pageviewsOr commented on the last blog entry supporting a more mild form of strategic redeployment and arguing that leaving Iraq will lead to an Iraq embroiled in a civil war at best and a terrorist haven theocracy at worst. I am writing a new post because I believe this debate is extremely important for our country and deserves the utmost attention. The problem with the aforementioned argument is that some assume that somehow the presence of our troops is stabilizing Iraq or preventing it from become a terrorist haven. But this begs the question? What role is our military performing in Iraq that is producing results and preventing chaos? The only reason to keep our troops in a country is if they are doing some good. They are not. They have accomplished nothing militarily in the last year. We are not killing, capturing, or deterring more insurgents than we are inspiring. That is the test. The effort by some Democrats to seek a middle ground for the sake of seeking a middle ground is senseless. There must be a reason to continue a troop presence. Until someone tells me what good our troops are accomplishing in Iraq, I am unconvinced for the need to keep more than a few thousand troops dedicated to logistics, operations, planning, training, and counterterrorism, and for the security of our embassy. Our attack that killed al-Zarqawi two weeks ago was launched from the Gulf, not from within Iraq. We can still have success in Iraq by being vigilent both politically, diplomatically, and economically, but there is no military solution to this situation. And if there is no military solution, there is no need to keep our troops there.
I hear the same talking points from Democrats all the time. If we leave, Iraq will "explode." But where is your proof for this? How could you possibly know that from speculating? I sincerely believe that the cost of staying is far greater than any benefit, if there is any. This is not a case study in International Relations theory. These are real people we have put in an open-ended commitment in a country that does not want us there. I'm not saying give up on Iraq; but let's not continue to allow the slaughter of our forces for no logical reason. Yes, I'm calling for strategic redeployment, and that means out now! The Korb-Katulis plan is flawed, but it has the right thrust. The only thing our military can accomplish in Iraq is fighting foreign terrorists like al-Zarqawi, which requires a few thousand Special Forces, military intelligence, and logistics officers. It does not require 130,000 or even 20,000 forces that inspire more terrorism and encourage sectarian violence.
This is about winning in Iraq and protecting our troops. That's why the Murtha strategic redeployment plan I laid out a few days ago is the only solution to this situation. Or, I understand you don't want Iraq to go to hell, but you can't justify the continued presence of our troops just because pulling out seems weak. There has to be a reason to keep our troops there. Give me one and maybe I'll change my mind.
Look at the pictures of these two brave young men at the right. They were 23 and 25 years old. Not much older than most of us. For those Democrats that say that we can't leave Iraq, that it will go to chaos if we leave, why can't those same Democrats realize that young Americans who should be starting careers, getting married, going to college, having kids, and having fun, are instead dying horrible and bloody deaths. For what!? There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. We were lied to by the President of the United States, who has weakend our country, created more terrorists, gotten us bogged down in Iraq and has led to the deaths of two thousand five hundred and four American soldiers, sailors, coastguardsmen, marines, and airmen. This war is senseless, it is endless, our policy is destroying Iraq, our country's image around the world, and our nation's spirit. It is time to support our troops, and bring them home. We need to support Democrats who support strategic redeployment and nothing less.
The Republicans today rejected a resolution to create an independent commission like the kind that Harry Truman led during World War II to root our corruption in military contracting. Republicans are also planning to reject a non-binding Democratic resolution that calls on the President to begin to withdraw some troops by the end of this year. While I won't even criticize the unbelievable timidity of the Democrats, who won't support Sens. Kerry's, Feingold's, and Boxer's amendment to withdraw all combat troops by the middle of 2007 (which itself is too long to wait), the Republicans are truly sickening. The idea that our young men and women should spend one more day in the hell that is Iraq is unbelievable. Our country should only risk the lives of our soldiers if there is a noble goal. Iraq is not a noble war, and it is time to leave. I urge all of you to call your Senators and tell them to support an immediate end to the war. And I, for one, will not support any presidential candidate who does not, by the 2006 elections, come to the conclusion that this war must end immediately. Beware to those Democrats running for President who support this war's continuation!
All of you know how much I love the junior senator from Illinois. Well, the Washington Post wrote a great story today about Barack Obama's absolute coolness (he can even sing well). Check it out. I don't think Barack will run, but I'm hoping he'll change his mind.
