TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | military

Petraeus Sworn in as CENTCOM Commander

By on 31 October 2008
via ABC News



General
Petraeus becomes responsible not only for overseeing military operations
in Iraq, where he still views recent gains as extremely fragile, but for a
strategic crescent that includes Afghanistan, where violence has increased
markedly since last year. The area of responsibility also includes Pakistan,
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet republics of Central
Asia.

After the U.S. Raid in Syria, the first ever, I found this story quite interesting.


Apparently Gen. David Petraeus does not agree with the Bush administration
that the road to Damascus is a dead end.

ABC News has learned, Petraeus proposed visiting Syria shortly after taking
over as the top U.S. commander for the Middle East….

This was before the strike. Evidently, the politically astute Petraeus wanted
to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. Now, the strike has complicated everything.

Adding weight to Petraeus’ argument is outgoing Israeli PM Olmert who also wants to engage Syria, at least indirectly.

Ironically, though some progressives will be reticent to accept Petraeus’ motives,
he actually might do very well under an Obama administration, which is going
to be pressing hard on engagement, with the military turning its focus, shifting around 30-50,000 troops to Afghanistan, on which I agree. A policy that also
irks some progressives.

Though let’s be clear. Military presence in Afghanistan isn’t enough. The real issue is Pakistan, which Obama knows all too well, as does Joe Biden. On that note, another strike in Pakistan has been reported by the BBC.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Jack Murtha Targeted by Right-Wing

By on 28 October 2008



Murtha really stepped in it recently with his comments on Pennsylvanians
and race. The right-wing are making the most of it. Now even the swiftboaters
are entering the fray, as Veterans for Freedom pile on. It’s a full court conservative
press to take Murtha down. His challenger, William Russell is not even from
Murtha’s district. He’s a Washington D.C. Republican.


Russell, who moved here from the Washington, D.C., area to challenge Murtha,
finished 90 days of active military duty and began campaigning last week.

What does Russell know about the Pennsylvania district Murtha has served for
34 years? Absolutely nothing. He’s simply running against Jack Murtha.

There are also serious questions about William Russell’s candidacy. Via National Journal
on Monday (subscription
required):


Murtha’s camp, meanwhile, “said the congressman is taking his reelection
seriously.” Murtha spokesperson Matthew Mazonkey: “Jack Murtha has
a distinguished career of serving his country in the military and in public
service, a record of creating jobs and working for Western Pennsylvania. Our
opponent is someone who doesn’t live in Pennsylvania, wrote himself a paycheck
of $185,000 for the last three months, and is under investigation for illegal
campaign work while on active duty.”

When Hillary Clinton moved into New York she took the work she had to do seriously. She did a listening tour all over the state and earned the trust of the voters of New York.

This guy Russell sounds like he just walked in, sat down, without doing any homework at all, and decided to go after a decorated veteran who has been serving his constituents passionately for years.

During the ’04 election cycle I worked for John Kerry’s group the Patriot Project. Murtha was targeted then too, but a ditz ran against him who couldn’t get any
traction, even with the swiftboaters helping the cause. This time there’s a
different candidate, Ret. Army lieutenant colonel William Russell, who is making the most of the wingnut money, as well as Murtha’s rhetorical gaffe.


Murtha, who has served the 12th Congressional District for 34 years and beat
his last opponent by 20 points, is still the favorite. But unlike most incumbents,
he faces a financial deficit to his challenger, who’s campaign has been spurred
by national conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Sean
Hannity.

Jack Murtha is not a progressive. Far from it. Many don’t like him because
of his earmarks, nursing other grudges as well. But I remember
a time when Murtha standing up changed the whole ballgame.

When Murtha spoke out against the Iraq war the whole political ground war changed. When
things were bleak and some of us were trying to get traction on the notion that
we needed to get out of Iraq, it was Jack Murtha who gave the speech on the
House floor that got things moving. He helped turn a lot of heads in the traditional
press, making a real difference on the Iraq war argument. I was on the blogger
calls he did about the efforts to move more Dems our way, when it got very difficult.
His passion for the troops cannot be questioned.

John Murtha is in a political dogfight, with wingnuts pouring in money and resources, supporting a candidate who doesn’t even know the district Murtha has represented, and who just moved there to run against Murtha. Donate if you can. It’s all about Murtha to William Russell, with the voters he says he wants to serve the last thing on his mind.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Powell Comes Full Circle on Iraq, Endorses Obama

By on 19 October 2008



Colin Powell, the man most responsible for making the case for the Iraq war,
has now endorsed the man
whose very candidacy revolved around his opposition to the war Powell sold at
the U.N.


Powell left as quietly as he had come, alone. Baker turned to Panetta
and said solemnly, “He’s the one guy who could have perhaps prevented
this from happening.” – The War Within, by Bob Woodward (pg.
52)

The above section comes from Woodward’s new book where Colin Powell gives
testimony in front of the Iraq Study Group. Woodward recounts Powell’s agonizing
statements about the “dysfunction” of the war, that he had warned
Bush about the troop strength required, but at this point the committee saw
and heard him “unload,” talking about Rumsfeld’s “stuff happens”
with disgust, the ridiculously ludicrous appointment of Bernard Kerik to lead
the Iraqi police, but also that he was never notified that Bremer was unilaterally
disbanding the Iraq army. With his endorsement of Barack Obama, Colin Powell’s
statement heard in full is a damning indictment on today’s Republican Party
and by extension John McCain.

Powell’s endorsement today also hits on one point that should trouble all Republicans, all Americans. The nakedly political choice of Sarah Palin who is not qualified for president. A person who is not in the same league as Joe Biden.


“I don’t believe [Palin] is ready to be president of the United
States,” Powell said flatly. By contrast, Obama’s running mate,
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, “is ready to be president on day one.”

Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican
tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.

… “The really right answer is what if he is?” Powell said,
praising the contributions of millions of Muslim citizens to American society.

“I look at these kind of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble
me,” Powell said. “Over the last seven weeks, the approach of
the Republican Party has become narrower and narrower.”

… “I truly believe that at this point in Amserica’s (sic)
history we need a president who will not just continue … basically the policies
we have followed in recent years,” he said. “We need a president
with transformational qualities.”

For that reason, he said, “I will be voting for Barack Obama.”

The endorsement by former general Colin Powell means little to people like
me. Then again, it’s not meant for me. Powell can never erase the reality that he could have done much to stop the Iraq war or at least make a statement by not supporting the way it was going to be waged. But that would have required his resignation, which this “good soldier” was not prepared to do. No matter his endorsement today, he will have to live with
that; today’s actions not negating this blemish on his record.

However, Powell’s endorsement will have sway among your average American and also some U.S. military who want to vote for Barack Obama, but who many times
feel pressure not to vote for a Democrat, especially one who is against the
Iraq war. It gives Obama extra support in the one area that is useful for undecided
voters, completing a non-partisan circle for Obama that strengthens his message
of all of us working together, regardless of party, because the challenges we face are so serious.

The circle is complete. One can only hope that Powell finds some comfort in
finally confronting the political party that so disastrously ruined our military
force structure, but also the reputation of this country, as we continue to struggle in Iraq on how to get out. It was a long time
coming. No doubt what’s happened in Afghanistan as a result of the prosecution of the Iraq war still gives Colin Powell many sleepless nights. It should.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Foreign Policy Vote for Barack and Joe

By on 18 October 2008
100,000 in my home town of St. Louis come to hear Barack

Today I cast an enthusiastic vote for O-Biden. It didn’t start out that way. But today I was very proud of my vote.

Let me start by borrowing some words from the Chicago Tribune endorsement yesterday, personalizing them just a bit: Many Americans say they’re uneasy about Obama. He’s pretty new to them. I can provide some assurance. I have come to know Obama since he entered the presidential primary season. I have watched him, investigated everything about him, fought him, argued against him on the web, tv and radio, even as he rose from nowhere to win the Democratic nomination. I now have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready. That he has Joe Biden beside him makes me even more sure of the foreign policy vote I cast today.

That’s how I vote, on foreign policy, national security and military matters. These are the issues that matter most to me. When not in a heated election season, they’re also the topics I prefer to write about more than any other. I’ve been a serious student of national security for over three decades. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I do have
certain expertise. I can’t lay out every foreign policy point in this post, China and Russia for instance, but the highest priority for the new president will be in view. There is simply no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama, along with Joe Biden, who is the most brilliant foreign policy thinker in the Congress, his presence sending a strong signal to our allies, is the team that can turn the U.S. towards an engaged, significantly strengthened position in the world.

Pakistan and Central Asia

Barack Obama had the courage and strength of purpose to announce that he would strike inside Pakistan to get bin Laden
if actionable intelligence presented itself. It alarmed many and took some time for the purpose of this position to be understood, but what he was sending was a signal that no one should doubt his force of will to protect the United States and seek out enemies on foreign soil, while sending an unmistakable message
to then President Musharaff and the Pakistanis, particularly the ISI. The piece Joe Biden cross-posted on this blog on Pakistan elevated him beyond any other on the subject. These two men together are simply unmatched in their thinking on this region, which is the most difficult challenge in the world we face today. That Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili sent for Joe Biden when things got rough with Russian and Putin ends the debate. Biden understands the strings Putin is pulling, as he flexes muscles that, no doubt, a new president will have to match.

As for John McCain, he didn’t mention Pakistan or Central Asia until Obama was well on his way to discussing the challenges we face there, which was prefaced with the difficulties unraveling in Afghanistan. But McCain saying “We are all Georgians” is one of the most alarming statements made as we move to a post-Bush era. This type of thinking is what led to the invasion of Iraq. Not only can our military not afford such implied allegiance, but neither can our treasury, of which there can no longer be any doubt. Our foreign policy simply cannot withstand another administration that believes America can save the world in lieu of allies working in cooperation.

Unfortunately, Obama-Biden will take over when Pakistan is at a tipping point. The Federally Administered Tribal Area bordering Afghanistan is now dangerously infiltrated with Islamic extremists, which are threatening the Karzai government. Zardari’s position is also perilous, not only politically, but because anti American sentiment has grown, but also because of widespread poverty, food shortages and the currency collapse. Pakistan is close to coming unglued. We haven’t begun to talk about India, with the balance of power in this entire region teetering on collapse.

