Republicans Strong on National Security?
TOM MAERTENS
It’s been repeated so often that it’s now accepted as true: Republicans are strong on national security. Even the Bush administration believes it, despite their record.
But look at the facts.
In pursuit of its preemptive strategy to establish U.S. dominance everywhere, the Bush administration has gotten us bogged down in Iraq on phony pretenses and created more terrorists than it has eliminated. In the words of Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism, "We are not killing them faster than they are being created." How is it strong on security if your policies lead to a greater terrorist threat?
The U.S. involvement in Iraq has damaged our military and wasted resources. The U.S. military is stretched so badly that, as Gen. Barry McCaffrey expressed it, the wheels are coming off.
The administration has obligated in the neighborhood of $450 billion for the direct costs of the war, but the total costs, according to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, will be between $1 and $2 trillion, once the veterans’ benefits, the costs of reconstruction, the interest expense, and rebuilding the military are factored in.
Because the Bush administration is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire, they have been paralyzed in the face of North Korea's openly defiant nuclear-weapons development and Iran's continued nuclear-weapons program.
At the same time, the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. The Taliban are resurgent in the Pashtun areas, and the drug traffic is as high as it has ever been. According to the U.N., Afghanistan now provides 78% of the world’s opium supply.
So what does strong on security mean? Strong on energy security? The Bush administration’s policy for five years has been “drill everywhere” including the ANWR. But when the U.S. has only 6% of the world’s reserves and uses 40% of the world’s petroleum, that is a futile strategy. By most analysts’ reckoning, increasing the car mileage requirement, the CAFÉ standard, by just one mile per gallon would save more oil than is contained in the ANWR. But conservation is contrary to the administration’s plan to continue subsidizing big oil with handouts, tax breaks and depletion allowances.
Our long-term national security is far more dependent on a healthy economy than on fighting Iraqi insurgents. We face, by some accounts, almost $45 trillion in unfunded obligations.
Instead of preparing to meet these predictable expenditures and pay for his war in Iraq, Bush has overseen a tripling of the growth rate of government spending. Instead, he has slashed government revenue with his tax-cuts for the wealthy, while running up huge budget and trade deficits, just like a banana republic. Is that “strong on national security?” Three trillion in new debt in five years?
Perhaps we have improved our strategic position in the world because we have strengthened alliances? Get serious. Our position in the world, and our standing among allies has never been so low.
Islamic terrorism won't begin to recede until we end our military occupation of Iraq, mediate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and help the central government in Kabul establish control over Afghan territory. We are currently going backward in all three areas, and losing the drug war in Afghanistan to boot.
More than four years after 9/11, the grim reality is that we are not safer from terrorist attack; American troops are being wounded and killed in record numbers in a misguided war; we are more isolated internationally than we have ever been; and our long-term national security is being undermined by Bush's reckless, wrongheaded economic policies.
So what is it that people are talking about when they say Republicans are strong on security?
It’s been repeated so often that it’s now accepted as true: Republicans are strong on national security. Even the Bush administration believes it, despite their record.
But look at the facts.
In pursuit of its preemptive strategy to establish U.S. dominance everywhere, the Bush administration has gotten us bogged down in Iraq on phony pretenses and created more terrorists than it has eliminated. In the words of Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism, "We are not killing them faster than they are being created." How is it strong on security if your policies lead to a greater terrorist threat?
The U.S. involvement in Iraq has damaged our military and wasted resources. The U.S. military is stretched so badly that, as Gen. Barry McCaffrey expressed it, the wheels are coming off.
The administration has obligated in the neighborhood of $450 billion for the direct costs of the war, but the total costs, according to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, will be between $1 and $2 trillion, once the veterans’ benefits, the costs of reconstruction, the interest expense, and rebuilding the military are factored in.
Because the Bush administration is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire, they have been paralyzed in the face of North Korea's openly defiant nuclear-weapons development and Iran's continued nuclear-weapons program.
At the same time, the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. The Taliban are resurgent in the Pashtun areas, and the drug traffic is as high as it has ever been. According to the U.N., Afghanistan now provides 78% of the world’s opium supply.
So what does strong on security mean? Strong on energy security? The Bush administration’s policy for five years has been “drill everywhere” including the ANWR. But when the U.S. has only 6% of the world’s reserves and uses 40% of the world’s petroleum, that is a futile strategy. By most analysts’ reckoning, increasing the car mileage requirement, the CAFÉ standard, by just one mile per gallon would save more oil than is contained in the ANWR. But conservation is contrary to the administration’s plan to continue subsidizing big oil with handouts, tax breaks and depletion allowances.
Our long-term national security is far more dependent on a healthy economy than on fighting Iraqi insurgents. We face, by some accounts, almost $45 trillion in unfunded obligations.
Instead of preparing to meet these predictable expenditures and pay for his war in Iraq, Bush has overseen a tripling of the growth rate of government spending. Instead, he has slashed government revenue with his tax-cuts for the wealthy, while running up huge budget and trade deficits, just like a banana republic. Is that “strong on national security?” Three trillion in new debt in five years?
Perhaps we have improved our strategic position in the world because we have strengthened alliances? Get serious. Our position in the world, and our standing among allies has never been so low.
Islamic terrorism won't begin to recede until we end our military occupation of Iraq, mediate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and help the central government in Kabul establish control over Afghan territory. We are currently going backward in all three areas, and losing the drug war in Afghanistan to boot.
More than four years after 9/11, the grim reality is that we are not safer from terrorist attack; American troops are being wounded and killed in record numbers in a misguided war; we are more isolated internationally than we have ever been; and our long-term national security is being undermined by Bush's reckless, wrongheaded economic policies.
So what is it that people are talking about when they say Republicans are strong on security?
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Great post. I think you hit on it especially how that the Republicans' weakness on national security has also exposed their graves inconsistencies and contradictions in their domestic policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home