National Security

Posted By: Nick

 
Just 3 days ago I posted about Barack Obama’s Trouble with Iraq.  Things looked bad for Obama.  The decrease in violence in Iraq was quickly and effectively being framed by the McCain campaign as the direct result of the surge; Obama had strongly opposed the surge, and this outcome looked like it would start to hurt him.

But what a difference 3 days makes.  Suddenly the tables have turned and McCain is on the defensive about foreign policy.  First, the Bush Administration reversed its “no talks” position and is now holding talks with Iran.  The initial round hasn’t gone as well as we might like, but the change in policy has already been made.  The move severely undercut McCain’s argument that holding talks with Iran amounted to appeasement.

Second, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki told Der Speigel that U.S. troops should leave Iraq

as soon as possible as far as we’re concerned.  US 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.

Al-Maliki basically endorsed Obama’s Iraq plan. McCain’s argument that Obama doesn’t understand the situation on the ground has gone out the window.  Surely Al-Maliki understands the “situation on the ground.”

Finally, the last few days have shown a clear movement among the top military brass in favor of increased troops level in Afghanistan; Obama has been proposing this very same strategy for some time.  McCain’s response to Obama’s suggestion that we send two additional brigades to Afghanistan?  Send three additional brigades.

Looks like McCain and the Bush Administration are simply moving towards Obama on foreign policy.  In a year that so heavily favors the Democrats, Obama will win if he continues to lead the way on major issues like this.

Posted By: Nick

 
Fascinating read over at The New Republic.  Eli Lake writes that Obama’s foreign policy is likely to shape up to be more like Reagan than Carter.  The article highlights the fact that Richard Clarke and Rand Beers are senior advisors to the Obama Campaign and are likely to hold important posts in an Obama administration.  It also notes that:

Last November at a foreign policy forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama said there may be “40,000 hard-core jihadists with whom we can’t negotiate.” He went on. “Our job is to incapacitate them, to kill them.” In that spirit, he famously announced that he would strike terrorist bases in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf ever refuses to move on actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda–a threat that earned him the chastisement of John McCain, among others.

While that situation drew heavy criticism from many directions (including the anti-war base), I firmly believe Obama was right.  There’s no excuse for not protecting American national security interests.  If that means Pakistan gets pissed off, well, so be it.  We can’t sit around and wait for the next terrorist attack just because the Pakistani government isn’t cooperating.

Posted By: Nick

 
Barack Obama writes his plan for Iraq in today’s NYTimes.  I’m sure this is mostly in response to the criticism he recieved last week when he said he would visit Iraq and reevaluate after his trip.  I think it’s clear he meant he was open to tweeking his plan here and there as required based on the reality of the situation, but never fundamentally mean that his position of ending the war would change.  Of course his poor choice of words left him open to attack, so today he has clearly stated his position so as to avoid any confusion.

Here are some bits I especially like:

Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

But [the Bush/McCain plan] is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

I love it.  He’s saying exactly what we should be doing.  Get out of Iraq ASAP, and get more focused on Afghanistan.

Posted By: Nick

 
Little known fact: the United States is actually fighting TWO wars right now.  There’s the one we all know about, in Iraq, and then there’s this whole other war in a place called Afghanistan.  Amazing, huh?

Well, as it turns out, that other war isn’t going too well these days.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in Pakistan and are causing all sorts of headaches for everyone in the region.  The NYTimes thinks its about time that sodid something about this problem.

Both countries have a common and increasingly urgent interest in rolling back the power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and working together to promote democracy and development in Pakistan. President Bush needs to persuade Pakistan’s leaders of that — and he needs to do it now, before Al Qaeda and the Taliban get any stronger.

For 6 years Bush has not done this.  I’m sure nothing is going to change for his last 6 months in office.  Hopefully the next president will actually do something useful.

Posted By: Nick

 
So Politico has this story up about how the Democrats in the Senate are just about ready to capitulate on offshore drilling.  This is so incredibly stupid on so many levels and serves as a good example of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.  In my previous post I mentioned that we should cut Obama some slack for compromising here and there if it’ll get him elected.  I don’t want that to be confused with compromising EVERYWHERE and especially on issues like this that Democrats can win by taking the intelligent position.

Offshore drilling is bad policy:

The Environment: This is actually not the biggest reason that offshore drilling is dumb.  But it is a factor in the whole picture.  Oil spills are extremely harmful to the environment and very costly (both in terms of cleanup and in terms of lost tourism dollars for the affected areas).  While technology has improved and spills are less likely, the risk is still there, and the consequences are very harmful.  Oh, and don’t forget the whole global warming thing.  More oil means more warming.

Oil Prices: This is the big issue.  The argument is that if we increase the supply of oil (by drilling offshore), prices will go down.  Basic supply and demand.  Pretty simple logic right?  Except for the fact that drilling offshore will not lower oil prices.  Most estimates are that it will take anywhere from 10-20 years before any oil is coming in from new oil rigs.  In the meantime, we continue our current situation of ever-increasing oil prices.  Furthermore, the amount of oil that will be produced is such a minor increase in world supply that prices will barely change.  Basically it’ll save you a few cents/gallon for gas.  The whole issue is a Republican attempt to sell something that sounds great (More Oil!  Cheaper Gas!) to help their election chances.

Alternative (Green) Energy: Finally, increased oil production only serves to make us less likely to invest in alternative fuels.  None of us like paying $4/gallon for gas (it’s actually closer to $5/gallon here in CA), but the benefit of expensive oil is that it creates incentive to research and develop alternative energy sources.  If we drill offshore, drill in ANWR, convince OPEC to massively increase production, and somehow get oil prices back to a more reasonable level (not likely even if all of that occurs), then suddenly it’s not a good investment to spend money researching alternatives.  It merely prolongs our problem.

National Security: This is an issue that isn’t brought up as much as it should be.  Our military runs on oil.  Other than the nuclear reactors that power our submarines and aircraft carriers, pretty much anything else that moves, moves because of oil.  If oil runs out (or we can’t afford it), then we effectively have no military.  We need alternatives ASAP.  This is something that I would think both parties could understand and work to resolve, but few people are talking about it.

We need to break our addiction from oil and we need to do it now.  Drilling for oil offshore is not a solution, it’s a political stunt that will severely harm our nation in a number of ways.  Democrats need to take the lead on this issue; they need to explain why it’s bad policy, and then they need to offer a clear and intelligent energy plan as an alternative.  Democrats can win on this issue, but only if they have the courage to lead.

UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi does the right thing and strongly condemns Offshore Drilling.

“This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.”

Good to see someone in the Democratic Leadership taking the right position on this issue.  Too bad Harry Reid won’t do the same.