Afghanistan

Barack Obama has been calling for a more concentrated military strategy in Afghanistan for a very long time. John McCain was virtually silent on the issue until well into the election season, prompted, I believe, by Obama’s strong statements. McCain’s strong support for Musharraf for so long exactly mirrored Bush’s, which Joe Biden rightly deemed the Administration’s “Mushraff policy,” instead of a policy towards Pakistan and the entire region. However, very careful strategy must be considered before engaging a large number of American troops inside Afghanistan, because we could end up in another quagmire just as easily, as Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski has warned, as have others like Juan Cole. A recent NIE leaked to McClatchy states that even then stability is no longer guaranteed. The fact is that Bush has let the situation deteriorate so deeply, because of his single minded foreign policy focus on Iraq, that some increase of force strength is absolutely necessary, I believe, to get us back to where we were before we invaded Iraq. We’ve lost ground in Afghanistan, with the Taliban gaining control, corruption rampant, so we’re left with little choice. Obama understands this all too well, as does Biden, who has been calling for the same types of action. How We Lost the War We Won, by Nir Rosen, will give you an idea of what the next president will inherent from Bush.

Iraq

The differences between McCain and Obama on Iraq are obvious. One of the biggest challenges we face right now is the new draft agreement on U.S. force presence, which Sadr is now pushing the Iraqi parliament to reject. But the biggest concern about McCain is that his talk of “victory” resembles a Vietnam warrior wanting to settle old scores that cannot be settled, while taking that strategy and utilizing it beyond Iraq, perhaps another “surge” in Afghanistan. McCain thinks in 20th century terms about battle. Obama does not. However, unlike many, I never was that impressed with Obama’s anti war speech on Iraq, which was given in a very friendly district of Chicago, without facing any political heat at all for his stance. But he did stand up against the war, which cannot be denied. I did as well, on a.m. radio, ranting at Democrats in Congress for their spinelessness. If in the Senate, however, I still believe Obama would have cast a vote for the war, but he didn’t have that burden, which benefited him greatly, as we all know. But even in being against the war, Obama is a cautious and deliberate man, having vision to look further than the next mile, which means whatever his withdrawal plans are in Iraq he will do it after getting counsel from many, including military leaders, and make a decision that will be less likely to haunt Democrats. I don’t think he will withdraw all troops in a specified timeline from Iraq, as some liberal activists believe, but I’ve also never thought that was a good idea either. There is no way we can judge what we’re going to inherit in Iraq, because there is absolutely no proof that the Bush administration has been forthright with the actual truth of what’s unfolding in Iraq right now. But make to mistake about it, Barack Obama will begin to get us untangled from Iraq, handing back to the Iraqi’s their country.

Israel – Iran

Obama is a strong supporter of Israel, as is any politician at this level of American politics. He is also strong enough to understand that the “special relationship” we have with Israel has morphed into a heavy handed Middle East policy that had Bush pushing for elections that resulted in Hamas gaining a strong foothold because the people weren’t ready. Interfering in the domestic policies of other nations can lead to trouble, especially in the Middle East.

No other single act has harmed our relationships in this region more than the Republican phobia against diplomacy. Obama believes you need to talk to your adversaries as much as you do your allies. John McCain, unfortunately, is stuck in the 20th century mind set about the Middle East, which is further driven home by the presence of Joe Lieberman at his side. This partnership reveals a dangerously blinded approach to Iran, one that has led to an impossible relationship that is hurting us in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, where the Iranians were of great help right after 9/11. The Iraq war and the subsequent Iraqi government is now also linked closely to Tehran, while Iranian influence throughout the region continues to grow, which is doing nothing good for Israel. But still, McCain and Lieberman ignore what their bellicose rhetoric towards Tehran engenders for a country and a people they so long to aid, at a time when great possibility for change in Israel is unfolding. Along with Joe Biden, who is known and trusted in the Middle East, Barack Obama has the opportunity to revitalize our relationships, something that would not have a chance if McCain became president.

Conclusion

In the midst of a financial crisis, we need steady leadership from people who know the modern world challenges we face. “Experience” is a valued asset, which Biden offers, but a new look at a world that no longer resembles the 20th century from a person who is educated, curious, modern, worldly, bringing a wholly new way of looking at our challenges offers great possibility, especially as deep a thinker as Obama has proved himself to be.

The fact that John McCain is 72 years old is also a factor; to say otherwise would be a lie. Looking at his running mate, while balancing the dangerous foreign policy challenges we face, I cannot in good conscience remotely consider voting for John McCain. I will forever believe that the choice of Palin was simply political, which proved correct in igniting the base, but leaves the seriousness of Palin taking over as president from a man of McCain’s maturity out of the equation entirely. It’s a dangerous chance to take when the world is changing so rapidly, with more dangers today, including economic, than we’ve faced in a generation. As prepared as McCain is to be president, his running mate is simply not.

Having started out the primary season neutral, then moved to a very strong Hillary Clinton supporter, which I remain, also having been among her strongest advocates anywhere, I knew I’d vote Democratic, for the foreign policy reasons given above. But many times in the last 24 years I’ve held my nose to vote Democratic, when the candidates just didn’t get it done. After the primary season I thought this might be another one of those years. I am proud to say it is not. Barack Obama has convinced me that he’s the right person for the presidency at this particular time in history. The addition of Joe Biden, whom I’ve followed in the Senate for years, began my partisan pilgrimage, which evolved into a proud vote for Obama-Biden today. If you vote on foreign policy, the team that offers the strongest change from the Bush-Cheney years, with the gravitas to make the world sit up and remember America as we once were, before the last years ruined our reputation, is Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They earned my vote today.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Biden Sees his Son Off to Iraq

By on 01 October 2008
Beau, a Captain in the Delaware National Guard, deploys to Iraq on Friday.


In case you’ve lost track of reality during the economic crisis, the DoD just announced its 2009 Iraq deployments, “additional major units scheduled to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The fight to get out of Iraq isn’t over.

I’ve made no secret that I am a real believer in Joe Biden. He and his team were invited to write (and cross-post) on this blog when others wouldn’t allow him in. I also had the pleasure to meet and speak one-on-one with him during the primaries. He’s quite simply the best Democratic mind on foreign policy we have today.

But Biden is a family man first. That has been apparent throughout his political career, but especially at the convention. There wasn’t a dry eye when his mother was shown, or when his family came on stage.

Everyone at TM.com wishes Beau Biden godspeed, hoping that all the work his father has done to get our soldiers the equipment they need will pay off and bring Beau home safely.



“So long as a single American soldier or marine remains in Iraq, we will provide him or her with the best protection this country can provide.” – Senator Joe Biden

Tomorrow, it’s not only the foreign policy Biden I want to show up, but “Lunch Bucket Joe.” The man who goes home every night to Delaware, that was born in Scranton. He’ll take it to McCain if he does. Sarah Palin isn’t the issue. She’ll do herself in with her word blizzards. Actually, she already has with many voters (dragging McCain down with her), including HRC supporters who still aren’t keen on Obama, but won’t hand over their civil rights to the right-wing. Biden simply needs to keep his eye on McCain, drilling McCain on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Two words Biden should use over and over again, which Obama did well last Friday: “McCain’s wrong.” The wrong man for the times. The wrong commander in chief for the times. The wrong economic steward for the times.

Consider this an open thread. Have at it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Palin: ‘Our national leaders, are sending U.S. soldiers out on a task that is from God…’

By on 02 September 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH



Finally, Campbell Brown gets an answer to her question. Complete with video:



Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain’s running mate.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin’s foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. …

That’s all we need, another Republican in the line of power who believes God is in charge of our foreign policy, no doubt through his personally crowned GOP disciples. This continual usage of religion in national security not only dangerous, but disastrous.

McCain’s pick of Palin secures the base, which no one doubts, but the more independents hear about Sarah’s religious Bushisms the more frightening McCain’s judgment and the McCain-Palin ticket will appear.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Troops Deployed Abroad Give 6:1 to Obama

By on 14 August 2008


The numbers
just don’t lie.


Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican
bent among the military, members of the armed services overall — whether
stationed overseas or at home — are also favoring Obama with their campaign
contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal
contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of
money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent
has gone to Obama.

Contributions from U.S. Troops Deployed Abroad Recipient Total Number
Obama, Barack $60,642
Paul, Ron $45,512
McCain, John $10,665
Huckabee, Mike $7,950
Thompson, Fred $6,350
Romney, Mitt $5,550
Clinton, Hillary $3,240

With the latest campaign finance filings, detailing June fundraising, McCain
has overtaken Paul among all military donors, though Paul still leads with
contributors listing an overseas address. Financial support from military
personnel for anti-war candidates Obama and Paul is a trend that the Center
for Responsive Politics first observed last September.

Individuals in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps have all leaned
Republican this cycle, but the only branch in which that ideology has carried
over to the presidential race is the Marine Corps, where McCain leads Obama
by about $4,000. In each of the other branches — including the Navy, in which
McCain served when he was taken prisoner during the Vietnam War — Obama leads
by significant margins.

You won’t hear a word about this on talk radio, Fox, or many other news outlets.
The traditional media won’t be able to spin it. So, when it doesn’t comport
with their talking points about John McCain and the military, they’ll likely
just remain mute.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Maliki Endorses Obama’s Democratic Timetable for Iraq

By on 19 July 2008
U.S. Military, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Senator Barack Obama at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan with, from left: William B. Wood, the American ambassador to Afghanistan; Senator Chuck Hagel; Sgt. Maj. Vincent Camacho; Senator Jack Reed; and Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser.


This is going to infuriate the McCainiacs. But it’s just another sign that
redeployment is an idea whose time has come. Via
Reuters:


Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops
should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted
U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That,
we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility
of slight changes.”

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by
Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour
of Europe and the Middle East. …

Maliki’s interview with Spiegel,
English version, is interesting:


‘The Tenure of Coalition Troops in Iraq Should Be Limited’

The situation in Iraq seems to be improving. SPIEGEL spoke with Iraqi Prime
Minister al-Maliki about his approval of Barack Obama’s withdrawal plans and
what he hopes from US President Bush in his last months in office. …

Get ready for the Republicans to squeal like rats on a sunk ship. Ilan Goldenberg of Democracy Arsenal has two words for them: “It’s Over.”

Also get prepared for political pressure from the Bush administration to have
Maliki walk his statement back. But according
to ABC News, the White House was so flustered by the Maliki – Obama timetable
story that they sent it out to reporters instead.

The Obama team just released a memo on just how strongly the Democratic nominee
has taken over on foreign policy. The title could be called “Follow the Leader,” and it’s definitely not John McCain who’s leading.


To: Interested Parties

From: The Obama Campaign

RE: Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following

There are two problems with John McCain’s political attacks on Barack Obama’s
foreign policy. First, on the biggest foreign policy questions of the last
eight years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment and John McCain has
sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Second, the failure of the
McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position,
and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked.

Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack
Obama’s position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and
more diplomacy with Iran. On both issues, Obama took stands that weren’t politically
popular at the time – opposing the war in Iraq as a diversion from the
critical mission in Afghanistan, and standing up for direct diplomacy with
Iran – while John McCain lined up with George Bush. Time has proven
Obama’s judgment right and McCain wrong.

