Right below is a press release from Jim Webb with some excellent points about "the Global War on Terror" from Thursday, August 10.
I especially like how Jim Webb makes these three very clear and defining points:
1) Intimidation alone is NOT the answer:
"This fight cannot be won by simple intimidation."
2) There is a global war on terror, military options are on the table, and winning that war will make America more secure:
+óGé¼+ôThe war on terror is global and we must confront it wherever necessary, with the full array of military options available. Winning this war will make America more secure."
3) The invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the real war on terror that has hurt and not helped the war against international terror:
+óGé¼+ôBeginning more than a year before the invasion of Iraq, I consistently stated that the Administration's misguided effort to drag our country into an ill-advised occupation of Iraq would hurt, not help, in the war against international terror."
Below the Jim Webb press release is Jim Webb's excellent Washington Post article from September 4, 2002 titled "Heading for Trouble, Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?"
This is exactly the kind message and points that Democrats and Democratic candidates have to be able to connect to the voters with in order to counter the very powerful GOP smear machine and media in a post 9/11 world.
That will help Democratic candidates to win more races which will help Democrats to take back power in at least one branch of Congress to restore some kind of real accountability to a very irresponsible and extreme GOP leadership!
Bush and the extreme GOP leadership may be "strong" but they are also "WRONG" and their "strong" but "WRONG" policies are only making problems worse!
Please forward this on to help connect this message with as many voters as possible and so that people can see the real Jim Webb through George Allen's distortions of him!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securinga...
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program:
An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda which will help our local candidates to win their races!
http://securingameri...
Gen. Wes Clark's endorsement of Jim Webb against George Allen
--------------------
August 10, 2006
Jim's Statement on the Global War on Terror
+óGé¼+ôThe news of a terror plot uncovered and foiled in England today highlights the continuing need to stay committed and strong in our fight against global terrorism. This fight cannot be won by simple intimidation. America must continue to make funding and executing the war on terror a priority. British authorities should be commended for their excellent work in foiling this terrorist plot.
+óGé¼+ôThe war on terror is global and we must confront it wherever necessary, with the full array of military options available. Winning this war will make America more secure. A victory requires a mobile fighting force, one that is capable of responding to threats wherever they emerge. The occupation of Iraq keeps our military locked down in a civil war in the Middle East, and consumes resources that can better be used in the larger fight against global terrorism.
+óGé¼+ôAs recently as yesterday, George Allen conflated my long-held warnings against invading and occupying Iraq with being +óGé¼-£against +óGé¼-ª the war on terror.+óGé¼Gäó Mr. Allen knows full well that he is misrepresenting my views in order to protect himself politically from his blind support of the Bush Administration's failed strategy in Iraq.
+óGé¼+ôBeginning more than a year before the invasion of Iraq, I consistently stated that the Administration's misguided effort to drag our country into an ill-advised occupation of Iraq would hurt, not help, in the war against international terror. I am deeply disappointed that Mr. Allen is now so clearly and deliberately misrepresenting my views. He knows exactly how I felt about this because I personally explained my views to him in September 2002, five months before the Iraq invasion.
+óGé¼+ôAs the events of this morning demonstrate, the stakes in the war on terror are too high for people such as Mr. Allen to be using them as cheap political props.+óGé¼-¥
###
Paid for by Jim Webb for U.S. Senate
HOME | BIO | PRESS | CONTRIBUTE | GALLERY | CONTACT | PRIVACY
Paid for and authorized by Webb for Senate 2006.
Jim Webb for U.S. Senate, P.O. Box 17427, Arlington, VA 22216
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heading for Trouble
Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?
By James Webb
Wednesday, September 4, 2002; Page A21
Country music's most popular song this summer is a defiantly nationalistic tune by Toby Keith, in which he warns potential adversaries that if they mess with us, "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." Last week the Chinese government showed us its way. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had brought a conciliatory gesture from the Bush administration, agreeing to recognize a separatist group in China's Xinjiang province as a terrorist entity. This diplomatic contortion was so appeasing that the Economist magazine labeled its logic "astonishing." And yet the day after Armitage left, the Chinese government sent its own political signal by "test-firing" a DF-4 missile, which has a range of more than 4,000 miles and was designed to attack U.S. military bases on Guam.
The implied disrespect of this incident did not occur in a vacuum, either militarily or diplomatically. As our country remains obsessed with Saddam Hussein, other nations have begun positioning themselves for an American war with Iraq and, most important, for its aftermath. China, which has pursued a strategic axis with key Islamic nations for nearly 20 years, received the Iraqi foreign minister just after Armitage's departure, condemning in advance an American attack on that country. Russia has been assiduously courting -- both diplomatically and economically -- all three nations identified by President Bush as the "axis of evil." Iran -- the number one state sponsor of international terrorism, according to our own State Department -- has conducted at least four flight tests of the nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missile, whose range of 800 miles is enough to hit U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Central Asia.
Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center. Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns. Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism? On this second point, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the scope for potential anti-terrorist action included -- at a minimum -- Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.
America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. The greatest military victory of our time -- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations. With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences -- ask the Germans, who in World War I were convinced that they would defeat the French in exactly 42 days. The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world.
Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq's regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.
The connotations of "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" show how inapt the comparison is. Our occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for our arrival. Nor did MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he took over as proconsul after World War II. Instead, he was careful to work his changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan's imperial family. Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq's. The Japanese are a homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully cooperated with MacArthur's forces after having been ordered to do so by the emperor. The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.
In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.
Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy -- and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality -- it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan developed its nuclear capability with China's unrelenting assistance and that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.
These concerns, and others like them, are the reasons that many with long experience in U.S. national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake. It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.
The writer was assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration.