).
We searched hundreds of facilities, office buildings, warehouses and factories. We dug up fields with backhoes following reports that barrels of caustic substances had been buried there, we broke down doors into secret facilities, rummaged through bunkers, dug into rooms 18 inches deep with the ash of burned documents. We never found even a trace of evidence. Neither did any of the other teams. One of the detection experts said once that in a warehouse the size of a football field (and we searched many of them), if we were at one end with our sniffers and there was a piece of paper at the other end with just a single drop of chemical agent, those sniffers would pick it up. Every night we talked about what we had seen, and we saw some pretty amazing things. But, we never found a shred of evidence that Saddam had WMD or production facilities for same.
Later in my deployment I had opportunity to do what I had actually trained most of my military career for, Intel. I was lucky enough to be assigned to the High Value Detainee facility where most of the top 300 or so personalities were being detained for questioning. I was the case handler (head interrogator) for a few of those and got to be in the interrogation booth with several others. Amazingly, their stories all corroborated the evidence I had seen on that SST. Of course we had to ask why Saddam would have kept telling the international community he had no WMD, then wink at the camera, like he was crossing his fingers behind his back. They largely reported that he was afraid of loosing his position as the regional hegemon. He had to keep his neighbors thinking he had WMD to retain his position of regional dominance. Their stories were all the same, “After 1998, we had no WMD or WMD programs. Saddam would have reconstituted them if given the chance but we had none after 1998, and he wasn’t going to try to develop them further until sanctions were lifted and the international community backed off.” Of all those 300 or more detainees who had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Saddam Hussein's regime, there would have been at least one who saw it in his best interest to spill the beans. But there was none, only broad consensus. No WMD.
Our reports were going up and we would get memos in return from the office of the Secretary of Defense telling us what their assessment was, “now go out and find evidence to support it.” They should have taken the word of David Kay and figured something was up when he resigned. Instead they hired another goon to go in and do what Kay had failed to do. Of course, he failed too. It was about that time the media blitz started, “Oh, we didn’t go into Iraq for WMD, we went there for regime change. Iraq is a much better place now that Saddam is out of power, and Iraq will become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.” The Right swallowed that line hook and all. The Left rolled their eyes and gagged. About now, many Americans are waking up to the reality; 3,000+ American body bags and 60,000 (apx) Iraqis dead since the invasion. David Kay said in his testimony before congress that the intelligence failure leading up to the Iraq invasion was “most disturbing,” then he said “it’s important to acknowledge failure.”
Wow, Mr. Kay, you’ve really got something there.
Upon my arrival in early 2003, I began work on a SST (Site Survey Team) working for the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) which was responsible for the search for WMD in Iraq and answered directly to Don Rumsfeld. Everyday we would visit two or three sites in Baghdad which had been previously designated by U.S. intelligence as possible WMD related facilities. We made a great many trips out into Baghdad with our convoy of 6-8 vehicles, toting all kinds of detection equipment, chemical detectors, geiger counters and radiation detectors, sniffers, all kinds of protective equipment, forced entry gear, EOD people, medics, intel, security, etc. Every day, for several months, we went out into the city to search for some remnant of Saddam’s notorious WMD program. We never found even a trace of this supposedly lethal and burgeoning WMD program. We were only one out of a dozen teams that were assigned specifically to Baghdad and there must have been a hundred or more other teams all over the country (although I don’t have specific knowledge of exactly what ISG had going on in other parts of Iraq).
We searched hundreds of facilities, office buildings, warehouses and factories. We dug up fields with backhoes following reports that barrels of caustic substances had been buried there, we broke down doors into secret facilities, rummaged through bunkers, dug into rooms 18 inches deep with the ash of burned documents. We never found even a trace of evidence. Neither did any of the other teams. One of the detection experts said once that in a warehouse the size of a football field (and we searched many of them), if we were at one end with our sniffers and there was a piece of paper at the other end with just a single drop of chemical agent, those sniffers would pick it up. Every night we talked about what we had seen, and we saw some pretty amazing things. But, we never found a shred of evidence that Saddam had WMD or production facilities for same.