The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called
any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq “surrender” – even
though we’d be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush
Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the
Iraqi government – a position that Senator Obama called for last September,
and reiterated on Monday in the New York Times. And now, Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki supports Barack Obama’s timeline, telling Der Speigel that,
“Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months.”

Afghanistan –

· McCain at the beginning of the week: more of the same

· McCain at the end of the week: more troops

Barack Obama said in 2002 that we had to finish the fight against Osama bin
Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq. John McCain was
George Bush’s biggest supporter for a war in Iraq that took our eye off of
Afghanistan, arguing that we would be “greeted as liberators”; that
democracy would spread across the region; and that we could “muddle through”
in Afghanistan. On the most important foreign policy judgment of our generation,
Obama got it right and McCain got it wrong.

Since then, our overwhelming focus on Iraq has caused us to shortchange Afghanistan.
The result is clear. Osama bin Laden is still at large. Al Qaeda has reconstituted
a sanctuary along the Pakistani border. The Taliban is on the offensive. June
was the highest casualty month of the war. And Obama’s judgment was reaffirmed
earlier this month, when Admiral Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs
of Staff, said, “I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can
reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq.”

Barack Obama has consistently called for more troops and resources in Afghanistan.
In August of 2007, he called for at least two additional U.S. combat brigades
and $1 billion in non-military assistance. Senator McCain continued to march
in lockstep with the failed Bush policy, and even argued earlier this year
that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.”
This past week, Senator McCain changed his position for political reasons,
embracing Obama’s call for more troops the day after Obama restated it in
a New York Times op-ed, and almost one year after Obama’s initial plan. McCain’s
proposal was complicated by the fact that the McCain campaign couldn’t even
get its answer straight on whether those troops would come from the U.S. or
our NATO allies – leading the Times to wonder “how well formed
his ideas are.”

SENDING MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN

Gergen: “In The Last Two Days We’ve Seen Twice Now The Bush Administration
Reverse Itself And Take Positions That Are Much Closer To Obama’s,” Added
“The Greater Danger To Our Troops Right Now Is In Afghanistan. That’s
What Obama’s Been Arguing All Along.” David Gergen: “For the last
few months, John McCain has had the upper hand in the arguments about foreign
policy, as one of the chief architects of a surge that Obama voted against
and then it seemed to work. And yet in the last two days we’ve seen twice
now the Bush administration reverse itself and take positions that are much
closer to Obama’s. Last night we talked about the fact that suddenly the Bush
administration had reversed course and was going to begin talking directly
to Iran this weekend, and now tonight we’re talking about them reversing course
and saying we must send more troops into Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is becoming
in many ways at least as dangerous as Iraq. You know, last — in June, there
were virtually the same number of American troops who died in Afghanistan
as in Iraq, and yet in Iraq we have five times as many troops. So the danger,
the greater danger to our troops right now is in Afghanistan. That’s what
Obama’s been arguing all along.” [Anderson Cooper, CNN, 7/16/08]

LA Times Columnist: After Years Of Saying Afghanistan Was Not A Threat, McCain
Is Now Calling For More Troops There, “Maybe Because Barack Obama Keeps
Hammering Away At The Issue.” LA Times columnist Rosa Brooks wrote, “Immediately
after 9/11, McCain shared the widespread view that the U.S. should go to war
in Afghanistan to take out those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But by
late November 2001, he wanted to “move on to the next country.”
Uh-huh: “Next up, Baghdad!” Of course, we stayed in Afghanistan
too, but McCain had gotten tired of it. By April 2003, he said that “nobody
in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America,” so we could focus
instead on the shiny new war in Iraq. “We don’t read about [Afghanistan]
anymore, because it’s succeeded,” he explained in October 2005. But Iraq
started getting boring too, so now McCain has turned his restless attention
back to Afghanistan — maybe because Barack Obama keeps hammering away at
the issue. (Obama, who’s been fairly consistent on Afghanistan for six years
now, is either the rare politician who doesn’t suffer from ADD, or he’s smart
enough to take his meds.)” [Rosa Brooks Column, LA Times, 7/17/08]

IRAN

· McCain at the beginning of the week: against high-level talks with
Iran

· McCain at the end of the week: praised Bush Administration’s high-level
talks with Iran

Barack Obama has consistently said that our policy of not pursuing direct
diplomacy with Iran has failed, and he has made it clear that he favors direct
talks with the Iranian regime in order to advance our interests. Senator McCain
and President Bush have ridiculed Obama’s support for direct diplomacy with
the Iranian regime. In his trip to Israel, President Bush took implicit aim
at Senator Obama, and suggested his proposals for tough diplomacy constituted
“appeasement,” while McCain said Obama’s approach was “naive”
and “shows a lack of experience.

Here is the record of the McCain-Bush approach. Iran has advanced its illicit
nuclear program. Iran is now enriching uranium, and has reportedly stockpiled
150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Iran’s support for terrorism has increased.
Iran’s threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they
cannot be denied. McCain has fully supported this failed policy, while Obama
has called for a new direction.

This week the Bush administration finally appeared to recognize that it
is reckless refusal to participate in talks with our European allies and the
Iranian regime had failed. The Bush Administration shifted its policy, and
is sending a top-ranking State Department official to join in nuclear talks
across the table from Iran in Geneva Senator McCain, a long-time critic of
diplomatic engagement with Iran, now changed his position to Obama’s and said
that he had “no problem…whatsoever” with this high-level diplomatic
engagement with Iran. For the second time in one week, events on the ground
forced John McCain to change his position to embrace an Obama position.

TALKS WITH IRAN

Stephanopoulous: “Undersecretary Of State William Burns Will Be Meeting
With The Iranians This Weekend As Part Of Their Nuclear Talks,” Obama
Has “Been Calling For Those Kind Of Talks For A Long Time.” George
Stephanopoulous said, “Senator McCain has moved more towards Barack Obama’s
position on Afghanistan, calling for two or three more brigades in Afghanistan
which Obama’s called for a long time and watch for this, Chris. We just learned
today that the Undersecretary of State William Burns will be meeting with
the Iranians this weekend as part of their nuclear talks. Watch for the Obama
campaign to say this vindicates Barack Obama’s position. He’s been calling
for those kind of talks for a long time.” [ABC Good Morning America,
7/16/08]

Gibson: Bush Administration Insisted It Would Not Talk With Iran, But Its
New Willingness to Talk “Is Essentially What Barack Obama Has Been Proposing.”
Charlie Gibson: “The Bush administration, for years, has insisted it
would not talk with Iran until Iran suspended its nuclear enrichment program.
That policy was reversed today. The State Department said it will send Undersecretary
of State William Burns to meet face-to-face with Iran’s nuclear negotiator
this weekend. So, Martha Raddatz is here to explain what seems like a major
turnaround…There are political implications to this because this is
essentially what Barack Obama has been proposing, isn’t it?” Martha Raddatz
said, “It sure sounds like it, Charlie. There’s a good quote today, from
John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador. He said this is like getting an Obama
administration six months early. The White House says it’s very different.
But it sure sounds like it’s heading in that direction.” [ABC World News,
7/16/08]

Bolton Sarcastically Said Bush Shift Toward Talking To Iran “Is The
State Department Effort To Insure A Smooth Transition To The Obama Administration.”
John Bolton said of the Bush Administration’s agreeing to talks with Ira,
“Even if this is a one time only event in the Bush administration, it
legitimizes the Obama administration to do the same thing,” he said.
“It undercuts McCain, and Republicans on the Hill. This is the State
Department effort to insure a smooth transition to the Obama administration.”
[New York Sun, 7/17/08]

Washington Post: While Bush Administration Opposed US Officials Accompanying
Solana To Iran Talks, “Obama Campaign Officials Had Said That One Of
The First Steps He Would Take As President Would Be To End The Ban On U.S.
Officials Accompanying Solana.” “Administration officials have long
insisted that U.S. representatives would not join even preliminary discussions
with Tehran until it stops enriching uranium — a distinction that presumptive
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has called counterproductive.
In June, when Solana traveled to Tehran to present a sweetened offer to Iran
to negotiate, the United States pointedly did not join other members of the
international coalition in sending a senior official to the meeting. State
Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at the time that no U.S. representative
would attend unless ‘Iran suddenly has a change of tune and says that they
will meet the demands of the international community, which are expressed
in U.N. Security Council resolutions.’ European officials hailed the news
that Burns would come to Geneva as a breakthrough, one that sends a clear
message to Iran that the international community is interested in negotiating
a solution to the nuclear impasse. ‘It is a very interesting and important
sign by the United States,’ one senior European official said last night.
Obama campaign officials had said that one of the first steps he would take
as president would be to end the ban on U.S. officials accompanying Solana.”
[Washington Post, 7/15/08]

The Guardian: McCain has “no problem…whatsoever” with high-level
talks with Iran. “John McCain, said he had ‘no problem . . . whatsoever’
with Burns going to the Geneva meeting, but repeated said he would not meet
Ahmadinejad. ” [The Guardian (London), 7/18/08]

IRAQ

Barack Obama has consistently called for a responsible redeployment of our
troops from Iraq so that we can press the Iraqis to take responsibility for
their country, restore our military, and finish the fight in Afghanistan.
It is in America’s interests to end the Iraq War responsibly, and it
is in the interest of the Iraqi people to have a government that reconciles
its differences and takes responsibility for the future of Iraq.

John McCain has consistently labeled any plan to remove U.S. troops from
Iraq as “surrender.” However, just this week, the White House
agreed on a “general time horizon” for the removal of U.S. troops
from Iraq. And speaking to Der Spiegel, Prime Minister Maliki said, “Barack
Obama is right when he talks about 16 months.” He went on to say, “Artificially
prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.”

Senator McCain has said that we must leave Iraq when the sovereign government
of Iraq wants us to. Now that the White House has shifted closer to Senator
Obama’s position on negotiating the redeployment of our troops from
Iraq, and the Prime Minister of the sovereign government of Iraq has endorsed
Senator Obama’s 16 month timeline, will Senator McCain shift his position
on redeploying troops from Iraq? Why does Senator McCain refuse to press the
Iraqis to stand up? Why does Senator McCain want to stay in Iraq longer than
we need to and longer than the Iraqis want us to? Does Senator McCain think
it would be “surrender” to leave Iraq to the Iraqi government?

Council on Foreign Relations, McCain: “I don’t see how we could stay
when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government
over to the Iraqi people” QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical,
senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called
sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about
the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at
least possible. McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s
obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government
of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If
it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges,
but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been
based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people. http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/
{April 22, 2004}

Read full story · Comments are closed

Of Iran and Hype

By on 01 July 2008

Israel will attack Iran! Yesterday, ABC reported “senior
Pentagon officials” are concerned Israel could strike.

