For John, BLUF: It is nice to see a politician admit that mistakes may have been made. Nothing to see here; just move along.
At Real Clear Politics we have this dialogue between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Talk Show Host Laura Ingraham. The title is "Gingrich: Republican Party Needs A Debate On National Security".
NEWT GINGRICH: The Republican Party needs a debate on national security. The strategy we've followed over the last 10 years did not work. In the end, Iraq is a disaster, Iran is stronger than it was a decade ago. The fact is that Afghanistan's going to turn out to be a disaster. Pakistan is in greater danger than it was 10 years ago. If you look at the number of prison breaks in the last 30 days: In Libya, over a thousand people. In Iraq, two major prisons, over 500 people. In Pakistan, I think over 350 people. These are all al-Qaeda operatives, and I think anybody who doesn't believe this has consequences is very foolish. Nobody in our party's had the courage to say—and Rand Paul's come the closest, I think partially because of his father's background, but partially because he doesn't have an emotional investment in the old order. Republicans have a real obligation to ask themselves the question, aren't there some pretty painful lessons to learn from the last 10 or 12 years? Don't we have to confront the reality that this didn't work as a strategy? Which is not to say that Obama's right, and it's not to say that Rand Paul is right.And on it goes...LAURA INGRAHAM: What about Bush's participation in all this? I mean, Bush's last term brought us Obama and a country who is vehemently opposed to obviously staying in Afghanistan. The polls are devastating, as you know on that. And most people think we lost the war in Iraq today.
GINGRICH: I think when I said the last 10 or 12 years I included Bush. And that's why nobody wants to have this discussion. Look, I'm a conservative, I am generally speaking a hawk, I was for the two campaigns.
INGRAHAM: I was too.
GINGRICH: I have to look back and say the way that they were executed failed, and maybe we should have known better, those of us who supported them. I am disheartened by some people who have refused to learn anything and who run around pretending that we can somehow continue to pour resources in when it's clear the country won't sustain it.
Yes, we need this discussion, nation-wide. With regard to National Security, we do need to get back to defining what needs to be secured, and what needs to be secured to secure what is vital to us. Today the Panama Canal is not as vital to our interests as it once was. While we don't want it falling into the wrong hands, I would suggest it is not as vital a waterway to us as it once was. Maybe the widened version will be again, in the future.
On the other hand, since Leo Carrillo talked to my Junior High School, back in 1957, about the importance of Latin America to the United States, we have been basically ignoring it. Would now be a good time to change? I think so. With our "Pivot" to Asia what ARE we going to do about the Near and Middle East?
And, I hope we are going to be having a discussion on the policy principles regarding how we secure our vital interests.
I think it is good that Newt actually raised this issue.
Regards — Cliff
2 comments:
Nobody in the Federal state wants the great unwashed to engage in that conversation....and it won't happen except in isolated instances of talk shows. National security as it currently exists and is codified works just fine for the Federal state and their financial supporters.
Nothing will change....or even have a chance to do so.....until the fetid swamp known as Washington DC and the entire Federal structure is swept clean and replaced. It is not just the POTUS or the Congress...or even the czars or other political operatives over on K street. It is the "professional" clingons such as Lois Lerner who must be severed from their occupation.....and replaced.
The boys and girls in DC, that "Town" may not wish for our participation, but it is our sons and daughters (grandsons and granddaughters) who will pay if things go off the track.
I offer up Syria as an example. While Ambassador Nominee Samantha Power may wish to intervene in Syria, it could be a risky move, given that both Iran and Russia (not to mention China) seem to back the existing Gov't over the rebels. Heaven forfend that we get a 1914 like situation where a small spark ignites a much larger war.
Didn't someone once say that war is too important to be left to the politicians?
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment