Jason Sigger
- : Alexandria, VA
- : 45
- : Independent
- : None
- : http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com
- :
-
I agree with Purple State, good summary of the situation. Unfortunately a foreign policy discussion is not going to happen during a primary, it's just not what brings voters into the booths. Just listen to the weak answers given during the exit interviews - "I just trusted him better, I think she does have experience..."
Save it for the general election and the debates between the parties. That's where, if anywhere, the time will come to strike at differences.
Posted at April 25, 2008 8:22 AM in response to Don't They Know There's a World Out There?
-
Matt - Kayne could be referring to the Reagan/Bush administrations' failure to stop the ATCC shipment of biological organisms to Iraq in the 1980s. In a sense, we "gave" Saddam a good standard for anthrax cultures, although it was intended more for vaccines than a BW program.
Posted at May 3, 2006 5:54 AM in response to The Gospel According to Kanye
-
Re: But, it defies logic, let alone history and law, to hold that the DoD has sufficient authority to take "the lead" (in the words of Admiral Timothy Keating, the head of Northcom) in the event of a really disastrous attack. I don't know what "the lead" means, nor do I suspect does most of the military.
That's an awfully flip statement to make. The military does indeed understand what "lead" means versus support. As you yourself note, DOD has historically resisted being the lead in any domestic situations. NORTHCOM is probably working out potential scenarios where the military would be called in, and I think he must have been solely referring to CBRN terrorism when he said "lead". Not that this excuses his statement, I don't think it's appropriate for DOD to "lead" in CBRN response either - that's DHS, DHHS, or EPA.
I think you confuse the situation by referring to OSD, NORTHCOM, and the military leadership equally with the term "DOD". That's a wide set of people - this is perhaps, at best, an overstretching by NORTHCOM, and OSD civilian leaders need to constrain those NORTHCOM planners since they're writing checks that OSD can't afford. Nonetheless, you are correct that we ought to be questioning the tone of the article, where there is no recognition that DHS should be leading and DOD should be supporting in all cases short of an invasion of the United States by a foreign power.
Posted at August 9, 2005 9:26 AM in response to That Useful Article 2
-
Justabill is absolutely correct. This White House and the Rethugs will continue to ignore, trash, and step all over the doormat called Democrats no matter what they do. Time to fight fire with fire - obstruct, delay, argue, fight every bill and every nomination. Beat them senseless. It's the only language they understand.
Bush "the uniter".... what a joke.Posted at August 1, 2005 10:33 AM in response to Roberts not Bad Enough?
-
Excellent elaboration on "let's talk about Iraq." You have a great point that, prior to discussing military strategy, we need to identify the political strategy. Increasing the internationalization of the effort in economic and political areas in addition to military support is an absolute must.
Posted at June 16, 2005 6:04 AM in response to Iraq isn't a partisan issue; it's a national security issue
-
The Informationist is right on target. Both Friedman and the Brookings Institution offer much more credible options than "stay the course." That's the Bush administration answer, and it's clearly not working, as rising casualties and continued instability show.
We should double the amount of troops in theater, with the identified target that this is a short-term exercise with an " all troops out of Iraq" date of 10/06. The troops are ready, and if we kept this exercise limited to a year, it is executable. What this strategy entails though is the troubling issue of dealing with other "hot spots" in the world - clearly this force cannot handle two major conflicts at once.
What would they do? Clamp down on loose ammunition and guns, protect critical infrastructure, and accelerate the training of Iraqi troops. Create an environment by which the social and political structures within Iraq can stabilize, at least temporarily. Then plan for an orderly withdrawal, while providing adequate security for those forces in theater. This is an executable strategy and allows for the US govt to at least retain its dignity and declare success at the risk of letting the Iraqi govt decide its own fate in the near term.Posted at June 16, 2005 5:29 AM in response to OK, Let's Talk About Iraq
-
I think you're either understating or ignoring the differences between the PSI and the NPT. The former is a counterproliferation act used against those smuggling WMD materials, and the latter is a nonproliferation act used to discourage such actions from even taking place. Not to lecture, but the NPT is an international treaty that requires buy-in from all signatories to move forward. There's the IAEA to inspect and validate the honesty of the participants, but only if the country being inspected wants to.
Now the PSI is a more active, US-led (the rest of you countries just fall in line) initiative to forcefully board and seize WMD materials. No question as to the might-makes-right rule here, and although it might be stated that it follows international law and treaties, I think there is some question as to whether that is really true in both cases of sovereign states and international waters/air. Do not make the mistake of thinking the PSI reflects anything but the Bush administration's "National Strategy to Combat WMDs" - in short, screw the treaties, don't trust anyone, and act before thinking. Use of force is authorized.
And Bush administration rediscovering the "art of diplomacy?" Yeah, and I'll bet John Bolton's got a real good answer for you in that regard...
Posted at May 31, 2005 10:25 AM in response to Diplomacy 101