No, they won’t, said Charles Krauthammer today, they don’t have the equipment.
But we do, wink-wink.

Brit Hume was all over the story today on Fox, putting it all in the context
of an Obama presidency. If it happens before the election Obama will have to
support it, of course, or risk losing. Oh, but Brit reminds everyone, this is
all simply speculation. Ya think?

Seymour
Hersh has been writing about it for years, including just recently again.

The
State department said nonsense:


And for the second time this week, it fell to the State Department to respond.
Tom H. Casey, deputy spokesman, provided Reuters with the U.S. government’s
reaction to the ABC News report:

I have no information that would substantiate that, and I think it’s
rather foolish of people who often have no clue what they’re talking
about to assert things and not even have the courtesy to do so on the basis
of their name.

Later in the day, he elaborated on the question with a useful observation.
Despite Israeli rehearsals and saber rattling on all sides, the final decision
to attack will come down to a handful of officials who are not exactly open
books on their military plans.

“It’s always amazing that there are lots of anonymous sources
out there who profess to know the inner will of officials in other countries,
Israel or otherwise,” Mr. Casey said.

… .. Having reasoned with reporters, Mr. Casey turned to comedy. “You
know, I need to find this guy, because apparently he’s an expert on
the Israeli military, an expert on Iran and an expert on nuclear issues at
the same time,” he said. “Let’s get him a Nobel Prize.”

ABC News, for its part, offered a follow-up article today that included doubts
that war was on the horizon. Hirsch Goodman, a national security analyst in
Tel Aviv, dismissed the story as “just the latest in the hype that has
been generated in the last few weeks.”

Juan
Cole on the “senior Pentagon” sources, who no doubt will never
be named:


… This second “red line” is pure bullshit. There is no evidence
that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade at all, much less that it
is making enough highly-enriched uranium that it will be able to make a bomb
in 2009.

You can’t use low-enriched uranium to make a bomb.

The IAEA says that there is no evidence–zilch, zero, nada– that Iran has
facilities for enriching to weapons grade or that it is trying to do so.

Instead we get rumors about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran. But in an election year,
no one should get too comfortable.

This
tidbit from Laura Rozen is also interesting.

Meanwhile, any of these guys talking about Pakistan or Central Asia? Not a
word.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama and Iraq, Military, and Clinton

By on 10 March 2008



“No doubt in my mind he can probably milk a cow but his body of experience means he probably doesn’t know how to milk one. … When I look across the aisle at Sen. Obama, other than a great speech, I really do not see the same body of experience to deal with that issue. I see a statement that says I have a great staff that can advise me. I think you need a great body of experience to deal with the recommendations your staff is bringing to you.” – Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard

Clinton Surrogate: Obama Can’t Milk The Iraq War Cow

Today, Clinton had a second military call with Gen. Wesley Clark, Lt. Gen.
Joe Ballard and Vice Admiral Joe Sestak.


“Senator Clinton is one tough woman.” – Vice Admiral
Joe Sestak

Confercence
Call on Obama, Iraq, Military & Clinton

(with Gen. Wesley Clark, Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard and Vice Admiral
Joe Sestak)

Subjects on the call included Andrea Mitchell’s question about the notion of Obama being Clinton’s veep. How can Clinton say he’s not prepared as commander-in-chief, then say he could be her vice president? Wes Clark and Joe Sestak, who has been on my show before, were especially eloquent today, with Joe Ballard adding bluntness that was refreshing. On Iraq, Clark was particularly vocal, as was Sestak.

But as for the word “toughness,” it is not something that currently describes Senator Obama. Many may not like me saying that, but it’s true and it worries me thinking about the general election. I also don’t think it’s destructive to talk about. No one should be so naive as to think Republicans aren’t thinking this before a Democrat speaks it. Having great respect for the Obama team, they also have to know this is a tough hurdle their candidate still has to cross. If Ohio and Texas told us anything, that was the message.

So following Clinton’s lead, Obama is having a call with “military brass”
today. There are three impressive people on the call: former service secretaries
for each of the Armed Forces – Clifford Alexander, Jr. (US Army), Richard Danzig
(US Navy), and F. Whitten Peters (US Air Force).

No doubt, Obama has military support, and this tit for tat is annoying. Unfortunately,
when two people are vying for commander-in-chief, neither of whom have military
experience, and are going against a war hero like John McCain, the support of
the military establishment isn’t a small matter.

As an aside, the “experience” meter for me is also a bit tough to
take. When vying for the presidency, what exactly does “experience”
mean until you’re in the job? Part of it comes from your body of work. As for
Senator Obama, it disturbs me that his Illinois legislature records have disappeared,
because in the U.S. Senate he has not done anything of note. On Iraq alone, he has been absent. He ducked out on Kyl-Lieberman, and on the foreign relations committee he was to chair he didn’t even hold a single hearing. Not exactly the work ethic that inspires me. As for Clinton,
she’s been in many a fight for legislation and on the firing line many times,
including in the 90s on health care. Being first lady isn’t a commander-in-chief credential, but what she’s withstood over 16 years of scrutiny and attacks from the right-wing is impressive, especially since she got elected and won over New Yorkers, including upstate New York, while doing it. She even reached across the aisle to work with her husband’s impeachment proponents. In addition, standing up in Bejing wasn’t a small matter
either. But in the end for both of these fine Democrats, the support of people
like military brass matters, especially looking into the abyss of what George
W. Bush will leave behind. The company they keep criteria, if you will.

Clinton’s support is far deeper and wider and the list of military brass is much,
longer, and on
one call alone she had eighteen flag officers promoting her commander-in-chief
bona fides:


General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West
Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton

A further list
(though no longer definitive) is below (some duplicate names from
above appear), coming from Veterans Day, 2007:


National Co-Chairs are:

General Wesley Clark, Ret., Four Star General,
Supreme Allied Commander, NATO
Lt. General Joseph Ballard, Ret., Three Star General, Chief
of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lt. General Robert Gard, Ret., Three Star General, President
Emeritus of the Monterey Institute for International Studies.
Lt. General Donald Kerrick, Ret., Three Star General, Deputy
National Security Advisor, Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff
Lt. General Frederick Vollrath, Ret., Three Star General,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters Department of the Army
Major General Roger Blunt, Ret., Two Star General, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Last Command: 97th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM), Ft. Meade
Chairman, President, & CEO of Blunt Enterprises, LLC
Major General Edward L. Correa Jr., Ret., Two Star General,
Adjutant General of Hawaii
Major General Paul Eaton, Ret., Two Star General, Office
of Security Cooperation in Iraq, Commanding General
Rear Admiral Connie Mariano, MD, Ret., Two Star Rear Admiral,
Navy White House Physician for three Presidents
Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr., Ret., Two Star General,
Adjutant General California National Guard
Major General Robert Scales, Ret., Two Star General, President
and CEO of Walden University, Commandant of the United States Army War College,
Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, M.D., Ret., Two Star Coast Guard
Admiral, Past Director of Health and Safety of the Coast Guard
Rear Admiral David Stone, Ret., Two Star Rear Admiral, Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration
President & CEO, Alacrity Homeland Group
Brigadier General Michael Dunn, Ret., One Star General, Clinical
leader of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Interoperability
Project. Commanded the Walter Reed Health Care System in Washington, DC
Brigadier General Belisario Flores, Ret., Assistant Adjutant
General, Texas Air National Guard, Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat”
Foote, Ret., One Star General
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr, Ret., One Star General,
Commanding General, Northern Area Command, California National Guard
Brigadier General Virgil Richard, Ret., One Star General,
Recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal
Brigadier General Preston Taylor, Ret., One Star General,
Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training
Brigadier General Dr. Jack Yeager, Ret., One Star General,
Assistant Adjutant General of West Virginia
Honorable Anthony Brown, Veteran, Maryland Lt. Governor,
Past member of the Maryland House of Delegates, Served with distinction in
Baghdad, Fallujah, Kirkuk and Basra, Iraq.
Honorable Harold Naughton, Massachusetts State House Representative,
Veteran, US Army Reserves, JAG, 8 months in Multinational Force Iraq
Honorable Steven Hobbs, Washington State Senator, Veteran,
Tours of duty in Iraq and Kosovo with the US Army and Army National Guard
Mr. Roscoe Brown, Veteran, Tuskegee Airman, WWII
Honorable Louis Caldera, Veteran, Secretary of the Army,
President of University of New Mexico
Honorable Edward Chow, Jr., Veteran, Past Vice President
of Vietnam Veterans of America, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Veterans Administration
Honorable Jimmy Dean, Veteran, Past National Commander of
the American Legion
Honorable Ron Dellums, Mayor of Oakland, CA, Former Chair
of the House Armed Services Committee
Honorable Herschel Gober, Veteran, Acting Secretary &
Deputy Secretary, Veterans Affairs
Honorable Steven Honigman, Veteran, Navy Retired, Former
Naval General Counsel (Iraq)
Mr. Thomas Keefe, Veteran, President of The Keefe Group,
Nationally known Veterans Advocate
Honorable Robert Jones, Veteran, Deputy Secretary of Defense
for POW/MIA Affairs
Honorable Robert Perreault, Director, Medical Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs
Joseph “Jake” Simmons IV, Veteran, Commander, White
House Communications Agency
Honorable Todd Weiler, Veteran, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs

They Join Current National Co-Chairs:

U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, Veteran, World
War II Combat Veteran, Recipient: Medal of Honor
U.S. Congressman Charlie Rangel, Veteran, US Army, 1948-52
U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak, Veteran, Retired US Navy Admiral,
Commanded Aircraft Carrier Battle Group, Afghanistan
U.S. Congressman Ed Towns, Veteran, US Army, 1956-58
U.S. Congressman Jose Serrano, Veteran, US Army, 1964-66
U.S. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Veteran, US Navy 1956-59
Honorable Togo West, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary
of the Army, North Carolina Native
Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, Ret., Three Star General, First
Woman in the U.S. Army to Hold a Three Star Rank, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intelligence
General George Buskirk, Ret., Adjutant General, Indiana Army
and Air National Guard,
Honorable Eleanor Glynn Kjellman, New Hampshire State House
Representative, Veteran, US Air Force Officer, Son served in Iraq
Mr. Joe Wynn, Veteran, US Air Force, Viet Nam, Leader of
the National Association of Black Veterans, President, Vets Group
Mr. Bill White, President, Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, Nationally
Known Veterans Advocate

Read full story · Comments are closed

Flag Officers Make the Case for Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief

By on 02 March 2008



“I support her because I trust her. … I trust her judgment. … ..
She knows our reality. … She’ll give us missions that make sense.”
– Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy

During a conference call with the Clinton campaign just now, moderated by Clinton’s
National Security Director Lee Feinstein (with Howard Wolfson), flag officer
after flag officer offered their unqualified endorsements of Hillary Clinton
for Commander-in-Chief. It was one testimony after another from these fine career
military men and women who know first hand what it takes to be the boss. I hope
you take the time to listen to their informed views on the issue of national
security, as they make their case for Hillary Clinton.