Also, if any of you missed Jack Murtha on Meet the Press this morning, check it out too. Murtha is planning to run for majority leader if Democrats take back the House, which I believe they will. I think he'd make a fantastic majority leader: he's exactly what I like in a Democrat, smart, tough, unapologetic, principled, honest, authentic, a straight-shooter, and non-ideological (he's a moderate Dem, I don't just like liberals). If we win back the House, I expect to support Murtha 100% for Majority Leader.
I don't need to tell anyone reading this that 2006 is our chance to reverse six horrible years of Democratic losses. In less than five months, we may once again control the Senate, the House, or both. If not, we'll at least be much closer to a majority and much more able to influence policy for the better. Either way, 2006 will be a good year, and this is our chance to shine.
There are a lot of exciting Senate races this year where Democrats have a terrific chance to pick up seats. To find out which one has our party's activists are really excited about, I conducted a quick, non-scientific Google search on DailyKos in the past 3 months. Montana, with a great candidate in blogosphere-favorite Jon Tester? A search on "Burns" reveals 28,200 hits. What about Pennsylvania? Canine enthusiast "Santorum" gives 26,800 hits. And how about the nail-biting Rhode Island race? "Chafee" shows 9,550 hits. Well, those are the most exciting races; 28,200 isn't bad. Just for kicks and giggles, though, let's look at a little primary campaign in the Northeast. It's a safe Democratic seat, and the winner will be a Democrat no matter what, so there isn't a whole lot to be excited about as far as taking back the Senate. So how many hits does a search on "Lieberman" give?
45,500. Activists are more riled up about a Democratic incumbent in Connecticut than any Republican seat up for the taking in 2006.
Look, I follow Democratic blogs religiously. I know the arguments. Lieberman supported the war and still supports it whole-heartedly. Lieberman appears on Fox News and isn't always kind to other Democratic senators. Lieberman criticizes Bush less than he should. Lieberman is a centrist senator from a reliably progressive state. Lieberman runs absolutely God-awful campaign commercials against his challenger. All of these things are true, and none of them make me like Lieberman a whole lot (though the ad is... entertaining).
But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. And as hard as it may be to believe, he's a pretty damn devoted Democrat, even if he doesn't toe the party line as much as we'd like him to. Progressive Punch is a website that tallies all the votes of every elected official and determines how progressive they are. Their methodology isn't perfect, but take a look and I think you'll agree that it's close enough. With 100 being the most progressive, Joe scores a 76.46, more than 3o points above the nearest Republican. Yes, he's much closer to the center than we would like him to be, but in the grand scheme of things, he's solid blue.
Besides, Lieberman's Senate career isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. Remember the Climate Stewardship Act? Sometimes it helps to have a centrist who can rally some support from
Lieberman still is a good guy. The war vote didn't change that. Unless you're single-issue voting on Iraq, there are much better things to worry about than Joe Lieberman. Once we take back a majority in the Senate, we can have vigorous primaries. Primaries are healthy and a great forum for intra-party debate. But right now, we have bigger races to worry about. Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, and Lincoln Chafee, for example.
Besides, as ridiculous as the "Joementum" incident may have been, it just doesn't compare to making fun of Rick Santorum. And he's the real problem here.
Democrats have given up when it comes to supporting a plan for strategic redeployment from Iraq. If I had to guess why, I think it's because they don't think they can sell a complicated plan like strategic redeployment without it sounding like cut-and-run or without people tuning out.
Well I've got a solution. Strategic Redeployment is good, so let's package it in an easy-to-sell and quick-to-say manner.