Later in my deployment I had opportunity to do what I had actually trained most of my military career for, Intel. I was lucky enough to be assigned to the High Value Detainee facility where most of the top 300 or so personalities were being detained for questioning. I was the case handler (head interrogator) for a few of those and got to be in the interrogation booth with several others. Amazingly, their stories all corroborated the evidence I had seen on that SST. Of course we had to ask why Saddam would have kept telling the international community he had no WMD, then wink at the camera, like he was crossing his fingers behind his back. They largely reported that he was afraid of loosing his position as the regional hegemon. He had to keep his neighbors thinking he had WMD to retain his position of regional dominance. Their stories were all the same, “After 1998, we had no WMD or WMD programs. Saddam would have reconstituted them if given the chance but we had none after 1998, and he wasn’t going to try to develop them further until sanctions were lifted and the international community backed off.” Of all those 300 or more detainees who had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Saddam Hussein's regime, there would have been at least one who saw it in his best interest to spill the beans. But there was none, only broad consensus. No WMD.
Our reports were going up and we would get memos in return from the office of the Secretary of Defense telling us what their assessment was, “now go out and find evidence to support it.” They should have taken the word of David Kay and figured something was up when he resigned. Instead they hired another goon to go in and do what Kay had failed to do. Of course, he failed too. It was about that time the media blitz started, “Oh, we didn’t go into Iraq for WMD, we went there for regime change. Iraq is a much better place now that Saddam is out of power, and Iraq will become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.” The Right swallowed that line hook and all. The Left rolled their eyes and gagged. About now, many Americans are waking up to the reality; 3,000+ American body bags and 60,000 (apx) Iraqis dead since the invasion. David Kay said in his testimony before congress that the intelligence failure leading up to the Iraq invasion was “most disturbing,” then he said “it’s important to acknowledge failure.”
Wow, Mr. Kay, you’ve really got something there.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Ego/Ethno-Centrism In America
Someone like Sean Hannity would wet himself that I am anti-American for what I am about to publish. I think Americans are very ego/ethno-centric and have no clue what is going on in the rest of the world. Nor do they care. Many would say, "Why should I care?" The answer seems obvious.
While I was in Baghdad I had opportunity to work in very close proximity to, in total, about 70 Iraqis. The Army had hired them to do repairs on the palace complex we were living in and operating out of. The conditions those guys had to deal with, even at that time in late 2003 (it has gotten much worse since then), were horrendous. They had to risk getting shot up as they stood at the gate of the complex waiting to get in for cavorting with the American infidels, they risked being kidnapped, murdered, etc. Just watch the news and you'll know what they were putting up with from day to day. They were all pretty good guys and I became good friends with some of them. Some were crooked and thieves (Ali Babba, as they said) but for the most part they were just family men trying to make a living for their families. They were mostly laborers to clean up bomb rubble but we hired some for their skills such as carpentry, plumbing, and electrical. We paid the laborers $3/day and the skilled workers $5/day. They were happy for the income, and if I believe what they told me, it was a very good income compared to what they had been accustomed to. One guy told me he made that much in a month under Saddam, doing the very same work.
Here is an email I sent to my family while I was in Baghdad:
"Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Last week was a good one for language. I learned a lot and I'm finally able to get some elementary thoughts across. I think M. (our 2 year old) speaks better English than I speak Arabic. One of my guys, Thamr, told me last week that his dad was driving his car and four armed men came up while he was stopped and carjacked him. They shot him twice in the leg and robbed him of his car. The people here live in fear for their lives because there is no law, nor order. The same guy, Thamr, told me that he wants to marry a girl he has known since childhood. He is 22 and she is 20. He told me that she has to be 23 years old before she can wed and he has to pay her dad $300 to do it. That's difficult for him because he is supporting his parents and 4 brothers with his $3/day wage. Perhaps within the 3 years he can come up with the money.
"Another guy, Salaam, told me that he had worked on Saddam's palace, the same one where we live. He was doing some marble work. Saddam came through one day to inspect the work. All the workers at the palace had been told not to look up at him. Salaam inadvertently looked up as Saddam was walking through and caught Saddam's eye. Saddam called him over, pulled out a pistol, and shot him in the head...for looking at him. He was in a coma for several months. He showed me the bullet hole...actually he let me feel it because hair had grown over. It was weird to put my finger into a bullet hole in a man's scull.