Flag
officers endorsing Hillary Clinton for Commander-in-Chief
(AUDIO of conference call)
–Q & A session – audio–

Nobody on the call is thinking about anything but the love of their country
in endorsing Senator Clinton, as one officer said at the end of the call.


“She has done her homework on national security. .. … She has the
big picture. … .. She is the most qualified in the race to be Commander-in-Chief.”
– General Wesley Clark (retired)

“I think Hillary Clinton is the best person and the best prepared to
be Commander-in-Chief.” – Admiral William Owens

In the end, this is about who can beat John McCain in the general election. Clinton is the best positioned, especially when it comes to national security, to do just that.

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign just released a list of the flag officers who were on the call:



… .. They are among the nearly 30 general and flag officers who have endorsed
Hillary Clinton to be the Nation’s next President. Senator Clinton has
received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry
Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William
Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General
Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star
rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who
are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’
steering committees.

The list of those taking part in today’s call is below.

General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West
Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton

Read full story · Comments are closed

When Clinton, Politics and Culture Collide

By on 10 February 2008

I’m sure many will hate this photo. Ever the contrarian, I’m lovin’ it. I also just can’t stop laughing.

Mark Halperin, babe, you all are killing me. The first guy to go on “Charlie Rose” to challenge the crappy coverage of Clinton, Halperin has earned his way with me. His top ten that accompanies “Rambo Clinton” is spot on. The spirit of the post is pitch perfect. But the photo: priceless. The title of the post is right on: “10 Things Clinton Can Do to Survive February.” Toughen up is job one. Fabulous.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hillary Clinton for President

By on 05 February 2008

cross-posted at Huffington Post

It was the middle of primary season. Everyone was busy. But one morning an opportunity arose at an event I attended, when two women finally got the chance to meet. It’s on this
fine day that Hillary and I chatted, and I was able to size up the woman intending
to make history, as she sized up one of the many women who wanted to, against
all odds, help her do it. That’s correct, against all odds. As Gloria Steinem said so well: women are never frontrunners. I’ll just add, especially when they’re competing for commander in chief. As I left after meeting her that day all I could think
about was, Madame President had a nice ring and was long overdue.

This has been a journey for me. I didn’t start out in Clinton’s camp. Watching
the media eviscerate her for being a woman, being brilliant, being competent
and strong, being a Clinton, I started to get incensed at the hatred
I was witnessing, the unfairness too. I’ve read dozens of books and papers on
her, but I began watching more closely. Then I saw her in action. She blew everyone
else off the stage on substance. Barack Obama skipped the very first forum held in Carson City. The first health care debate Obama showed up, but wasn’t ready with
his health care plan and didn’t have any details to offer. Clinton showed up and laid it out, point by point,
Edwards too. This happened in event after event; then debate after debate. It
took Obama an entire year to catch up with her on debating the issues. That’s
as slow a learning curve as you’re going to find for the biggest job in the
world. No one noticed. In the last debate people started saying Barack Obama finally held his own. Finally being the operative word. Seeing a segment on
“Hannity & Colmes” last night, voters for Obama were asked by
Sean Hannity to name an accomplishment of Barack Obama’s. Frank Luntz went from
voter to voter to voter. No one could name one. Hannity was incredulous. But
you’re going to nominate him for president?

Personally speaking, we are facing an opportunity that is unlikely to happen
again in my lifetime. Well, maybe it will, but I don’t see any woman in the
wings waiting for a shot. It hasn’t happened in over 200 years, though that’s
hardly as important as the issues facing our country and who can solve them.
Women got jailed for wanting to vote, and were the last to get it; though no one has suffered voting discrimination more than African Americans, which has been even worse for AA females. Women got jailed
for wanting power over our own bodies. We fought to have rights separate from our husband. We’re still fighting for equal pay. I doubt we’ll ever get equal representation
on the cable shows! (Forget “Meet the Press.”) We’ve been daughters,
sisters, mothers, wives, single and now we can even be child free without stigma.
We’ve come a long way, baby. We can have it all. So why not the presidency?
We can’t do any worse than the men, though that’s not saying much considering
the jackass in power right now. But what a man can do with no experience and
a little flash, a woman of the same age cannot. Women need to work for years
and prove they’re ready for the job, while a man does not. Now, when one immensely qualified woman is ready to lead, we’re all being told that she’s not change enough. To some of us, regardless of race or even gender, she not only looks like change, but sounds like change, because she is the very embodiment of change. But that’s certainly
not the entire issue. We’ve finally been presented with a qualified woman
who is ready and who’s proven it. Elect a brilliant woman to do a job men have been doing
for two centuries in a country where women are the majority. The first woman ever to run this country. Change, baby.

In countries across the world, where women have a voice the country is stronger.
Can you imagine the potential for change, however small to start, in countries across
the Arab and Muslim world, Asia and beyond, with a woman president willing to
say “human rights are women’s rights”? We are at a moment in world
history where we have the opportunity to send a message to the world, and change
the dynamics with it in countries where violence breeds world instability, bringing danger to our very door. Women
can begin to change all that. By strengthening women’s voices, including in countries where they have none at all, we increase the
opportunity that countries will be put on a more positive footing, a more peaceful path. That’s not
just change for America, but change for the world. A girl can dream.

I can’t tell you in one post why Hillary Clinton would be the most revolutionary
change for America and also the world, but I can tell you that no one has her broad
base of experiences, knowledge and Democratic ideological passion. No candidate,
other than John McCain, understands the deep challenges we face in our strategic military placement, as well as in our Armed Forces structure. On foreign policy matters,
I think she understands the levels of engagement that need to be in place before
putting the prestige of the President of the United States and our country on
the line. I also think she’s less likely to make a rookie mistake that will cost us.
Her caution is comforting, because after what Bush has wrought we’re going to
need patience to rebuild what he’s destroyed. She’s going to immediately start
by rebuilding our diplomatic relationships through emissaries until she’s face
to face with leaders around the world who have pledged to deal with the new
U.S. President. She also won’t act on “actionable intelligence” alone, which has been costly in the past. Geopolitical engagement after Bush-Cheney won’t be like turning on a light switch. It will take relationship building, which starts on levels below the president if you want to construct something solid that can’t easily crumble with the world press watching.

It’s difficult to separate emotion from a vote like this. Hillary Clinton embodies
every fight I’ve ever waged. Every battle I’ve ever engaged. She is the embodiment
of hope for all women, as well as anyone looking for a better life, a fairer
break, young, old, poor and poorer. She’s got the passion and she’s got plans
to make them happen. She gives me hope for the future, because I believe she
actually knows what she’ll face if elected and walks in to meet the federal
bureaucracy. I won’t be crossing my fingers. I’ll be confident she can do it
and will also know how to pick others who can too.

There are so many intangibles when picking a president. I heard Michelle Obama
touting Barack Obama’s experience on Sunday in L.A., via C-SPAN. She was good
too. At one point she went into a riff about his years in the Illinois State
Senate saying, and I’m paraphrasing here, wouldn’t it be great to have a president
who has local experience and can understand what happens at the state level?
That’s a governor’s job.

Men have been leading this country for over two centuries. But more importantly, we need someone who has demonstrated depth of knowledge on a full range of issues, with the mental acuity to also deliver on promises made. Finally, at long last, after two centuries of waiting, this time out
that person is a woman. Her name is Hillary Clinton.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Veterans, Clinton and Those Men Who Won’t Vote for Her

By on 11 November 2007


On this Veterans Day I have a question for each of you. It’s simple really. What do you think you know about Hillary Clinton that distinguished veterans do not?

General Wesley Clark, Ret., a four star general and former Supreme Allied Commander,
NATO; as well as Major General Paul Eaton, Ret., Two Star General, commander
in Iraq; U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak, Veteran, Retired US Navy Admiral, commandor
of an aircraft carrier battle group, Afghanistan; Lt. General Claudia Kennedy,
Ret., three star general and the first woman in the U.S. Army to hold a three
star rank, and deputy chief of staff for intelligence; Mr. Bill White, President,
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund are just five veterans I respect beyond all manner
of doubt. These veterans all support Hillary Clinton, but wait until you read the list below.

There’s no doubt Clinton, Obama and Edwards, as well as the other Democratic candidates, have equal respect and commitment
to our veterans and active duty soldiers. That’s not in question. But Clinton has more military support than her husband ever gained as candidate
or president, though no one in her campaign will state that fact. Does this matter to you, especially those of you who don’t “trust” her or question her honesty? Should the opinion of these veterans, who have put their lives on the line and know what our troops are doing right now, matter? The list is impressive, whether
you’re willing to give Clinton the credit or not.

I challenge the men who won’t
vote for Clinton “no matter what,” (link added) as it’s said in the press, to check
their prejudices. What do they think they know (or you think you know)
better than these distinguished veterans?

Since Vietnam, Democrats have had a hard time gaining the respect of our soldiers
and veterans. In the last years, watching the incompetence of the Republicans,
that has changed dramatically. Competency is important and these veterans all
now back Hillary Clinton. I received the list via her press office:


New National Co-Chairs are:

General Wesley Clark, Ret., Four Star General, Supreme Allied
Commander, NATO

Lt. General Joseph Ballard, Ret., Three Star General, Chief
of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lt. General Robert Gard, Ret., Three Star General, President
Emeritus of the Monterey Institute for International Studies.

Lt. General Donald Kerrick, Ret., Three Star General, Deputy
National Security Advisor, Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff

Lt. General Frederick Vollrath, Ret., Three Star General,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters Department of the Army

Major General Roger Blunt, Ret., Two Star General, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Last Command: 97th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM),
Ft. Meade
Chairman, President, & CEO of Blunt Enterprises, LLC

Major General Edward L. Correa Jr., Ret., Two Star General,
Adjutant General of Hawaii

Major General Paul Eaton, Ret., Two Star General, Office
of Security Cooperation in Iraq, Commanding General

Rear Admiral Connie Mariano, MD, Ret., Two Star Rear Admiral,
Navy White House Physician for three Presidents

Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr., Ret., Two Star General,
Adjutant General California National Guard

Major General Robert Scales, Ret., Two Star General, President
and CEO of Walden University, Commandant of the United States Army War College,

Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, M.D., Ret., Two Star Coast Guard
Admiral, Past Director of Health and Safety of the Coast Guard

Rear Admiral David Stone, Ret., Two Star Rear Admiral, Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration
President & CEO, Alacrity Homeland Group

Brigadier General Michael Dunn, Ret., One Star General,
Clinical leader of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Interoperability
Project. Commanded the Walter Reed Health Care System in Washington, DC

Brigadier General Belisario Flores, Ret., Assistant Adjutant
General, Texas Air National Guard, Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat”
Foote, Ret., One Star General

Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr, Ret., One Star General,
Commanding General, Northern Area Command, California National Guard

Brigadier General Virgil Richard, Ret., One Star General,
Recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal

Brigadier General Preston Taylor, Ret., One Star General,
Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training

Brigadier General Dr. Jack Yeager, Ret., One Star General,
Assistant Adjutant General of West Virginia

Honorable Anthony Brown, Veteran, Maryland Lt. Governor,
Past member of the Maryland House of Delegates, Served with distinction
in Baghdad, Fallujah, Kirkuk and Basra, Iraq.