Every Democratic politician who supports Strategic Redeployment should outline it like this:
"Listen, we need to strategically redeploy from Iraq. Here's the Democratic plan. First, redeploy almost all of our 130,000 troops out of Iraq, while maintaining a small force of Special Forces, intelligence, and logistics to help the Iraqis fight terrorism, and redeploy our forces to the perimeter in the Gulf so that if our interests are threatened, we can come back in to secure them. Second, redeploy all of our National Guard and Reserves back home to fight the war on terror, put them on the borders, in our ports, and have them protect our critical infrastructure and prepare for a terrorist attack. Third, redeploy most of our combat forces and Special Forces to Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and other terrorist havens and sanctuaries to fight the war on terror. Fourth, train and equip the Iraqi security forces out of country in the Gulf to keep our guys safe and keep Iraqi forces safe during the training. And fifth, stay heavily involved in Iraq politically, diplomatically, and economically by pouring funds into aid organizations and convening an Iraqi Summit for Peace with all the major parties in Iraq, the major powers in the region, and the major global players so that the whole world has a stake and a say in the success and outcome of Iraq. Look, we've got to do this because our forces are overextended, we need our National Guard and Reserves back at home to protect us in the war on terror, we're neglecting critical areas in the war on terror by diverting resources to Iraq, and our forces are counterproductive in Iraq; we're fueling the insurgency and the sectarian violence, we're radicalizing the Muslim world and recruiting a whole new generation of terrorists, and we're destroying our image and reputation in the world at a critical time when we need to unite the world to fight al-Qaeda. We're losing troops every day to death or serious injury, our budget is being broken, and there is little tangible success. Oil production, electricity, and running water are still below pre-war levels, we haven't defined our mission, and the President has no plan to win the war. The President is losing the war in Iraq and the war on terror. If we pursue the Democratic plan for Strategic Redeployment, we will win both wars."
I know this is not a sound bite, but it's short enough that we can let people know exactly what we think without a long speech. Strategic Redeployment is the best solution to Iraq, and all Democrats should get behind it before we spill more blood of young people our age in Iraq.
It seems there are a whole lot of people peeved at Chuck Schumer these days. As chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, he broke with tradition to endorse candidates in the primary, alienating some prominent DNC fundraisers. I’m not sure I agree with that policy, I understand the motivation—Sen. Schumer, like all of us, wants to see a Democratic Senate next year and wants to make sure that nominations go to candidates most likely to win in the general.
But he’s gone a step too far this time. At a Wednesday press briefing, Schumer was asked if he would support Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn) reelection bid if he ran as an independent, and Schumer pointedly refused rule out supporting the conservative senator in a general election against Ned Lamont and Alan Schlesinger.
I don’t care for Joe Lieberman; I disagree with most of his political views, and in my mind, he’s basically Bush Lite. I don’t see him as much of a Democrat.
But he is an incumbent, and if I were voting in the Connecticut primary, I’d cast my ballot for Lieberman, for the sole reason that I think he’s the candidate most likely to ensure that his Senate seat remains Democratic.
Polling has shown Lamont gaining on Lieberman in the primary, now down only 15%, 55-40, in numbers from last week. My money is on Lieberman (literally—we’ve got a little pool going at the All America office), but Lamont’s gains have been impressive considering Lieberman’s name recognition. Adam informs me that Connecticut law would require Lieberman to declare his intention to run as an independent before the primary if he wants to appear on the ballot, meaning that if Lieberman and his pollsters suspect he has a chance at losing to Lamont, then it would behoove him to run as an independent. Polling on the race is interesting:
If Lieberman runs as the Democratic nominee against Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger, Lieberman takes the race 68-14.
In a two-way race with Lamont winning the Dem primary, he defeats Schlesinger 37-20, but with 34 percent still undecided (meaning the seat is far from a lock, despite the Connecticut's overwhelming blueness).
But in a three way race between Lamont, Schlesinger, and Lieberman running as an independent, Lieberman wins with 56% against both candidates.
Lieberman’s camp says that he has yet to make a decision, but he is reportedly said to be seriously considering a run for reelection as an independent.
But back to Schumer. Now, I understand Schumer’s desire to support a colleague, especially such a prominent one. But the man is chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Anyone in such a prominent position of power has an obligation to endorse the party’s nominee, no matter who it is. While Schumer’s endorsement of Lieberman would hinge on a guarantee to caucus with the Dems and vote for Harry Reid for majority leader, such an endorsement is still unacceptable. If Lamont gets the support of the majority of Connecticut’s Democrats, then he deserves the support of the party as well.
