The spring and summer so far of the too-early presidential campaign has been the silly season, with the candidates doing their best to raise money, appear pretty and try to be liked by party faithful.
But now there's some evidence that the candidates have recognized that it's time to get serious. That it's time to move away from soft generalities and toward hard specifics.
So, as a public service, here are some things the candidates should be saying in order to make sense to us voters who will be picking them in the primaries of the upcoming winter.
1. While there's a lot of lip-service about leaving Iraq, the actual goal is to disengage from combat and turn the heavy duty work over to the Iraqis themselves. The trouble with leaving is that not only is genocide likely to follow, but we still have Syria and Iran to contend with and overall Middle Eastern terrorism issues. Opposition to the war morphed from complaints about President Bush's WMD rationale into a full fledged demand to leave, which was originally only wanted by a small portion of anti-war activists. Others who've glommed on to the withdrawal theme have done so without thinking about the surrounding issues. So pull away if you must, but there's no reason to pull out. Just the opposite, actually.
2. Avoid major complaints about the economy. Face it, we're doing pretty well. Feel free to decry gas prices and the high cost of housing. Anything else will make a candidate look foolish.
3. The Democrats are making a headlong rush toward national health care. The issue is a winner within the party, no question. Among the population at-large, support is greater than it was when Hillarycare was roundly defeated 15 years ago, but to suggest that government-run health care has majority support would be simply wrong. Congress is treading carefully, and that's why.
4. Don't avoid the immigration debate. There is a middle road. Secure the border and support a method for some of the millions to remain in the United States, but without a citizenship inducement. The rule of law is clearly supported by voters in both parties, as is tolerance for individuals who might be impacted.
5. No one has seriously taken up reform for Social Security and Medicare, the twin financial disasters that loom in the future. Get it onto the front burner and make yourself the candidate who will solve real problems.
6. Global warming is like national health care in that it's a bigger issue among Democrats than with independents and Republicans. However, people with both parties believe it deserves serious treatment, not immature ravings.
The candidate who captures the public's fancy, and none have as yet, will be the one who rises above the grimy political fray and positions himself as the one who can solve the various problems we face. We're looking for someone who takes the issues seriously, not who places a damp finger in the air. Someone with the stature to get people from all sides together to get things done. If such a person is out there, he hasn't shown himself yet. But the points above are a good place for such a candidate to start.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Iraq Plan
Now that the latest political fraud in Congress about the war in Iraq has been quashed, maybe the intelligent among us can figure out what to do next. Bearing in mind, of course, that there remains much unfinished business in Afghanistan, the threat of a nuclear Iran, and changing conditions in Pakistan.
Despite the objections of anti-war groups and politicians, there is no reason to consider leaving Iraq -- or redeploying our troops, depending on how you want to characterize it -- until the September scheduled briefing by military officials on progress achieved by the surge. However, since one thing the armed services do is plan for various eventualities, there's no reason why they can't plan for change now, if one is needed. And they should do so.
With less than two months to work with, here are the military and Iraqi political scenarios we're likely to hear in September, based on recent events.
Military: We're defeating the insurgents where we meet them on the battlefield, with the help of our former Sunni opponents in some places. The problem has been that they tend to escape too often before our forces arrive at a given location, so we're too often only beating the leftovers. So while we're beating them in Baquba, they're bombing people in Kirkuk. Things are also progressing well in rural areas, not so smoothly in Baghdad itself. Overall, there is some progress, but not a lot.
Iraqi Political: A major reason for the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to become effective and pass agreements on fundamental issues, including how to split up oil revenues. The good news this week is that Shiites who've boycotted parliament have apparently agreed to return. The bad news is that's about the only good news. Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to be a weak leader who is unable to assert control over radical Shiites. Overall, progress is minuscule.
Based on the current political climate in Washington, D.C., a mixed-bag report like the scenario described above would be the worst thing that could happen, because there would be no clear signs of success. Republicans would argue to continue the surge because of steady military progress, while Democrats would contend that such progress isn't meaningful if the Iraqi government doesn't pull its weight. So we'd end up in the same old political brawl here at home without a lack of consensus.
If we end up with a pacified countryside and chaos in Baghdad, then we have to re-evaluate our reason for being in Iraq, and set aside nation-building in favor of pure self-interest on our part. Keeping a major military presence in the region is a major national security interest of the United States because of Iran's pot-stirring and our desire to keep Syria out of Lebanon.
The best way to maintain those interests will be to build three major military bases in Iraq, two along the lengthy border with Iran and one against Syria. And by "along the border," I mean by a foot or two. Build an airstrip at each one. Place thousands of troops at each one, and be ready to do what might become necessary in the future. A token force can be left in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
In a sense, it will say "to heck with you" to the Iraqis, but it will keep us from continually kicking a dead horse, if that's what their government turns out to be. And we'll still be around to handle any serious terrorist incursions. But it will also get us out from the sectarian violence and away from the roadside bombs. And, most importantly, it will maintain, or even increase, the pressure on the rogue governments of Iran and Syria, which is among the reasons why we're there in the first place.
Despite the objections of anti-war groups and politicians, there is no reason to consider leaving Iraq -- or redeploying our troops, depending on how you want to characterize it -- until the September scheduled briefing by military officials on progress achieved by the surge. However, since one thing the armed services do is plan for various eventualities, there's no reason why they can't plan for change now, if one is needed. And they should do so.
With less than two months to work with, here are the military and Iraqi political scenarios we're likely to hear in September, based on recent events.
Military: We're defeating the insurgents where we meet them on the battlefield, with the help of our former Sunni opponents in some places. The problem has been that they tend to escape too often before our forces arrive at a given location, so we're too often only beating the leftovers. So while we're beating them in Baquba, they're bombing people in Kirkuk. Things are also progressing well in rural areas, not so smoothly in Baghdad itself. Overall, there is some progress, but not a lot.
Iraqi Political: A major reason for the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to become effective and pass agreements on fundamental issues, including how to split up oil revenues. The good news this week is that Shiites who've boycotted parliament have apparently agreed to return. The bad news is that's about the only good news. Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to be a weak leader who is unable to assert control over radical Shiites. Overall, progress is minuscule.
Based on the current political climate in Washington, D.C., a mixed-bag report like the scenario described above would be the worst thing that could happen, because there would be no clear signs of success. Republicans would argue to continue the surge because of steady military progress, while Democrats would contend that such progress isn't meaningful if the Iraqi government doesn't pull its weight. So we'd end up in the same old political brawl here at home without a lack of consensus.
If we end up with a pacified countryside and chaos in Baghdad, then we have to re-evaluate our reason for being in Iraq, and set aside nation-building in favor of pure self-interest on our part. Keeping a major military presence in the region is a major national security interest of the United States because of Iran's pot-stirring and our desire to keep Syria out of Lebanon.
The best way to maintain those interests will be to build three major military bases in Iraq, two along the lengthy border with Iran and one against Syria. And by "along the border," I mean by a foot or two. Build an airstrip at each one. Place thousands of troops at each one, and be ready to do what might become necessary in the future. A token force can be left in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
In a sense, it will say "to heck with you" to the Iraqis, but it will keep us from continually kicking a dead horse, if that's what their government turns out to be. And we'll still be around to handle any serious terrorist incursions. But it will also get us out from the sectarian violence and away from the roadside bombs. And, most importantly, it will maintain, or even increase, the pressure on the rogue governments of Iran and Syria, which is among the reasons why we're there in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)