"It is so saddening to see the conditions and poverty that these people live in. The anarchy they have to experience. They are, for the most part, such good people. Today a Major got angry with me because I wasn't being their overseer. Some of the army types here are so uptight about this stuff. They figure the hajis have to be driven like slaves. They just can't see them as people. Some Americans are so racist. There's a lot of arrogance in people's hearts over here.
"Well, I guess this email has gone on long enough. I am again scheduled to go to Qatar to help on a doc-ex project. I'm praying I'll be able to stay. Thanks for all your support and prayers."
I struggle to have hope in human nature. It seems that as soon as a person is given a little authority, or as he may so suppose, he'll immediately begin to abuse that authority. It seems so clear to me that people will become depraved and inhuman the moment they perceive they can get away with it. One can easily see it in our civic leaders, occasionally our police officers, military personnel, people who, when given a little authority over others, immediately begin to debase themselves by abusing and maltreating those over whom they have authority.
At the same time I have reason to hope because obviously the majority of people are decent well intentioned people. Most police officers are good people, a good many in the military (although I frequently disagree with their morals) are decent hearted folks. My struggle is with the direction it seems a few powerful people are taking this country. As I mentioned in my email, that Major was so concerned that I (the first line of inferior beings) was being too nice to the hajis (the second line of inferior beings). What was so wrong with giving those guys a break who worked in horrendous heat every day, 7 am to 5 pm doing hard manual labor so that joker didn't have to, for a pittance of $3-$5/day. This Major Joker couldn't figure that out. I always wonder what various people would do with power if they had it. I'm often skeptical in this regard.
As a side note, I was listening yesterday to NPR and there was a short news program about slums in poor countries, specifically not the United States. The conditions described were terrible and unimaginable. I remember one line that said, "a stream of sewage comes from the rich part of town. It flows into the slum and never flows out." People live in shacks of cardboard and tin, plastic bags, pretty much anything they can get a hold of. The specific slum being discussed was in Kenya and the speaker said it didn't have an official population because it wasn't even an official place, but it was estimated that the population was about that of San Francisco.
The reason I mention this is that the people said they were happy there, and there was a sense of community. People treated each other with dignity and respect and they looked out for one another. Perhaps that may have been an exception rather than the rule but the principle is certainly there. How can people be humane to one another while living in such destitute circumstances while people in the United States who have everything they could ever desire be so ruthless and inhumane? Clearly wealth doesn't make people good, nor does poverty make people bad. Clearly ethnic, national and racial lines don't define the quality of a person's character.
While I was in Baghdad I had opportunity to work in very close proximity to, in total, about 70 Iraqis. The Army had hired them to do repairs on the palace complex we were living in and operating out of. The conditions those guys had to deal with, even at that time in late 2003 (it has gotten much worse since then), were horrendous. They had to risk getting shot up as they stood at the gate of the complex waiting to get in for cavorting with the American infidels, they risked being kidnapped, murdered, etc. Just watch the news and you'll know what they were putting up with from day to day. They were all pretty good guys and I became good friends with some of them. Some were crooked and thieves (Ali Babba, as they said) but for the most part they were just family men trying to make a living for their families. They were mostly laborers to clean up bomb rubble but we hired some for their skills such as carpentry, plumbing, and electrical. We paid the laborers $3/day and the skilled workers $5/day. They were happy for the income, and if I believe what they told me, it was a very good income compared to what they had been accustomed to. One guy told me he made that much in a month under Saddam, doing the very same work.
Here is an email I sent to my family while I was in Baghdad:
"Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Last week was a good one for language. I learned a lot and I'm finally able to get some elementary thoughts across. I think M. (our 2 year old) speaks better English than I speak Arabic. One of my guys, Thamr, told me last week that his dad was driving his car and four armed men came up while he was stopped and carjacked him. They shot him twice in the leg and robbed him of his car. The people here live in fear for their lives because there is no law, nor order. The same guy, Thamr, told me that he wants to marry a girl he has known since childhood. He is 22 and she is 20. He told me that she has to be 23 years old before she can wed and he has to pay her dad $300 to do it. That's difficult for him because he is supporting his parents and 4 brothers with his $3/day wage. Perhaps within the 3 years he can come up with the money.