It’s this kind of action that causes disenchantment with the national party. The cogs and machinery of the party cannot operate so separately from the people they claim to represent. I know Sen. Schumer wants to win; so do I. We’ve just made a different calculation about what victory means—the ends don’t always justify the means. Even if Lamont seems likely to lose, if he is the choice of the people, then the DNC and its leadership are bound to support him. That's what democracy is all about, even intraparty elections.
Democrats should call on Schumer to support the party’s nominee, whoever that may be.
I'm sick and tired of Democrats not standing up to Republicans.
I'm sick and tired of caving in to Republican ploys to deceive and manipulate the American people's fears and doubts.
I'm sick and tired of Democrats not standing up to the President and this administration on this senseless and endless war.
I'm sick and tired of Democrats not going on the attack and demonstrating to the American people that Republicans are tearing our country apart.
I'm sick and tired of Democrats not proposing bold, visionary ideas to make our nation better.
I'm sick and tired of Democratic infighting between our party's leaders who are more concerned with their own egos, power trips, and territorial authority that they can't agree on what we need to do to win.
I'm sick and tired of these Washington consultants, pollsters, and handlers that destroy passion, leadership, inspiration, and vision in our politics.
I'm sick and tired of packaged Democrats who filter their words out through focus group and poll tested language.
I'm sick and tired of Democrats who would rather mindlessly follow the polls and the status quo of national opinion than lead the country by arguing and persuading Americans to come over to our point of view.
I'm sick and tired of losing elections, and even more sick and tired of "winning" elections only to get meek and cowardly Democrats who vote with the Republicans and don't propose Democratic ideas.
I'm really, really, really sick and tired.
But I'm hopeful.
Democrats are coming around and I'm seeing more and more Democrats standing up not only because it's the right thing to do, but because it's becoming politically popular.
Democrats, please, please, don't back down, don't cower in fear, stand up and fight, and we'll get your back.
Let's build an America we can truly believe in again.
Recently, I've discussed with a number of people whom I know whether being a liberal or a conservative Democrat matters in getting elected. And I've mentioned that this misses the point. Well, let me elaborate.
I'm an Authentic Democrat (with a capital A). What does that mean, you may ask? First, it means standing up for Democrats, the Democratic party, and Democratic values. There are issues of conscience and there are issues of preference in politics, and when conscience is involved, you have an obligation to speak out, especially if your party is wrong on this issue. But on an issue of preference, where you merely prefer one policy or plan over another, shut up and sit back and don't condemn the rest of your political party for their views.
I am principally talking about Joseph I. Lieberman, Senator of Connecticut. Senator Lieberman, while not the most conservative Democrat in our caucus by far, is the best when it comes to bashing the Democratic party on right-wing noise machines like FAUX News and talk (stupid) radio. When the media looks for a story about Democratic discombobulation on Iraq policy, all they need to do is source Joe Lieberman as example of a wing of the party that supports the President's stay-the-course strategy in Iraq. Except that Joe Lieberman is the only guy in this wing of the party. No other Senate or House Democrat has publicly stated that they agree with the President's strategy on Iraq. Not only have these members not done this because the President's strategy is most certainly failing, but because they do not want to undermine the consistency and unity of the Democratic message. Just as liberal Democrats who want to cut off funding for the war do not talk about it openly in public because they do not want to destroy the Democratic message, conservatives like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who probably agrees with the President, do not chastise other Democrats because they know it would hurt the party.
A lot of the cheap political hacks (they're sometimes called consultants and campaign staffers) in Washington who keep on losing elections say that this "attack" on Joe Lieberman is a "despicable" effort by "leftists" to defeat a "great" Senator. These people somehow believe that the primary process is merely symbolic; being renominated by your party if you're an incumbent Senator is an afterthought, voters should just fall in line. But they're wrong. The Democrats of Connecticut are tired of Joe Lieberman's undermining of the party message and his fantasyworld of Iraq that he's living in. Joe Lieberman is now being challenged by Ned Lamont because people are fed up and Joe Lieberman needs to hear the concerns of his constituents, whom he rarely sees because he spends the vast majority of his time in Washington. And we in the blogosphere don't just support Ned Lamont because we're anti-Lieberman, but because we're pro-Lamont. Ned Lamont will make a great US Senator, and I'm proud to support him.
