10/15/10

Campaign events this week highlighted again how little thought conservatives are devoting to national security, including the two wars our nation is fighting - and how dangerously extreme and ill-informed they can be.  From Sharron Angle's ludicrous proposal to privatize the Department of Veterans Affairs to Christine O'Donnell's confusion between Iraq and Afghanistan, the Tea Party candidates seem to subscribe to Rand Paul's comment that foreign policy "is a complete non-issue" - a shocking commentary in wartime.  When the issue does come up, conservatives find themselves split between polar extremes: neoconservative interventionism and extreme isolationism.  As Pat Buchanan described it, it's the "Tea Party vs. War Party."  This weekend there are more debates, including the Kentucky debate with Tea Party icon Rand Paul.  Candidates should be questioned more closely on where they would take our military and our role in the world. 

Ahead of debates, Tea Party candidates should be questioned on their colleagues' comments this week:

Christine O'Donnell, Delaware's Republican nominee for the Senate, confused her talking points while trying to offer an Afghanistan critique:  "Well, I would ask him, if he's serious about making sure that Afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven for terrorists, why, on the campaign trail, he has said that he supports this random time withdrawal?...When we withdraw from Iraq, we need to make sure that there are benchmarks in place..."  Chris Coons responded by saying, "She said withdraw from Iraq. I suspect you meant withdraw from Afghanistan." Flustered, O'Donnell answered, "No. From Afghanistan. Did I say Iraq? I'm sorry. Thank you, Chris. You're correct. I meant Afghanistan." [Delaware Senate Debate, 10/13/10]

Sharron Angle, Nevada's Republican nominee for the Senate, failed to explain how she would square her repeated calls to eliminate the Department of Veterans Affairs with the need to support the troops:  "Well I don't have the access to special security briefings like the Senator does, and I didn't get to vote for either one of those wars like the Senator did. But I do know this: that we need to support our military with all of our resources, not only our military in service right now, but those veterans and their families as well. That's one of those priorities in the enumerated powers of our Constitution. We should be setting our priorities on our military."  Angle did not explain how she planned to support our troops when she eliminated the VA. [Sharron Angle, Las Vegas Sun, 10/14/10]

John Raese, West Virginia's Republican nominee for the Senate, wants to put 1,000 lasers "in the sky" (a plan administrations of both parties have rejected as infeasible) to defend against Iran and "Ahmed-dina-dingo." "If there is a rogue missile aimed at our country, we have 33 minutes to figure out what we're going to do," Raese said at an event sponsored by the League of American Voters. "We are sitting with the only technology in the world that works and it's laser technology. We need 1000 laser systems put in the sky and we need it right now. That is [of] paramount importance."  Raese said the system would cost $20 billion. [MSNBC, 10/13/10]

Ilario Pantano, North Carolina Republican Congressional candidate, warned the Danger Room's Noah Shachtman of the dangers he associated with China's moon program, its satellite-blinding lasers, and its potential to use Cuba as a launching point for an attack equal to "1,000 Pearl Harbors."  "I would offer to you that the only existential threat to the United States today is in the form of China," Pantano said. "Folks, one day we're going to be in a fight with an enemy using [an] EMP [gadget-frying electro-magnetic pulse] and we better remember how to use a compass. We better remember how to use smoke. We better remember how to engage the enemy the old-fashioned way because one day we may lose our strong technical advantage. We certainly found that out as we fought primitives, whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan." [Danger Room, 10/13/10]

This weekend, Tea Party Senate candidates Rand Paul and Ken Buck will debate their opponents. Hard questions need to be asked about whether these candidates continue to support their past extreme positions -- as well as whether it matters if candidates for our nation's highest deliberative body have a position at all.

