Hoosier Candidates Lack Crucial Understanding of Global War on Terror
Maureen Groppe’s interesting article in the Indianapolis Star on October 30th, “Voters Steer Conversation Toward Iraq” at gun-shy candidates really struck a chord. In essence, it demonstrates that Hoosiers are keenly interested in what we should do in Iraq and in the global war on terror, and she cites specific questions posed to candidates—but no very specific answers. This implies that our candidates do not know how to respond to the issues in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the world.
The article quotes John Pitney, a former Republican aide on Capitol Hill who teaches at Claremont-McKenna College in California: “Historically, long and inconclusive wars have been bad for the party in power. If it weren't for the Iraq war, we wouldn't be talking about the impending Republican loss of the majority."
For this reason, our candidates ought to have had much better responses.
Regardless of whether Baron Hill believes he "was lied to" by the Bush administration and subsequently voted for the war, the question is where do we go from here? Representative Hill is correct when he states that we should give the Iraqi government a timeline for taking control and then base our withdrawal timetable on that.
Mike Sodrel’s a bit off the mark when he asks “...if America shows we have no resolve, that we're not willing to stick it out until victory is achieved, what kind of signal does that send to other tyrants of the world?"
That signal has already been delivered to our enemies loud and clear over the last 30 years and they have responded with escalating violence. The enemy already knows that if they hit us for long enough, we will eventually get frustrated and go home. We cannot continue that flawed strategy and we cannot continue the Bush Administration’s current strategy of massed firepower and attrition.
No modern insurgency has ever been defeated in either of these ways.
It is a “cop out“ for John Hostettler to decline to offer an alternative on how quickly US troops should leave because he’s not the president and “…congress does not get to make this decision.”
Now is the time for our true leaders to speak up and offer alternatives.
I personally contacted Representative Hostettler (among many other Senators and Congressman) and offered to assist him in understanding the nature of the war on terror and what the US could do to manage it better. His response to me was to reiterate that he did not vote for the war, that he believes national defense is a crucial role for Congress, and that he respects and thanks our service men and women. He never responded directly to my offer.
Brad Ellsworth suggests pressuring the Iraqi government but without a “…public timetable." This is a fallacy since a timetable with reasonable milestones is exactly what would make a plan understandable and manageable. How can anyone apply realistic pressure if there are no time bound deliverables? The current debacle in Iraq is exactly the result of the lack of such comprehensive planning.
Ellsworth also states that the issue is too complex and takes “…more than 30 seconds to talk about that and fully explain it."
That is simply incorrect. Do any of our candidates have a workable alternative on their websites? Are they even asking for guidance from subject matter experts?
It is time for our leaders to start putting ideas on the table…not just complaints. If the President cannot develop a plan that works, then it is exactly up to members of the Senate and Congress to try to offer alternatives, and anyone wishing to replace them ought to have some idea of what needs to be done.
If not them, who else?
The article quotes John Pitney, a former Republican aide on Capitol Hill who teaches at Claremont-McKenna College in California: “Historically, long and inconclusive wars have been bad for the party in power. If it weren't for the Iraq war, we wouldn't be talking about the impending Republican loss of the majority."
For this reason, our candidates ought to have had much better responses.
Regardless of whether Baron Hill believes he "was lied to" by the Bush administration and subsequently voted for the war, the question is where do we go from here? Representative Hill is correct when he states that we should give the Iraqi government a timeline for taking control and then base our withdrawal timetable on that.
Mike Sodrel’s a bit off the mark when he asks “...if America shows we have no resolve, that we're not willing to stick it out until victory is achieved, what kind of signal does that send to other tyrants of the world?"
That signal has already been delivered to our enemies loud and clear over the last 30 years and they have responded with escalating violence. The enemy already knows that if they hit us for long enough, we will eventually get frustrated and go home. We cannot continue that flawed strategy and we cannot continue the Bush Administration’s current strategy of massed firepower and attrition.
No modern insurgency has ever been defeated in either of these ways.
It is a “cop out“ for John Hostettler to decline to offer an alternative on how quickly US troops should leave because he’s not the president and “…congress does not get to make this decision.”
Now is the time for our true leaders to speak up and offer alternatives.
I personally contacted Representative Hostettler (among many other Senators and Congressman) and offered to assist him in understanding the nature of the war on terror and what the US could do to manage it better. His response to me was to reiterate that he did not vote for the war, that he believes national defense is a crucial role for Congress, and that he respects and thanks our service men and women. He never responded directly to my offer.
Brad Ellsworth suggests pressuring the Iraqi government but without a “…public timetable." This is a fallacy since a timetable with reasonable milestones is exactly what would make a plan understandable and manageable. How can anyone apply realistic pressure if there are no time bound deliverables? The current debacle in Iraq is exactly the result of the lack of such comprehensive planning.
Ellsworth also states that the issue is too complex and takes “…more than 30 seconds to talk about that and fully explain it."
That is simply incorrect. Do any of our candidates have a workable alternative on their websites? Are they even asking for guidance from subject matter experts?
It is time for our leaders to start putting ideas on the table…not just complaints. If the President cannot develop a plan that works, then it is exactly up to members of the Senate and Congress to try to offer alternatives, and anyone wishing to replace them ought to have some idea of what needs to be done.
If not them, who else?
2 Comments:
WinTheGWOT.org is based in the US "Heartland" very near to Indianapolis, hence the focus of this particular commentary on Hoosier candidates.
That is too bad they pulled the ripcord essentially and bailed out on giving you a real answer of any kind.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home