This brings me to my second point about being an Authentic Democrat. Americans like politicians who stand for something, who have conviction, who argue their position of conscience, who mean what they say and say what they mean, and who tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. I'm one of those, and I only feel comfortable supporting candidates who are like this too.
Americans have a bullshit meter. They can detect a load of poll and focus group tested language a mile away. When a politician filters their views, an alarm goes off in people's heads. It's no wonder that everyone I talk to thinks that politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths, lie, cheat, steal, don't keep promises, and are corrupt. And no wonder that George W. Bush won.
In 2004, the country thought the US was off on the wrong track, Bush's approval ratings were 50-50, the country agreed with John Kerry's positions on almost every issue, and he still lost. Why? Because when John Kerry spoke, a bullshit meter nearly exploded in every voter's head. We need to stop picking candidates on so-called "electability," especially when there's no clear formula for winning an election in this country, and start supporting the Authentic Democrats in the race.
Montana Democrats did this last week when they picked straight-shooter Jon Tester over DLC hack and lying, scandal-ridden John Morrison. Virginia Democrats did it tonight when they picked veteran, former Navy Secretary, former Republican, truth-teller, and anti-Iraq war candidate Jim Webb over wishy-washy lobbyist, try to be everything to everybody Harris Miller.
And I believe that in Connecticut on August 8th, Democrats will pick the honest and straightforward and authentic Ned Lamont over Lieberman, who equivocates in the worst and most cynical type of way to win favor on the far right.
In the 2008 primaries for our Democratic nominee, vote for Authentic Democrats. If you're a moderate, vote for the candidate you think is honest and best represents your views. If you're a liberal, vote for the candidate who says what's on their mind and who believes in what you believe. And if you're a just like me, and while you proudly love calling yourself a liberal, you have a bunch of views that don't fit nicely in a box, then vote for the person you think will make the best President, because after all, that's what we're voting for in the first place.
Here's an election season joke for you- Q: How many Democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: It's irrelevant, they don't know they're in the dark! [pause for laughter]
Okay, okay, I'm no comedian, so I'll stick to blogging. But in all seriousness, I think there's some truth to the Democrats-are-out-of-touch-with-American-voters argument. A lot of people agree on this premise, but the reasoning behind it is hotly contested. I'm sure y'all have had it up to here with me and Adam and the centrist-liberal schism within the Democratic Party. Yet the rest of you seem to be woefully silent on the issue.
I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting piece by Michael Grunwald from yesterday's Washington Post, entitled "How to Reconnect with Voters and Realize Your Dreams of Victory: A Step-by-Step Guide for Democrats."
Yet despite the strength of its title, Grunwald's article fails to live up to its promise. Instead of offering a comprehensive plan to a gaining a Democratic majority, Grunwald's op-ed is really more a recounting of a debate familiar to most of us—the conflict between those within the party who want it to take a hard left towards views reminiscent of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Karl Marx, and those centrists who want to maintain the middle-of-the-road path that brought the Democrats their only White House victories in the last quarter of a century. (Can you tell whose side I’m on?)
On one side of the party are the liberal activists and bloggers who very nearly propelled Howard Dean to the nomination in 2004 and who were largely responsibly for handing him the chairmanship of the DNC last year, much to the consternation of inside-the-Beltway centrists within the party. This side maintains that Democrats must learn to grow a little backbone, standing up for progressive policies and running liberal Democratic candidates who are anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gun control, and anti-Bush. This half of the party, Grunwald argues, wants Democrats “to be less apologetic, less wishy-washy, more willing to speak truth to power, more . . . liberal.” Until they define themselves as a clear Republican alternative, the left flank argues, the Democrats are destined to remain the minority party.
On the other side are the moderates of the party, who argue that in order to win elections, the Democrats must appeal to the middle-class heartland voters concerned more about national security and taxes than social issues like gay marriage and school prayer. These Democrats want the party to run candidates who are “less elitist, less negative, more respectful of red-state values, more . . . moderate.” These centrists want a party that appeals to the middle class values voters in a country that is essentially right-of-center. Otherwise, the argument goes, Democrats will be doomed to remain the hoity-toity party of the overeducated “we know what’s best for you” urban elite.