Afghanistan. In an interview with the National Review, Rand Paul said that, as he campaigns, he's "not thinking about Afghanistan; foreign policy is really a complete non-issue." [National Review, 7/14/10]

Privatizing the VA. During an interview in June, Ken Buck agreed with Sharron Angle and advocated for privatizing the Department of Veterans Affairs. "Would a veterans administration hospital that is run by the private sector be better run than by the public sector?" Buck asked. "In my view, yes." [Ken Buck via the Denver Post, 9/24/10]

Guantanamo Bay. In May 2009, Rand Paul suggested a plan for dealing with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, "If you're not going to convict them and you can't convict them and you're unclear, drop them back off in Afghanistan; it'll take them a while to get back over here." He later flip-flopped from that unserious position to arguing to keep Guantanamo Bay open, against the advice of serious national security leaders. [Washington Post, 5/24/10. Rand Paul Campaign Site, 2010]

Military Strike on Iran. A local newspaper writes that, "As for Iran, Buck said it should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. ‘And we should take appropriate action if necessary,' he added, a reference to a possible military strike" - a move that America's national security and military experts agree is would be disastrous. [Ken Buck, via the Pueblo Chieftain, 10/8/10. NSN 10/1/10]

"Tea Party vs. War Party": no ideas on national security.  These candidates' positions on national security demonstrate the divide within the Tea Party and the greater conservative movement.  New York Times correspondent Peter Baker writes in Foreign Policy Magazine that the Tea Party movement itself - which has captured so much of conservative energy this year - specifically ignores national security:  "The question for the movement is whether it can maintain its own uneasy coalition. And for now, at least, that means steadfastly ignoring foreign-policy declarations of any sort. When nearly half a million Tea Party supporters voted online to define their campaign agenda, not a single one of the 10 planks they agreed on had anything to do with the world beyond America's borders."   But the broader conservative movement has little to offer either.  The conservative "Pledge to America" released last month by House conservatives outlining their legislative priorities fails to address the wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism, energy security and other key national security issues we face.   Max Bergmann, a national security analyst at the Center for American Progress, wrote about the "Pledge" that, "The fact that more than half the points are devoted to keeping people out of America, indicates that the GOP House leadership simply doesn't know how it wants to engage the world.  All the ‘pledge" tells us therefore, is that the House GOP will support war in perpetuity and that it has no concrete ideas about what America's foreign policy should be."  When the issue does come up, conservatives resort to the polar extremes: neoconservative interventionism and extreme isolationism.  As Pat Buchanan described it, it's the "Tea Party vs. War Party."  [Max Bergman, Wonk Room, 9/23/10. Peter Baker, Foreign Policy, 10/10. Washington Times, 10/4/10. Pat Buchanan, 10/1/10]

What We're Reading

The Pentagon announced that it will comply with a court order to stop enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, even as the Obama administration asked a federal judge to delay implementation of the ruling.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates voiced concern about planned military spending cuts in Britain and other European countries, saying the cash-strapped U.S. might have to pick up the slack.

The yuan hit its highest value against the dollar since its landmark revaluation in July 2005 ahead of the publication of a report by the U.S. Treasury Department on trade partners' currency practices.

Airstrikes on Taliban insurgents have risen sharply over the past four months, the latest piece in what appears to be a coordinated effort by American commanders to bleed the insurgency and pressure its leaders to negotiate an end to the war.

South Korea and the United States kicked off a joint air force training exercise to increase interoperability among the airmen of the two allies.

North Sudanese leaders said it was impossible to hold a referendum on the future of the country's disputed, oil-rich Abyei region on time and that the poll could be delayed or the issue settled without a vote.

Israel ended an unofficial construction freeze in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, announcing plans to build 238 housing units.

The international embarrassment that India suffered in the run-up to the Commonwealth Games - marred by massive cost overruns, a collapsed bridge and widespread corruption allegations -raised internal questioning about India's superpower ambitions.

While the Saudis have had some stability-protecting successes, there are straws in the wind to suggest importers of Saudi and Arab Peninsula oil shouldn't take stability for granted.

Commentary of the Day

Victor Cha argues that we shouldn't hold out hope that Kim Jong Eun will bring about substantive reforms in North Korea.

Vladislav Inozemtsev believes that Russia is not ready by international standards to be considered a developed nation.

Raja Menon and Lalit Mansingh think there is an opportunity to build an India-Pakistan peace structure.