"Another guy, Salaam, told me that he had worked on Saddam's palace, the same one where we live. He was doing some marble work. Saddam came through one day to inspect the work. All the workers at the palace had been told not to look up at him. Salaam inadvertently looked up as Saddam was walking through and caught Saddam's eye. Saddam called him over, pulled out a pistol, and shot him in the head...for looking at him. He was in a coma for several months. He showed me the bullet hole...actually he let me feel it because hair had grown over. It was weird to put my finger into a bullet hole in a man's scull.
"It is so saddening to see the conditions and poverty that these people live in. The anarchy they have to experience. They are, for the most part, such good people. Today a Major got angry with me because I wasn't being their overseer. Some of the army types here are so uptight about this stuff. They figure the hajis have to be driven like slaves. They just can't see them as people. Some Americans are so racist. There's a lot of arrogance in people's hearts over here.
"Well, I guess this email has gone on long enough. I am again scheduled to go to Qatar to help on a doc-ex project. I'm praying I'll be able to stay. Thanks for all your support and prayers."
I struggle to have hope in human nature. It seems that as soon as a person is given a little authority, or as he may so suppose, he'll immediately begin to abuse that authority. It seems so clear to me that people will become depraved and inhuman the moment they perceive they can get away with it. One can easily see it in our civic leaders, occasionally our police officers, military personnel, people who, when given a little authority over others, immediately begin to debase themselves by abusing and maltreating those over whom they have authority.
At the same time I have reason to hope because obviously the majority of people are decent well intentioned people. Most police officers are good people, a good many in the military (although I frequently disagree with their morals) are decent hearted folks. My struggle is with the direction it seems a few powerful people are taking this country. As I mentioned in my email, that Major was so concerned that I (the first line of inferior beings) was being too nice to the hajis (the second line of inferior beings). What was so wrong with giving those guys a break who worked in horrendous heat every day, 7 am to 5 pm doing hard manual labor so that joker didn't have to, for a pittance of $3-$5/day. This Major Joker couldn't figure that out. I always wonder what various people would do with power if they had it. I'm often skeptical in this regard.
As a side note, I was listening yesterday to NPR and there was a short news program about slums in poor countries, specifically not the United States. The conditions described were terrible and unimaginable. I remember one line that said, "a stream of sewage comes from the rich part of town. It flows into the slum and never flows out." People live in shacks of cardboard and tin, plastic bags, pretty much anything they can get a hold of. The specific slum being discussed was in Kenya and the speaker said it didn't have an official population because it wasn't even an official place, but it was estimated that the population was about that of San Francisco.
The reason I mention this is that the people said they were happy there, and there was a sense of community. People treated each other with dignity and respect and they looked out for one another. Perhaps that may have been an exception rather than the rule but the principle is certainly there. How can people be humane to one another while living in such destitute circumstances while people in the United States who have everything they could ever desire be so ruthless and inhumane? Clearly wealth doesn't make people good, nor does poverty make people bad. Clearly ethnic, national and racial lines don't define the quality of a person's character.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Perpetuating Lies & Propaganda
Not long ago I received an email from a well intentioned brother which read something like this: “location of Babylon – Iraq; location of Ur (city of Abraham’s birth) – Iraq; Location of Nineveh – Iraq; location of Babylonian captivity – Iraq;” etc. for about 3 full pages. At the end of the propaganda there was a blurb something like this: “There is a verse in the Koran that says: The Lion (Saddam) will awaken the sleeping Eagle (America) and the Eagle will proceed to destroy the Lion along with all the Lion’s neighbors and bring balance to the force in the Middle East.” Of course it gave a “chapter and verse” so I, of course, took out my Koran and looked it up. Of course, there was no such verse, so I got online and looked up all the key words in the “verse” in several different online versions of the Koran. And of course, there was no such verse, nor anything like unto it. I wrote him, and all the people he had forwarded it to, explaining that the notion was bogus, that perhaps the places and other facts therein described were accurate, but the climax of the note was completely bogus. Later, I got a return email from my brother. He was thoroughly offended. Coincidently, I also got an email from my uncle who said he appreciated the fact check.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