Grunwald does not offer an opinion on which of these sides is most likely to result in Democratic gains in November, reflecting a party that is still torn between the two positions. The liberals can point to some impressive victories so far this campaign season—in Montana, grassroots candidate Jon Tester won by a huge margin the right to face off against incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns for a highly poachable seat against establishment pick John Morrison, who outspent Tester by nearly a 2-to-1 margin in the primary.
Another upcoming race to watch will the Virginia Senate primary. Harris Miller, a longtime Democratic activist, and Jim Webb, a recent convert to the party who endorsed Bush and Republican Sen. George Allen in 2000, will compete for the right to oppose Sen. Allen in the general election. The polls point to a primary that is too close to call. This race offers a slight variant on the liberal-centrist model, however—Miller, the candidate with the liberal bona fides and strong grassroots support, is not a Beltway outsider but a Washington lobbyist, and Webb, the choice of many Democratic insiders, is a newcomer to the party, a former Reagan administration official and veteran who wears his son’s combat boots as a symbol of what the administration did wrong in going to war with Iraq. Though Miller offers clearly defined liberal positions on the issues and a long history as a Democrat, Webb has garnered the endorsements of key figures within the party, including 2004 nominee John Kerry and Minority Leader Harry Reid, who have both expressed opinions that Webb offers the best chance for victory against Sen. Allen.
No matter who wins on Tuesday, look for both sides of the intraparty debate to spin the election results like a cheap plastic dreidel on Hanukkah.
The Republicans love to tell us they're protecting America from terrorists. They are liars! And we shouldn't be afraid to call them out on it.
Abu Ghraib, torture, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, the PATRIOT ACT, illegal wiretapping, invading and occupying Iraq, a failure to engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seriously, screwing up Afghanistan and Somalia, the Haditha massacre, the overextension of our troops, the declining recruitment and retention rates in our armed forces, North Korea's development of nuclear weapons (emphasis on the plural), Iran's increased efforts to puruse uranium enrichment and making the United States look stupid, the shirking of international agreements like the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and more, leaving Sudan and the Darfur genocide to fester, the failure to secure our ports, borders, and mass transit systems, our declining preparedness capacity (as demonstrated by the brilliant response to Hurricane Katrina), and our global addiction to oil from dangerous places.
I could go on and on. This administration has made us less safe, less secure, more endangered, more scared, more terrorized, less free, and less peaceful. This administration has destroyed vital alliances in Europe that could have been used successfully in combating terrorism. These Republicans in Congress, and their 13th century mindset (talk about pre-9/11), have led to a complete lack of congressional oversight and action when it comes to checking the abuses of this administration and guiding America's foreign policy with care. The GOP has been bad news for American national security and the country has woken up.
I could explain why Democrats have a better vision for foreign policy, Iraq, national security, homeland security, and international relations. But I am going to explain what our positions should be on a simple issue, how to fight terrorism and the violent tactics it employs for political ends.
The administration and Republicans like to talk about about how we're fighting "jihadist terrorism," "Islamic extremists," and "Muslim fundamentalists." But our war is bigger than that, and it should be. When Timothy McVeigh took down the federal building in Oklahoma City, he wasn't a pilgrim in the Hajj. When the Irish Republican Army kills Americans out of spite for our alliance with Great Britain, they are not breaking Ramadan each night with the iftaar. Terrorism is a broad concept, one that exists in every society on Earth. Terrorists are not all from one religious denomination, or one racial group, or one nationality; they are a diverse mix of angry, enraged individuals, who have political and social goals that are unrealized, and who have resorted to violent tactics in the hope that it will pursue its ends. We must fight it wherever it lurks.
But how can we do this? I've got a five part strategy for combating and defeating terrorism in the 21st century, and Democrats need to talk about these ideas to every voter in the nation. We can demonstrate to the country that we're better suited to protect them from terrorists. So, as Mario says, "Here we go!"
