Iran and Such

Rumors of an impending invasion of Iran are a wild overstatement of what the administration is considering. These rumors stem from a New Yorker article written by Seymour Hersh, who broke the Abu Ghraib story, that US special operations teams were scouting Iran looking for targets for a potential air strike should negotiations with the EU to close a nuclear power plant collapse. The simple truth is that we do not have the means to occupy a nation with nearly three times the land mass and population as Iraq.

In columns I wrote nearly a year ago I supported such air strikes against Iran. I argued that nations with significant military threats and minimal means of defense have no reason to negotiate away their only deterrence, weapons of mass destruction. Negotiating away even small percentages of our overwhelmingly redundant and oftentimes obsolete array of nuclear weapons can take years to complete even when the tradeoff has been fewer nuclear weapons aimed against us. Consequently, the only way you could take care of proliferation threats is to attack them in their nascent stages, the way Israel attacked Saddam’s Osirak nuclear complex in 1981.

The reason I am more reluctant today to support such a direct attack on Iran’s nuclear facility is because Iran is much more of a position to retaliate than Iraq was in 2003 or Iran was in the same year, when the degree of the nuclear threat became more lucid. Launching a military strike on Iran would be a declaration of war which would be fought both in our own cities and in Iraq. Iran holds many of the cards in Iraq and would no doubt go out of its way to provide the weapons, cash, and intelligence to insurgents. The Shi’ite city of Basra would quickly become the next Fallujah, conveniently blocking major access to the rest of Iraq from logistical bases in Kuwait.

A bigger danger is Hezbollah, the “Party of God” that was founded by the Iranians to spread the Islamic Revolution. Deputy of State Richard Armitage has been quoted as saying that it might well be that al Qaeda is the “B-team” of terrorism and Hezbollah is the “A-team.” They were in large part responsible for America’s withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980’s, killing 241 Marines in their barracks in 1983. The consequences would be devastating were Hezbollah deployed in America.

We must approach this delicate situation with the respect that it deserves. We must abandon our view that only America and its allies have the right to a nuclear defense, though we should act vigilantly to stop proliferation. We must realize that the more we threaten, the more likely nations will want to deter. We must also accept the danger we will be putting ourselves into should we choose to launch air strikes against Iran.

Rumors of Budget Cuts

The rumors of a possible decommissioning of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67) have spread like a nightclub fire through Jacksonville, carrying with it fears that Mayport will go the way of NAS Cecil Field. In a deft political response, Congressman Crenshaw and Senators Martinez and Neilson are drafting legislation making it illegal for the Navy to carry any less than the current number of carriers: twelve. Though aircraft carriers are a vital part of our nation’s defense, having twelve is an arbitrary number set to insure the careers of military brass, defense contractors, and a few congressmen.

President Eisenhower warned us in the 50’s of the military-industrial complex, which is the triad of power between congressmen, the military, and defense industry giants who build the hardware. On one side of the triangle stand the generals and Pentagon brass whose careers follow the success or failure of individual weapon systems. On another side of the triad are the industries that make the weapons and reap in the profits. Finally there are the Congressmen who have jobs created in their districts through the design, production, and basing of all this hardware who often receive direct bribes in the form of campaign donations to solidify support. The obvious problem that arises is there are incentives throughout the entire process to over-order equipment and build extravagant machines with unproven technologies almost solely because of their expense.

The brass at Mayport don’t want the Kennedy retired because it will likely cost them their careers, the congressmen have to fight keep the 3000+ sailors and support staff in town, and the myriad of companies responsible for keeping the 37 year old ship in service another two decades don’t want to loose the business. But who in authority is asking the real questions. Do we need 12 aircraft carriers in an age where we have unquestionable air and naval supremacy wherever we sail? If one carrier were to go, shouldn’t it be the one that requires the largest logistical network (the Kennedy is the only aircraft carrier in US Navy that needs to be refueled at sea during extended tours, the rest are nuclear powered)?

With war comes loss. Along with the nearly 20,000 troops who have lost life or limb in Iraq, we need to start making budgets that reflect the reality of the costs of Iraq. Almost half of Congress’s discretionary spending goes to the military, so it’s the obvious first place to look for waste – and it’s everywhere. We have an anti-ballistic missile system that can’t even hit the easiest of targets and can be easily decoyed, a 90-ship nuclear attack submarine fleet that can be outfoxed by diesel sub a tenth the cost, a two decade program to make hybrid helicopter-airplane that’s met with nothing but blood and failure, and a dozen aircraft carriers built to sink a fleet that’s rusting away in Russian ports. It seems there’s plenty of room for cuts to pay appropriate salaries, buy appropriate armor for troops in field, and make the sacrifices necessary to make victory in Iraq a possibility without breaking the bank.

Keep Your Chins Up Dems

Keep Your Chins Up Dems’

So we lost the election, I lost a $20 bet and my self-worth as an amateur poll-reader, and Fallujah was leveled in the victory celebrations. The victory wasn’t as sound as Republicans want you to believe though. There was no mandate, in fact Bush won with the smallest margin of any incumbent since Woodrow Wilson. The simply truth is half of the American voters wanted Bush the hell out of office. The Democrats have a moral obligation to not let the Republicans walk over them in Washington like they did in the lead-up to the Iraq war. We’ll probably lose most legislative battles until at least 2006, but we need to put up a hell of a fight until then and start looking for good candidates to sell to the American public.

