Democrats Join the National Security Debate Again -- Hilarity Ensues

[pcs]

Funny note. This only made A-5 at the Chronicle.

 

Dems' election manifesto -- a detailed security plan

Highlights: Inspect every shipping container at U.S. ports' date=' nationwide disaster network

 

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, March 30, 2006

 

Washington -- Congressional Democrats, trying to shed the label of being soft on national security that has bedeviled them since the 2001 terrorist attacks, produced an election year plan Wednesday they said would make America safer against terrorism and natural disasters and disengage the military from Iraq.

[/quote']

 

More here.

[Sisyphus]

So there's little difference between the two parties' plans, and yet they call each other dangerous and incompetent. Neat.

 

Now what about these specific suggestions?

 

Inspecting every cargo container:

I don't have enough info to know whether this is feasible. I've heard critics say it would slow down the process unacceptably, which seems reasonable, considering we only inspect something like 1% now. Then again, all the complaints seem to assume we wouldn't make any changes to the infrastructure, which isn't realistic. The system is only designed to inspect a few containers, so of course its going to take forever if we do it the same way. But would assemblyline-like inspections really be impossible to implement? Expensive to set up, surely, but then, it is kind of a gaping hole in our national security.

 

Ensuring emergency services communication:

This seems like a no-brainer. Of course they should. Of course, Homeland Security is supposed to coordinate this stuff, but so far that particular enormous bureaucracy seems a little slow on the draw. I'm not sure why the commission's recommendations haven't been implemented, since nobody seems to be criticizing them.

 

Not allowing foreigners to run ports:

Eh. I don't really that as a problem, and trying to implement it would likely cause more problems than it solves. I mean, the Coast Guard is supposed to handle security, anyway, right? And where are these American companies supposed to magically come from? I think this is just an overreaction to what seemed like a sneaky deal but turned out not to be.

 

Withdrawing troops:

This isn't any different from what Bush proposes, as far as I can tell. A vague withdrawal at some vague point in the future. Certainly the Administration messed up, but I haven't seen any real difference in plans on what to do now. Unless their argument is simply that decisions shouldn't be made by those who seem to view the war as a cowboy fantasy (and who are beholden to war profiteers), in which case they may have a point.

 

Supporting the military better:

This is the "state of the art" part and the improved GI Bill of Rights part. This is, at least in that short article, very vague. However, I'm assuming they're referring to stuff like the infamous armor shortage. Better equipping the military would, like everything the military does, be extremely expensive to the taxpayers. Of course, quagmires are expensive, as well, and it's not clear to me that the Republicans have learned from their mistakes in that area.

[pcs]

So there's little difference between the two parties' plans, and yet they call each other dangerous and incompetent. Neat.

 

1. Plans and planning concern operational considerations. NSS and 'Real Security' (at the risk of abusively stretching the term where it concerns the latter) care grand strategies. Even then, 'Real Security' consists of a laundry list of criticisms about the Administration's tone and obscure, and almost utterly false, characterizations of certain legislative activities.

 

2. There is a difference between the two grand strategies. Democrats can't even coherently articulate what they've ripped off from NSS.

 

3. Democrats are dangerous and incompetent. It took them four years to articulate the broadstrokes of the Administration's national security strategy, and when they finally did the only thing they could agree on is that Osama bin Laden should be eliminated, the Iraq war should end sometime (preferably in 2006), and we should have more fuel efficient tires.

 

Inspecting every cargo container:

I don't have enough info to know whether this is feasible.

 

I'm not sure many Democrats can count. This seems to support my hypothesis.

 

Supporting the military better:

This is the "state of the art" part and the improved GI Bill of Rights part. This is, at least in that short article, very vague. However, I'm assuming they're referring to stuff like the infamous armor shortage.

 

This tells us one thing. Democrats have no intention of heeding the Pentagon when it comes to procurement. That is why there's a crapload of body armor just collecting dust in Iraq.

 

Better equipping the military would, like everything the military does, be extremely expensive to the taxpayers.

 

And what do you know of the military's needs? What does anyone on your side know of them?

 

Of course, quagmires are expensive, as well, and it's not clear to me that the Republicans have learned from their mistakes in that area.

 

No they haven't. We haven't figured out a way to entirely shut out the Democrats from the policy arena. Get rid of'em, no more quagmire.

[Sisyphus]

Ah, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Talk about not learning from mistakes.

[pcs]

Ah, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

I'm not sufficiently generous to return the favor.

 

Talk about not learning from mistakes.

 

I know. Unfortunately, in a free country parties like Democracy are permitted to assemble and petition the government.

[Jim]

3. Democrats are dangerous and incompetent. It took them four years to articulate the broadstrokes of the Administration's national security strategy' date=' and when they finally did the only thing they could agree on is that Osama bin Laden should be eliminated, the Iraq war should end sometime (preferably in 2006), and we should have more fuel efficient tires.

[/quote']

 

Not to mention that the democrats just nominated a candidate for president who's commitment to Gulf War I was doubtful.

Mr. President, I do not believe our Nation is prepared for war. But I am absolutely convinced our Nation does not believe that war is necessary. Nevertheless, this body may vote momentarily to permit it.

 

When I returned from Vietnam, I wrote then I was willing personally, in the future, to fight and possibly die for my country. But I said then it must be when the Nation as a whole has decided that there is a real threat and that the Nation as a whole has decided that we all must go.

 

I do not believe this test has been met. There is no consensus in America for war and, therefore, the Congress should not vote to authorize war.

 

Let's all pause for a minute to imagine an alternate reality where Saddam still sat astride the reserves of both Iraq and Kuwait. Oh yes, I forgot. Kerry was going to negotiate Saddam out of Kuwait and he had a "plan" for Iraq today. Er... right.