1) Preparedness - As the federal, state, and local response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, we lack the necessary infrastructure, leadership, resources, coordination, and planning to deal with serious and critical emergencies and crises. The last line of defense against terrorism is after the terrorists have struck, and while we should do everything we can to prevent attacks, they will inevitably occur, once in a while. What we can do is minimize casualties, save lives, and catch the perpetrators as soon as possible. This requires coordination, and we should therefore have a National Coordinator for Emergency Preparedness, a Cabinet-level official, who answers directly to the President, who can manage all the federal, state, and local agencies involved in an emergency response from the White House with full Presidential responsibility. The problem with Hurricane Katrina was that Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Brown, the FEMA director, Frances Townsend, the HLS advisor, and local officials like Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco all tried to run things their own way. The lack of coordination led to a breakdown in response and planning and led to the loss of more than a thousand lives. We need more cops, more emergency medical service personnel, more firemen, more investigative units, more rescure operations teams, and more funds for all of these people. We need to improve training, coordinate plans with the private sector for emergency situations, and distribute personnel and equipment equally so that when terror strikes, we respond quickly.
2) Homeland Defense - The best thing we can do to prevent a terrorist attack, once it's been planned and organized, is to prevent terrorists and weapons from executing the plot. This means improved border enforcement, more resources for immigration and citizenship personnel to find out who's in the country, 100% cargo inspection at our ports, more radiation detectors, increased funds for intelligence, intelligence fusion and reform, more law enforcement personnel, and more surveillance equipment and security personnel assigned to risk areas. This administration has seriously undermined homeland security by giving tax breaks to the rich instead of fully funding homeland security. The 9/11 commission recommended 41 policies to Congress and the Republicans in Congress have failed to enact one of them completely.
3) Fighting Terrorists Abroad - Even before they organize and plan an attack, we need to destroy terrorists, their organizations, and their operations. The war in Iraq have seriously drained our Special Forces from desperately critical regions of the world, notably Afghanistan and Somalia, as noted above, but also in the whole Horn of Africa, Yemen, Southeast Asia, Pakistan, West Africa, and Western European cities. We need to redeploy our troops out of Iraq strategically so we can deploy them and intelligence operations officers in key areas of concern, where they can hunt down, infiltrate, kill, and disrupt terrorists, their organizations, and their operations. The right-wing aversion to multilateral organizations and efforts has also weakened us in this area. We should establish a Global Counterterrorism Organization (GCO) based loosely on the Interpol model, that would combine the intelligence, law enforcement, special operations, analysis, diplomatic, political, economic, and military prowess of powerful, prosperous, and democratic nations around the world to unite in the struggle to destroy terrorist networks. We should rekindle the transatlantic alliance, and use Europe's economic might, newfound spirit of unification, and universal democracy to defeat terrorists all around the world.
4) No More State Sponsors of Terrorism - There are states that are sponsoring, harboring, funding, training, equipping, recruiting, assisting, and promoting terrorist organizations. If only George W. would pick the right countries. While Iran and Syria are played up as state sponsors of terrorism, and they are serious sponsors, states like Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Georgia, and other nations, either because of government collusion or a weak and failed state, have provided major aid to terrorists. We need to send Special Forces to these countries to disrupt terrorist operations. But we also need to assist failed states in promoting good, strong governance, ending corruption, improving economic situations, and training and equipping security forces. For governments that collude with terrorists, we need to take a carrot and stick approach. Nations that fight terrorism and actively work against terrorists will receive economic assistance, military assistance, cultural, political, and diplomatic advantages, and possible trade deals. Nations that continue to aid terrorists would face harsh, targeted, smart economic sanctions, a cut in all political, diplomatic, and cultural ties to the rest of the world, and complete isolation. With a carrot and stick approach, state sponsors and failed states will become active participants in the global war against terrorism.
5) A Message of Hope - We must make sure that terrorism doesn't continue in the future. That means not giving terrorists amunition for recruitment of new terrorists. This requires supporting democracy and freedom (if people have a voice in the halls of power, they will be less likely to pursue violent ends), though this works less well when democracy is forced by the barrel of a gun. It also means supporting strong governance, opposing rampant corruption, and making huge strides in alleviating global poverty and misery. It also means a huge effort by the United States and free nations to communicate our message of peace, tolerance, and freedom to the rest of the world, not with propaganda, but with a concerted grassroots diplomatic corps well equipped to relay our goodwill to the world.
If we support these policies, we can defeat terrorism in the 21st century, and we can assure the American people that the GOP will not make us safer, only Democrats can.
