So this came out today. Let’s take a look…
REAL SECURITY
The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World
March 29, 2006
109th Congress, Second Session
Americans want and deserve change. Democrats’ plan for Real Security will protect Americans and restore our country’s position of international leadership.
OK, so far so good. I want to be protected, and want our country to lead.
The first responsibility of our government is the security of every American. In this era of unprecedented and unpredictable challenge, we must be prepared for any threat.
Hyperbole, but OK hyperbole.
The men and women of America’s armed forces and those on the front lines here at home have met every challenge with skill, bravery, and selfless dedication. They, along with veterans, military retirees and the families of those who have given their lives or have been wounded in defense of our country, deserve the gratitude and support of the American people. We will always honor their service and fulfill our promises to them.
Rhetoric, but OK with me.
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.
Ditto.
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.
OK, that’s half the problem. What will we do about the elephant in the room?
To protect the American people, we will immediately 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.
All things I’m generally supportive of – with a caveat. The caveat is simple; we can protect ourselves by giving up all our freedoms (I don’t think that’s what’s being proposed) and we can defend ourselves by eliminating our enemies (which may mean killing or capturing them, or making them not our enemies any more). In general, I like the idea of some of A and more of B. That’s because in reality, without a ‘V for Vendetta’ type police state, we can’t secure ourselves, we’re too big, too interconnected, and too open. So I’m very wary of ‘making ourselves safe at home’ as a core – as opposed to important ancillary strategy. But I do think that we need to do more to secure ports, railroads, key facilities, and the population at large. In part, I think we do it by educating and empowering citizens; in part we do it through government programs.
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.
I’m wary of the Katrina response as a ‘canary’ issue; first things were not as bad as they were made out to be; many of the immediate problems were local; the size of the disaster has to be seen on a map to really be appreciated; and there’s something about the idea of omnipotent Feds that creeps me out a bit. I’d like my local governments to be somewhat competent, please.
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. 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.
I’ll go for ‘good job’ on the energy policy; suggest that every war and large public works project is skewed toward insider contractors (Los Angeles Red Line, anyone?); I do think that too little has been done to secure infrastructure (note my comment above about the role of citizens in doing that); I do fully acknowledge that postwar planning – and more, management of the critical reconstruction aid – was badly shortchanged; ‘manipulated intelligence’ is pretty much a partisan trope.
Americans want and deserve change. Democrats’ plan for Real Security will protect Americans and restore our country’s position of international leadership.
OK, puffery is approvable in political speech
21st Century Military
To Ensure Unparalleled Military Strength and Honor our Troops, we will:
Boy, ‘Strength and Honor’ – I know it’s an accidental juxtaposition, but didn’t anyone with an ear proofread this?
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.
The entire game here is “what equipment, specifically?” and “what manpower, specifically?” Depending on the answer to that this could be absolutely great or it could be a boondoggle (Crusader anyone?).
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.
Well, they won’t be going to war much then, will they? That’s just silly. Intelligence is almost never accurate (except in movies) and the strategy for success (except the broadest ones) that is approved on Day 1 of the war is usually invalid by Day 7.
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.
I like that; I think that the GI bill was one of the major levers into middle-class life for the postwar dogfaces, and I think that an intelligently designed set of programs could well be the rope that keeps the modern grunts in the middle class as well.
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.
OK, how would you do things differently than they are being done now? Equipment is sketchy because it’s being used; the only way to have 100% readiness ratings is never to go do anything at all. Enlistment is down, but in the face of the media CW and lack of sales by the Administration, I can see why.
War on Terror
To Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:
Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.
Yeah? You and whose army? I’ve said in the past that I thought our strategy in Afghanistan was genius, because it avoided the cultural and military pitfalls that the Russians found there. I think that the suggestions that things would be better in Afghanistan if we only had 150,000 troops on the ground there are purely and simply delusional, and people who suggest things like that are demonstrating that they know nothing of Afghanistan or military history.
Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.
Where will the new operators come from? Would we lower standards, raise pay? I know a little bit about this, and can tell you that this is going to be damn difficult if not impossible. I’d like to see some specifics, please.
And I’m working on a piece on humint, based in large part on the article in The Atlantic this month about the spies that the UK managed to place in the IRA – and what they had to do to stay there. From the Atlantic:
I put it to Martin Ingram, the former spy handler, that in the case of Scappaticci, the British strategy had gone amok.
“No, I don’t think so,” he said. “I think it went very much to schedule.”
“So you think—”
“I don’t think, I know. He was acting to orders.”
So the British government knew of Scappaticci’s killings?
“Oh, yeah,” he said. “The one preconception the IRA had is that if you are dirty—that is, if you have killed—then you cannot be an agent.” Scappaticci exploited that misapprehension. “His best protection,” Ingram continued, “was to keep killing.”
If that’s true, the British spy services beat the IRA by appealing to a belief that the United Kingdom wouldn’t sacrifice its own subjects—especially its own agents.
When Nancy Pelosi signs on for this kind of humint, please let me know.
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.
So we’ll be promoting freedom as a way of eliminating the “political conditions” that lead to terrorism.
Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”
That’s a good plan…I’ll support that one.
Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
What, specifically would they do differently?
Homeland Security
To Protect America from Terrorism and Natural Disasters, we will:
Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.
See my comments on internal v. external security above.
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.
Nice goal, not happening anytime soon. Note that Jane Harman – arguably the smartest Dem on security (and coincidentally, my Congresswoman) doesn’t think so either.
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.
That’s just silly. The issue isn’t who owns the facility – the issue is who manages security there and what programs/policies they follow.
Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment, and cuttingedge technology they need.
Well, there’s a lot of cutting edge technology out there; how about some basic interoperable communications infrastructure? I’d rather have good, simple, common tools than the latest wizbang items.
Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.
Bingo. Applause. Attaboy.
Iraq
To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:
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.
How in the world do you ‘ensure’ that ‘ the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country’?? That’s wishful thinking of the ‘declare victory and leave’ style.
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.
Again, what would be different than what we’re doing today?
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.
That’s a winning wartime strategy – let’s battle among ourselves.
Energy Independence
To Free America from Dependence on Foreign Oil, we will:
Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.
Energy independence is a laudable goal, but there are a couple problems. But I’m still a supporter of greater energy efficiency.
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.
Golf clap.
So, overall, a few things that I’m very excited about (resources to first responders and public health, energy efficiency). But I’m not seeing anything (doable) that’s bold or different – or even particularly interesting – about the approach to the Middle East, and I’m seeing some particularly unrealistic things.
I’ll try and go deeper into some of the interesting questions in the next week or so – but I’ll bet others beat me to it.
But overall, let’s see another draft, guys.
