On the Issues - Foreign Policy/Iraq

We're back again, took a couple days off to visit the local county fair which offered an opporunity to visit local political party booths at the fair, or so I thought. I'll never forget runing around with El Tom in our younger days arguing and debating the various groups...not so anymore. There were the Republican Men of Jackson County, the Republican Women of Jackson County and the Democrats of Jackson County. Nobody was interested and nobody seemed to know the issues...which is why I feel it is imperative to continue this blog today...

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, Foreign Policy/Iraq:

This is a contentious issue, read at your own risk!

Candidate 1: It is time to reemphasize the word "defense" in national defense. By maintaining a military presence in more than 130 nations around the world in more than 700 installations, with hundreds of thousands of troops deployed overseas, the U.S. spends more to protect the soil of other nations than our own. Bringing these soldiers home would better protect America while saving lives and money.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq were two separate mistakes, which collectively have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Every day that the occupation in Iraq continues without a withdrawal plan is a day that more American blood and treasure (some $400 million a day) is needlessly wasted.

Candidate 2: As a member of the Committee, he has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, he has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

Before the war in Iraq ever started, he said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, he said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. Since then, he has laid out a plan on the way forward in Iraq that has largely been affirmed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Candidate 3: Believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.


My Take: Candidate 1 defines his "foreign policy" in terms of "national defense" which makes me wonder about trade and other items of foreign policy. Based on his previous comments though, i'd bet he welcomes free trade between nations and open lines of communication.Candidate 1 goes on to say we need to bring troops home, a familiar line, but he throws a twist by bringing in the 130 nations we are involved in. Imagine what the United States would do if Russia, Germany, France, and Japan showed up tommorow to setup military installations in America....just imagine it I have no further comment there....

On the Iraq war, Candidate 1 takes the same basic position calling for a "withdrawl plan" citing excessive human and fiscal costs. He refers to the occupation and invasion as "mistakes"...ok...

Candidate 2's opinion on foreign policy is that it has something to do with the genocide in Darfur...i'm not well educated about what is happening there, but genocide certainly isn't a good thing. I'll come right back to this...there's not much else there other than the normal tooting of his horn and repetitive mention of his name.

Candidate 2's opinion on Iraq seems to be "I'm Right and You're Wrong doo dah doo dah" or something like that. 2 is extremely desperate to prove how smart and special he is, member of this and friend of that. He doesn't do very well with predicting undetermined cost, length and consequences...thats the nature of the future its typicaly all undetermined. Thats neither a good thing nor a bad thing. My big point of contention here is Sadaam Hussein posed no risk to the US. Some would say 19 young men with simple razor blades posed no risk to the US, and they did and they were terribly wrong. I'm not privileged enough to have access to Top Secret intelligence (disappointing I know) but those who do (several in the legislature) voted Yea to the war in Iraq, someone thought there was a threat. The question that lingers in my head, based on this mans statement here is how much of a threat does the genocide in Darfur pose to America?

Candidate 3 continues making me proud to be an American, claiming (once again) our Moral high ground in the world. I realize that patriotism and American pride have become no-no's in todays society, but I don't subscribe to those beliefs. I am extremely proud to live under the stars and stripes and I do have a deep seated belief in our innate morality (at the base of who we are). That being said 3 says when the job is done we can come home...or perhaps we screwed it up and we owe it to them to fix it? He'd never say that out loud though.

Interestingly 3 left out any foreign policy information on his website.

The Bottom Line: This one goes to Candidate 3 for one reason, his belief that we as American's must do the right thing as we see fit. Yes, the War in Iraq was a mistake, yes the cost in lives and cash is extreme AND tragic, and yes we certainly can't be there for 100 years (blah blah blah). All of that said this man understands that we need to make the best of the bad situation. If we come home tommorow and Iraq falls back to where it was then those 10's of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars were all in vain. I'm here to see this thing through to its right and moral close. Candidate 1 is close and I like that he wants to get us out of other countries. We demand respect for our soverignty and yet give none, which is absurd and simply must stop. Candidate 2...well hes on a committee and wants to send the US Military to Darfur (I think)....

Candidate 1: Bring everyone home in the interest of homeland security.
Candidate 2: Out of Iraq and into Darfur, oh and i'm really Speshal!
Candidate 3: We screwed up, let me try to fix it.