Reframing debates will be an important tool in rallying the public behind our fights. We need to fight like hell to keep judges off the bench who will overturn Roe vs. Wade. In doing so, we need to reframe the abortion argument in libertarian and not feminist language. Though the latter is an important point, it doesn’t resonate as well as fighting to keep government out of doctor’s offices. Furthermore, we need to make absolutely clear that pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I think Kerry carried this point well during the election, but I’m not sure the point has solidified. We need to win over those who disagree with abortion, but also disagree with government intrusion into a very difficult decision that ought to be made by families, not Washington politicians.

We also need to fight like hell to keep taxes progressive. There’s been rumor floating Washington that Bush wants to rewrite US tax law with either a national sales tax or flat tax. Though it is universally agreed that we need tax reform in the country (for instance: Goodyear, Texaco, or nor Ryder paid taxes during the boom years of the late 90’s), but those two options would become tax cuts from hell. Wherein now tax rates are bracketed such that the rich pay progressively more than those making less, the result of a federal income tax would place a greater proportional burden of paying taxes on those who have the least. These would be the tax cuts from hell.

Democrats also need to stand strong and build a clearer defense policy than “see, I told you so.” America must stand up against all threats, but we also must use proportional force and use it wisely and in a manner that compliments our strengths. Democrats should build and sell a defense policy most Americans can agree with – using our military to strike terrorists wherever they hide, which does not necessitate invasion. Occupations must be an absolute last resort, being that they dive into our biggest military weakness, but also one that is not shirked when necessary.

Keep your chins up, Democrats. We’ve got the numbers to win elections and we’re on the right side of the issues. We just need to find a sellable candidate who can reframe the issues on the table in our favor, someone whose moral backbone stands in stark contrast to those who sell out the American people to the highest bidder.

Open Letter to Jimmy Johnson on the Election

Jimmy,

I think this election was about the relative strength of the Republican Party in picking the right candidates, hammering the right poll-tested themes, and fighting with gloves off against every Democrat that stands in the way. It wasn't really about the popularity of their ideas. Here in Florida, all we saw about Betty Castor on TV was her face Photoshop-ed to wrap around the red letters “TAX” and some less than subtle suggestions that she supports Palestinian Islamic Jihad by not firing a professor at the first rumor that his favorite charity might be funneling some money to Palestinian militants (she instead waited for the FBI to confirm that the charity was a cover). Republicans made low punches from the get-go on favorable issues using a Cuban candidate.

I think the exit polls reflect that Americans didn't vote on policy. 20% of those dissatisfied with Bush’s job performance voted for him, as did 20% of those whose financial lots worsened over the past four years. 17% of those who've lost their jobs and over 10% of those who thought the tax cuts were a bad idea voted for Bush. A third of those who want government to help solve their problems voted for Bush, as did almost 70% of those who think that abortion should be fully or mostly legal. 19% of people who are angry and dissatisfied with bush voted for Bush. Even a quarter of gays voted for Bush.

I wouldn't take Bush's election as a mandate by any stretch. Had the newly-registered and largely Democratic youth shown up to vote like many were expecting (perhaps just hoping) we would have won. Had the GOP not gone on a voter suppression/intimidation offensive against minorities and had the same blacks not been convinced there votes would be thrown out again, I think we'd be looking at a different election result. The senate seats that were taken were largely anachronistically held anyway. Just as a Republican like Arlen Specter still holds Pennsylvania (55%+ Kerry), moderates like Daschle were still holding on to places like South Dakota (like 60%+ Bush).

Democrats needed someone with Dean’s spine and energy but with Kerry's intellect and tact. Instead we just got Kerry's intellect and tact. Kerry would have been the perfect candidate 40 years ago when eloquent yet verbose speeches were expected, but his style deeply contrasted with Bush's public good 'ole boy/straight shooter style that most people respond positively too. The simple fact is that Kerry does have deep values - he just shamefully and unsuccessfully dodged them to appeal to what his advisors told him were the moderates. People saw right through it. That 56% of the electorate thought that Kerry was only telling them what they wanted to hear speaks volumes as to why Bush won.

We lost the game, but our team still made an exceptionally strong showing considering Bush’s approval ratings just three years ago. It’s time to fire some coaches, let in some new blood, and put some leaders in the spotlight. Democrats need a few stars like Giuliani and McCain to put a public face on policy, combined with a political powerhouse like Trent Lott to push legislation internally, and a Karl Rove to manage elections. This election was won and lost because of the people involved, not the policy.

I hope you're enjoying Germany,
- James “Trey” Menefee

PS - I took some time writing this, so I'm turning it into an open letter and putting it on Treyopia.com. Thanks for asking me such a broad question :-)

>From: "James R. Johnson"
>To:
>Subject: Yo
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:43:43 +0100
>
>So Trey,
>
> What do you think? Thoughts on the race?
>
>
>
>Have fun in the US,
>
>
>
>Jimmy
>