Honorable Harold Naughton, Massachusetts State House Representative,
Veteran, US Army Reserves, JAG, 8 months in Multinational Force Iraq

Honorable Steven Hobbs, Washington State Senator, Veteran,
Tours of duty in Iraq and Kosovo with the US Army and Army National Guard

Mr. Roscoe Brown, Veteran, Tuskegee Airman, WWII

Honorable Louis Caldera, Veteran, Secretary of the Army,
President of University of New Mexico

Honorable Edward Chow, Jr., Veteran, Past Vice President of Vietnam
Veterans of America, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Veterans Administration

Honorable Jimmy Dean, Veteran, Past National Commander of the American
Legion

Honorable Ron Dellums, Mayor of Oakland, CA, Former
Chair of the House Armed Services Committee

Honorable Herschel Gober, Veteran, Acting Secretary & Deputy
Secretary, Veterans Affairs

Honorable Steven Honigman, Veteran, Navy Retired, Former Naval General
Counsel (Iraq)

Mr. Thomas Keefe, Veteran, President of The Keefe Group,
Nationally known Veterans Advocate

Honorable Robert Jones, Veteran, Deputy Secretary of Defense for
POW/MIA Affairs

Honorable Robert Perreault, Director, Medical Administration, Department
of Veterans Affairs

Joseph “Jake” Simmons IV, Veteran, Commander,
White House Communications Agency

Honorable Todd Weiler, Veteran, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs

They Join Current National Co-Chairs:

U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, Veteran, World War II Combat
Veteran, Recipient: Medal of Honor

U.S. Congressman Charlie Rangel, Veteran, US Army, 1948-52

U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak, Veteran, Retired US Navy Admiral, Commanded
Aircraft Carrier Battle Group, Afghanistan

U.S. Congressman Ed Towns, Veteran, US Army, 1956-58

U.S. Congressman Jose Serrano, Veteran, US Army, 1964-66

U.S. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Veteran, US Navy 1956-59

Honorable Togo West, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Secretary of the Army, North Carolina Native

Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, Ret., Three Star General, First Woman
in the U.S. Army to Hold a Three Star Rank, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence

General George Buskirk, Ret., Adjutant General, Indiana
Army and Air National Guard,

Honorable Eleanor Glynn Kjellman, New Hampshire State House
Representative, Veteran, US Air Force Officer, Son served
in Iraq

Mr. Joe Wynn, Veteran, US Air Force, Viet Nam, Leader of the National
Association of Black Veterans, President, Vets Group

Mr. Bill White, President, Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund,
Nationally Known Veterans Advocate

Honestly, I’d like anyone who says they will not vote for Clinton for any reason
to explain what they know that the individuals above do not. Whether you are
for or against Clinton, no one can say that she isn’t respected and more importantly
trusted by many in the military; the list above being a beginning count of that support.

Democrats have gained ground in national security, foreign policy and military matters, because the facade of the Republicans being the “pro military party” has been unmasked through their incompetence, neglect of active duty and reserves, as well as the blatant disrespect revealed by Rush Limbaugh in that any soldier who doesn’t parrot the Republican party line will be swiftboated. No doubt Clinton,
Obama and Edwards, but also Joe Biden and others running in ’08, have the respect of our military, which
means the Democratic party has truly bridged the Vietnam gap, which now belongs
to Republicans through the Iraq war gap. The Republicans’ dereliction of duty on the hunt for bin Laden, as well as the unraveling of Afghanistan, the one righteous war we’ve fought in the last years, has now left us in a more precarious position than before the Iraq war. The collapse of Pakistan is part of their foreign policy and military incompetence, as Bush allowed A.Q. Khan to go unpunished and without U.S. interrogation in order to prop up General Musharraf, who is our ally on the one hand, but certainly not worthy of resting our entire terrorism policy on in lieu of an actual policy on Pakistan itself. Then there are the nukes. We haven’t even gotten to the lack of respect Republicans have for generals like Shinseki, to name just one, or the refusal of the Republicans to listen to our serving soldiers on the front line, and put the long term strength and priorities of American national security in front of saving their party’s ruined reputation on the altar of a surge in Iraq that is breaking our military further as you read this post.

All of this is something to think about as we honor our men and women, both veterans and serving,
and as we ponder the rescue of the U.S. Armed Forces, which has come under abject neglect under George W. Bush and the Republicans, and think about who the Democratic party leader for our veterans will be. Whether Clinton wins the nomination or not, earning
the respect of the soldiers above impresses me more than I can express. All of us should
be proud.

We’ve come a long way, baby; the Democratic party, that is.

So again, tell me what you, oh wise men and women who won’t vote for Hillary for any reason, know that the above distinguished veterans do not. Why do they trust her and are willing to place our soldiers’ lives in her hands, but you think she is not honest? What do you know that they do not?

Read full story · Comments are closed

JOE BIDEN: A New Approach to Pakistan

By on 08 November 2007

Expert Guest Post by presidential candidate Senator Joe
Biden

Today, I delivered a major foreign policy address to the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Manchester. The events of the last week serve as a reminder of what is at stake if we do not take immediate steps to change the way we interact with the world. On Tuesday, I wrote about my broad goals for a new policy towards Pakistan. Today, I want to explain my new approach to Pakistan in greater detail.

I’ve been saying for some time that Pakistan is the most complex country we deal with – and that a crisis was just waiting to happen. On Saturday night, it did.

President Musharraf staged a coup against his own government. He suspended the constitution, imposed de-facto martial law, postponed elections indefinitely, and arrested hundreds of lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists. He took these steps the day after Secretary Rice and the commander of all American
forces in the region appealed to Musharraf not to take them.

America has a huge stake in the outcome of this crisis – and in the path Pakistan follows in the months and years to come. Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority. But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections. If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah’s opponents did in Iran three decades ago.

But unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world’s second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than those of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined.

To prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality, I believe we need to do three things:

First, deal pro-actively with the current crisis.

Second, and for the longer term, move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed.

And third, help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success, and minimize the prospects for failure.

Resolving the Crisis

To help defuse the current political crisis, we must be far more pro-active, not reactive and make it clear to Pakistan that actions have consequences. President Bush’s first reaction was to call on President Musharraf to reverse course. Given the stakes, I thought it was important to actually call him – which is exactly what I did. I also spoke to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. President Musharraf and I had a very direct and detailed discussion. I told him how critical it is that elections go forward as planned in January, that he follow through on his commitment to take off his uniform, and that he restore the rule of law to Pakistan.

It was clear to me that President Musharraf understands the consequences for his country and for relations with the United States if he does not return Pakistan to the path of democracy. Now, President Bush finally got around to calling Musharraf yesterday. As a few of you may know, I’m running for President and I can tell you this: if I’m elected, I won’t wait five days to pick up the phone to delegate matters of this magnitude to my secretary of state or to my ambassador. There is too much at stake to leave this kind of conversation to others.

If President Musharraf does not restore his nation to the democratic path, U.S. military aid will be in great jeopardy. I would look hard at big-ticket weapons systems intended primarily to maintain the balance of power with India, not to combat the Taliban or Al Qaeda: hardware like F-16 jets and P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. President Musharraf doesn’t want this aid suspension – and neither does the military establishment whose support he needs. Nor can they afford for this crisis to undermine confidence in Pakistan’s economy, which has already taken a hard hit. So I believe there is incentive for cooler heads in Pakistan to prevail. But if they don’t and if President Bush does not act, Congress almost certainly will.

Building a New Relationship

Beyond the current crisis lurks a far deeper problem. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is largely transactional — and this transaction isn’t working for either party. From America’s perspective, we’ve spent billions of dollars on a bet that Pakistan’s government would take the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda while putting the country back on the path to democracy. It has done neither.

From Pakistan’s perspective, America is an unreliable ally that will abandon Pakistan the moment it’s convenient to do so, and whose support has done little more than bolster unrepresentative rulers.

It is time for a new approach.

We’ve got to move from a transactional relationship — the exchange of aid for services — to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nations. We’ve got to move from a policy concentrated on one man – President Musharraf – to a policy centered on an entire people… the people of Pakistan. Like any major policy shift, to gain long-term benefits we’ll have to shoulder short term costs. But given the stakes, those costs are worth it.

Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it’s our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We’re now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it’s not clear we’re getting our money’s worth. I’d spend more if we get better returns–and less if we don’t.

Third, help Pakistan enjoy a “democracy dividend.” The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion — above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid — again, above the guaranteed baseline — to Pakistan’s progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people’s lives.

This plan would fundamentally and positively shift the dynamic between the U.S. and Pakistan. Here’s how:

A drastic increase in non-security aid, guaranteed for a long period, would help persuade Pakistan’s people that America is an all-weather friend – and Pakistan’s leaders that America is a reliable ally. Pakistanis suspect our support is purely tactical. They point to the aid cut-off that followed the fall of the Soviet Union to our refusal to deliver or refund purchased jets in the 1990s and to our blossoming relationship with rival India. Many Pakistanis believe that the moment Osama bin Laden is gone, U.S. interest will go with him.

When U.S. aid makes a real difference in people’s lives, the results are powerful. In October 2005, after a devastating earthquake, American military helicopters delivering relief did far more to improve relations than any amount of arms sales or debt rescheduling. And the Mobile Army Surgery Hospital we left behind is a daily reminder that America cares.

To have a real impact on a nation of 165 million, we’ll have to raise our spending dramatically. A baseline of $1.5 billion annually, for a decade, is a reasonable place to start. That might sound like a lot – but it’s about what we spend every week in Iraq. Conditioning security aid– now about three-quarters of our package–would help push the Pakistani military to finally crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Aid to the Pakistani people should be unconditioned — that is, not subject to the ups and downs of a particular government in Islamabad or Washington. But aid to the Pakistani military and intelligence service should be closely conditioned — that is, carefully calibrated to results. Like it or not, the Pakistani security services will remain vital players – and our best shot at finding Bin Laden and shutting down the Taliban. Their performance has been decidedly mixed: we’ve caught more terrorists in Pakistan than in any other country– but $10 billion later, Pakistan remains the central base of Al Qaeda operations. We must strike a much better bargain.

A “democracy dividend” – additional assistance in the first year after democratic rule is restored — would empower Pakistan’s moderate mainstream. The Bush Administration’s Musharraf First policy was understandable — at first. Musharraf had broad support, and in the wake of 9/11 he seemed committed to
the fight against Al Qaeda. Six years later, the General is diverting his military, his police, and his intelligence assets from the fight against the terrorists to a crackdown on his political opponents.

The Pakistani people have moved on. Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to protest Musharraf’s unconstitutional rule– and hundreds have been killed or gravely injured in the process. The Democracy Dividend would help restore the moral currency this administration has squandered with empty rhetoric about democracy. And it would enable the secular, democratic, civilian political leaders to prove that they–more than the generals or the radical Islamists–can bring real improvement to the lives of their constituents.

Last, we’ve got to engage the Pakistani people directly, and address issues important to them, not just to us. On Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinians, Kashmir, Pakistanis want a respectful hearing. We owe them that at least that much.

Ask an ordinary Pakistani to list his top concerns about America and you may get answers unrelated to international grand strategy: our visa policy and textile quotas. Or she might raise Abu Ghraib and Gitmo or water-boarding and other forms of torture the Bush Administration still refuses to renounce. Pakistanis don’t
see these as mere “issues.” They see these things as a moral stain on the soul of our nation. In my judgment, so should we.

Creating the Conditions for Success

This new Pakistan policy cannot succeed in isolation. Conditions in the region and in the broader Muslim world – conditions that the United States can affect – will make a huge difference, for good or for bad. We’ve got to connect the dots – to be, as I suggested at the outset, smart as well as strong.

First, there’s what we should do. To increase the prospects that Pakistan will take the lead in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we should rededicate ourselves to a forgotten war: Afghanistan. When we shifted resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq, Musharraf concluded the Taliban would rebound, so he cut
a deal with them.

Redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan – not just with more troops but with the right kind and with a reconstruction effort that matches President Bush’s Marshall Plan rhetoric – would embolden Pakistan’s government to take a harder line on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Second, there’s what we should not do. Consider all this talk of war with Iran. It is totally counter-productive to achieving our ends in Iran but also in Pakistan. In Iran, it allows President Ahmadinejad to distract the Iranian people from the failures of his leadership and adds a huge security premium to the price
of oil, with the proceeds going from our consumers to Iran’s government. And in Pakistan and also Afghanistan, anything the fuels the sense of an American crusade against Islam puts moderates on the defensive and empowers extremists. It is hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.

History’s Verdict

History may describe today’s Pakistan as a repeat of 1979 Iran or 2001 Afghanistan. Or history may write a very different story: that of Pakistan as a stable, democratic, secular Muslim state. Which future unfolds will be strongly influenced–if not determined– by the actions of the United States.

I believe that Pakistan can be a bridge between the West and the global Islamic community. Most Pakistanis want a lasting friendship with America. They respect and admire our society. But they are mystified over what they see as our failure to live up to our ideals.

The current crisis in Pakistan is also an opportunity to start anew – to build a relationship between Pakistan and the United States upon which both our peoples can depend – and be proud.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Musharraf Hunkers Down

By on 03 November 2007

What exactly are we going to do about it?


The move appeared to be an effort by General Musharraf to reassert his fading
power in the face of growing opposition from the country's Supreme Court,
civilian political parties and hard-line Islamists. Pakistan's Supreme
Court was expected to rule within days on the legality of General Musharraf's
re-election last month as the country's president, which opposition
groups have said was improper.

The emergency declaration was in direct defiance of repeated calls this week
from senior American officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
not to do so. A day earlier, the senior American military commander in the
Middle East, Admiral William J. Fallon, told General Musharraf and his top
generals in a meeting here that declaring emergency rule would jeopardize
the extensive American financial support for the Pakistani military. … ..

… .. General Musharraf resorted to military power to gain the presidency
in October 1999 when he staged a bloodless coup, and Mr. Rizvi said this was
a return to those measures. “This is the first time Musharraf has brought
in military rule to sustain himself in power,” he said. “He felt
threatened by the Supreme Court.” … ..

Musharraf
Declares State of Emergency

Classic Rice: “I think it would be quite obvious that the United States
wouldn't be supportive of extra-constitutional means.” Okay
lady, it's your move. Expect radio silence.

This illuminates what Biden says in the video above and what we've been talking
about around here for a very long time. Iran isn't near the explosion that Pakistan
is. Which one has operational nuclear weapons right now? Which country
has a populace that is pro American? This is what comes from following a foreign
policy that is not in the United States best interest. We're in this mess because
Mr. Bush and his neocons believe remaking the Middle East and spreading democracy
would be good for everyone, including Israel, even if we make both of our countries
more vulnerable in the process.

Then there's the language coming out of the Senate about Iran, which begins with the Kyl-Lieberman legislation. As an aside, Larry Johnson said on my show this week that the legislation is irrelevant. So to Biden's point, Bush is going to do what he wants no matter what. Seasoned military and national security people are all over the map on its relevancy. But Larry also said that he's hearing that action on Iran will indeed happen within the next 8 months, though when I pressed him on where this talk originated he couldn't say because of making his sources vulnerable. Of course, then you've got Steve Clemons who believes Bush won't strike Iran. Meanwhile, Pakistan boils over.

This is no way for the world's super power to run our foreign policy. Calling
the realists, and step on it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton’s Iran Gambit

By on 26 October 2007


more at C&L



“Well, the Cheney element of the administration is well represented in the United States Senate.” – Senator James Webb

On “Hardball,” James Webb said he was about to try again with
his Iran bill, which now has Clinton as a co-sponsor. It couldn’t come soon
enough for Clinton. With Mr. Bush burning rhetoric on Iran, her Kyl-Lieberman
vote may yet turn into her biggest liability and vulnerability. Bush’s designation
of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a WMD proliferator, topped off with his
naming the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, is the hardest line
we’ve taken on Iran since Carter. The first time we’ve designated a military
force attached to a state as a supporter of terrorism. The Kyl-Lieberman legislation,
coupled with Bush’s latest moves, remind everyone of 2002 and how we got into Iraq, which is a place Clinton doesn’t want to be. Omens
are popping and it’s making people nervous.


“The president does not want to be stuck — and doesn’t want his successor
to be stuck — between two bad choices: living with an Iranian nuclear weapon
or using military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons,”
said Peter D. Feaver, who recently left a staff position on the National Security
Council. “He is looking for a viable third way, negotiations backed up
by carrots and sticks, that could resolve the Iranian nuclear file on his
watch or, failing that, offer a reasonable prospect of doing so on his successor’s
watch.”

Even so, the administration’s actions yesterday immediately rekindled fears
among Democrats and other countries that the administration is on a path toward
war. Bush’s charged rhetoric in recent months, including a warning that Iran
could trigger a “nuclear holocaust,” and his close consultations
with hard-liners — such as former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz — have
led many outside the White House to conclude that the president will order
airstrikes to eliminate any Iranian nuclear capability.

War with Iran is absolute madness, especially given our vulnerability in Iraq
and the strength of Iran’s nationalist population, not to mention the current state of our armed forces. But I’m not convinced Bush wouldn’t lob a cruise missile
or two if the situation turned sour. It always worries me when tensions are
high, language is careless, and troops and weapons are all poised near the fault
line. That the Senate is willing to offer up careless legislation that props up the president’s favorite pastime doesn’t engender much security.

Of course, Clinton is sure her vote was the right move. But with people like Webb, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Barack Obama lined up on the other side she doesn’t have much primary cover, especially as Bush sharpens his sabers. Wesley Clark is beloved in Iowa so that helps and he should be utilized at every opportunity. That Clinton was playing for the general election is the reality. As for
Obama, something I’ve been thinking about for quite a few days is the more I
picture Obama being in New Hampshire when the vote took place the less and less
I’m believing it was an accident or scheduling problems. It’s the best of both
worlds for him, especially looking out over the long run.

So if the status quo reigns on Iran through the next several months into the
primaries and nothing serious happens on Iran, Clinton won’t be harmed at all
by her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. But if anything serious develops or if tensions
continue to rise, with Iran taking center stage in the press, the primary gamble
Clinton made could backfire. If it starts to look like Iran is in Bush’s crosshairs,
anyone who voted to give him more battle space to ponder a move on Iran is going
to be hurt. On the other hand, if Clinton snags the nomination her vote on Kyl-Lieberman
will serve her very well in the general, which is their play. She’ll be seen
as strong, sending a message to Iran and their allies, as well as our friends,
including Israel, that she’s not afraid to do what’s necessary, portraying her
as a serious player in foreign policy who can stand down the bad guys and do
whatever it takes, even if it’s not popular with progressives. That’s Clinton’s gambit. With her
commanding lead nationally, the campaign is obviously hoping it solidifies perception
enough in Iowa that she’s going to win that more people move into her column to solidify her Iowa poll numbers even further. Everyone likes to vote for a winner. However, as Mike Lux writes, she’s
vulnerable on the second choice angle, which matters a lot in Iowa, something
Chase Martyn has talked about as well.


I e-mailed multiple folks on the Hillary campaign staff how they were doing
in terms of the second choice, and got radio silence back, which I’m pretty
sure is a bad sign.

That this would be the case makes logical sense to me. If you are for the
wildmen, Kucinich and Gravel, Hillary isn’t going to be your second choice.
If you get behind Dodd because of his strong stand on FISA, or Richardson
because of his strong stand on residual troops, Hillary’s probably not your
backup choice. And with most frontrunners, the people not with them are looking
for somebody else in general, and tend to coalesce behind whatever alternative
is still in the game.

Iowa
Caucus Report: Second Choice Politics

But the real danger for Clinton right now is that there’s quite a few weeks
until Thanksgiving, which gives Mr. Bush and his pal Dick Cheney plenty of opportunity
to talk tough on Iran, keeping the sabers rattling loudly, reminding people
again and again of how we got into Iraq, which isn’t what Clinton wants people thinking about. It’s clear Putin is happy to play his
part in this drama as well. Also don’t forget that Ahmadinejad
has Jalili now in place, replacing Khamenei’s man Larijani on the nuclear
front. The hardliners are headliners on both sides now.

James Webb’s legislation demanding Bush come to Congress before engaging in
war with Iran, with Clinton now as a co-sponsor, offers a huge opportunity and
cover for Clinton that could innoculate her from the nervousness her Kyl-Lieberman
vote has caused many.

In the end it all depends on George W. Bush and what plays out on Iran before
the primaries. Watch the Iran news and what rhetoric comes out of the White
House. People are sick of the Iraq war and they don’t want to hear talk of another. That Clinton may have inadvertently tied her fate to Mr. Bush’s wildly eratic militant mood swings is not a place I would want to be this far out. It’s a long time until January.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama’s Iran Problem

By on 22 October 2007

People are talking a lot today about Clinton’s Iran problem and the fact she’s
sent a
letter to Iowans explaining her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Now Sam
Stein at Huffington Post brings back a May 2007 interview Barack Obama did
with Haaretz. Frankly, I missed it and I read Haaretz regularly. This is quite
interesting, especially if you remember the exchange shown in the video above,
where Obama said he’d meet with Ahmadinejad and other leaders his first year,
without preconditions, but Clinton said she wouldn’t commit to such a meeting,
though she still intended to reach out through diplomatic efforts in other ways.
Stein on Obama:


This past July, Senator Barack Obama, D-IL, stirred up the campaign trail
by proclaiming that as commander-in-chief he would personally meet with Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions within his first year
in office. It is a position Obama has stuck to adamantly and one that his
campaign has emphasized as a critical foreign policy difference with his Democratic
rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

But in a little-noticed interview in May 2007 with the Israeli paper, Ha’aretz,
Obama advocated what appears to be a more conditional, nuanced approach to
Iran. In an exchange with reporter Shmuel Rosner, Obama said it would be inappropriate
to pursue “full-scale” diplomatic negotiations with Tehran without
seeing positive steps beforehand. … ..

Early
Obama Comments Indicate Shift On Iran

The blog post to which Stein refers above is by Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz.com’s chief
U.S. correspondent, quoting Obama, revealing a much different view on Iran than
we’ve been hearing lately. No preconditions in the CNN YouTube debate is very clear, but that’s not what
Obama was saying in May.


He is still in favor of talking to the Iranians, no pre-conditions attached,
but made some interesting statements clarifying his position in our conversation.

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges
are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama’s answer is
both yes and no: “Its important to have low-level talks” with Iran
even without them freezing the enrichment, he said.

However, high-level talks “will not be appropriate without some
sense of progress” on the enrichment issue. Obama said that the talks
with Iran initiated by the Bush administration over Iraq are a “step
in the right direction.” It will “establish a pattern of dialogue”
with Iran, Obama hopes. … ..

Obama
to Haaretz: More pressure on Iran urgently needed

What’s interesting, is that when I went back to his Senate race against Alan
Keyes, I found something even more alarming suggesting there is no
clear rationale behind Obama’s Iran philosophy or the policies that unfold from it.


U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United
States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and
Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

… .. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these
pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they
do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take
military action?” Obama asked. … ..

… .. “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems
in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching
some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,”
he said.

“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession
of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not
having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. …
And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how
this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
… ..

Obama
would consider missile strikes on Iran

I’ve contended all along that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that
Barack Obama would have voted against the Iraq war resolution had he been in
the Senate at the time. His statements slamming Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman vote, while not being around himself, is one thing, especially when he voted for similar status for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard himself. But the bold portions above was the state of play when he
was running against Alan Keyes and beating him very badly way back in 2004. Though Obama clearly
states missile strikes are not an “optimal position” to take, in the
same breath he states that we must be prepared to strike. It’s good to remember
that in 2004 we knew even less than we do today about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with our intelligence woefully lacking back them,
but that didn’t stop Mr. Obama from crafting his own version of “all options are
on the table,” with a little Cuban missile blink language added for emphasis.

However, when you take Obama’s statements on Iran in their entirety, even looking back to 2004, his statements are nothing short of alarming and indistinguishable from anyone else, Republican or Democrat. Obama’s conflicting statements on Iran don’t show a maturing attitude as much as political posturing as the moment dictates on one of the most vital issues we face today, with a carefully crafted
I’ll kick their butts message woven in. Clinton takes a hawkish position, with muscular diplomacy leading the one, but at least she’s consistent. I’m not sure what he’s actually
saying at this point, but it’s certainly no different than the usual political status quo we get from everyone else. It’s long past time his supporters started noticing.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Israel’s Preemptive Syrian Strike Redux

By on 13 October 2007

Last year’s Lebanese debacle for Olmert meant Israel felt it had to re-establish the country’s military prowess. Cue up the strike against Syria. The New York Times
has more today, including a source who admits to that fact.


Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site
that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed
nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create
its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials
with access to the intelligence reports. … ..

… .. Behind closed doors, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and other
hawkish members of the administration have made the case that the same intelligence
that prompted Israel to attack should lead the United States to reconsider
delicate negotiations with North Korea over ending its nuclear program, as
well as America’s diplomatic strategy toward Syria, which has been invited
to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., next month.

Mr. Cheney in particular, officials say, has also cited the indications that
North Korea aided Syria to question the Bush administration’s agreement
to supply the North with large amounts of fuel oil. During Mr. Bush’s
first term, Mr. Cheney was among the advocates of a strategy to squeeze the
North Korean government in hopes that it would collapse, and the administration
cut off oil shipments set up under an agreement between North Korea and the
Clinton administration, saying the North had cheated on that accord.

Analysts
Find Israel Struck a Nuclear Project Inside Syria

It’s all about Dick Cheney, battling the saner contingent that now also includes
SecDef Gates, who joins Condi. All this bluster because Olmert doesn’t know
what he’s doing. That sure rings a bell.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Ducks Vote then Attacks Clinton

By on 11 October 2007

Finally, a direct attack from Obama on Clinton. First, on torture, Obama swallows the Washington Post line even though that was demolished yesterday. Next, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, which is certainly fair game. Trouble is Mr. Obama has no standing to make it.


“I don’t think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment,
and it speaks to my judgment,” Obama said. “It speaks to how we
will make decisions going forward.”

“I think her judgment was flawed on this issue,” he said.

“This was a vote for war,” he added. “You can’t give this
president a blank check and be surprised when he cashes it.”

Obama:
Clinton vote on Iran shows ‘flawed’ judgment

You don’t get to criticize a Senate vote when you couldn’t be bothered to show
up to vote yourself. It also doesn’t help that you didn’t mention the vote during the Dartmouth debate either, even after Edwards slammed her on it.

–End post–

Well, I can’t actually end it here because this is something I’ve been talking
about since the vote happened. However, after I saw Mr. Obama’s op-ed today
in the Union Leader coupled with the story on CNN.com, forgive me if my where
the hell were you? alarm went off.


The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links
the ongoing war in Iraq — including our troop presence — to checking the
threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian
influence within Iraq. It then states that we have to “transition(s)
and structure” our “military presence in Iraq” to counter the
threat from Iran, and states that it is “a critical national interest
of the United States” to prevent the Iranian government from exerting
influence inside Iraq.

Why is this so dangerous? The Bush administration could use language like
this to justify a continued troop presence in Iraq as long as it perceives
a threat from Iran. Even worse, the Bush administration could use the language
in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war
in Iraq.

Sen.
Barack Obama: Five years after Iraq war vote, we’re still foolishly rattling
our sabers

Now a little quiz. Who said this?


“”If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense
to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no. … .. I am opposed to
military action in Iran … ..To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change
their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means,
that’s what my vote was all about. … .. (Defense Secretary Robert Gates)
was as clear as could be that there are no plans for that to happen.”

Senator
Dick Durbin who opposed the Iraq war, and is supporting Mr. Obama’s bid
for president, voted for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding sense of the Senate.

To be clear, I don’t think any of these people should be voting for this type
of sense of the Senate or what Obama supported as long as we’ve
got cowboy George in office, but a little perspective is in order after Obama’s
harangue this morning. This is especially true when Obama couldn’t be bothered
to show up for the vote himself.

What was he doing?

Campaigning.

Why didn’t he vote?

Allegedly because the vote wasn’t to be called.

Note to Mr. Obama: If there is any possibiliy of a vote happening in D.C. that could truly
differentiate you from your main competitor be prepared to get your sanctimonious rear
end back to Washington or better yet, don’t leave until you’re absolutely sure
it won’t be called up. Biden, Dodd and Clinton voted, so your excuse is just lame. Besides, ever heard of
a plane, sir?

It also took
him all day to release a statement on the vote.

I truly do want Obama to challenge Clinton and take it to her. I want to see
him fight. But it seems a bit spineless to attack someone for a vote you skipped
out on and didn’t bother to comment on from New Hampshire, where you were campaigning
for president. Can you imagine the press moment if immediately upon hearing
the vote had taken place Obama had come out and made a statement immediately?
Why didn’t he? Couldn’t this
statement have been given on camera wherever he was immediately after the
Kyl-Lieberman vote? Why did it take all day to get his press secretary to release
it? Come on, cable news channels would have jumped on this moment and Obama
would have had a big issue in his pocket.


Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However,
he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat
is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now
is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large
troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran – not weaken it. He believes
that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he
has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly,
he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote
today.

Again, I’m against this stuff, but I’m equally against taking credit for “judgment”
when you didn’t show up to stand up.

As for Obama’s claim that the legislation linked Iran and Iraq together, why
is this so shocking? Is he really so naive as to not know that the Maliki government
is already linked to Iran? Besides, he warned
of the link in a speech of his own. I’ve cut a couple of sentences out of
it which clearly illustrate Mr. Obama is as worried as anyone.


“Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to
hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player
in this region. … … (snip) … ..Make no mistake if the Iranians and Syrians
think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which
to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our
national interest to prevent this from happening.”

Then there’s that other nagging detail about Mr. Obama’s Senate performances.
He’s voted the exact same way with Hillary Clinton on Iraq throughout his tenure.
Exactly. But he’s got a
new web ad talking about it anyway. Never mind, just like Clinton (even Edwards, I’m sorry to say), Barack Obama could not pledge he’d have our troops out by 2013 either! Seeing a pattern yet? It also wasn’t Barack Obama who fought tooth and
nail to get resolutions to the Senate floor to end the Iraq war. The person
with those creds is Senator Russ Feingold.

Obama brings up something important today, however.


This is not a debate about 2002; it’s about the future, and in that debate
I can run on, and not from, my record.

Sen. Barack Obama:

I don’t agree with Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman. But she showed up, put
her vote down and was prepared to catch hell for it, which she has. Not for
nothin’ that Wes Clark and Joseph Wilson, two people with strong anti war bona
fides, including that Clark has his face plastered on StopIranWar.com, both back her up. As much as I hate the Kyl-Lieberman vote of Clinton’s, it’s hard to argue with these two men, as well as Dick Durbin who was always against the Iraq war. You may not agree with Clinton all the time, because I sure
don’t. But when she’s asked to put her name on the line she shows up and does
so, then is willing to take the heat. That’s character. I’m not sure what ducking
a critical vote then slamming your opponent much later on it says about Obama.

You’ll have to decide if these things matter or not.

Read full story · Comments are closed