Re: BIDEN: "2008 and the Stakes for America's Security"
- From: Douglas Eagleson <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 15, 12:54 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/Georgetown_Speech.pdf
BIDEN: "2008 and the Stakes for America's Security"
Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
delivered a speech entitled, "2008 and the Stakes for America's
Security" today at Georgetown University's
Gaston Hall.
The speech, as prepared for delivery, is below.
I want to thank a few people for making this event possible: President
Jack Degioia, Dean Bob Gallucci,
Vice President of Federal Relations Scott Flemming, the College
Democrats and their President Adam
Feiler, and the Georgetown Lecture Fund.
When people say "this is the most important election in my lifetime,"
they're right.
So much is at stake.
The physical security of our children. The retirement security of our
parents. The economic and health
security of our families.
And, above all else, the national security of our country, which is a
President's first responsibility.
I start from a simple premise: we cannot afford another four years of
Republican stewardship of our
nation's security.
After eight years of the Bush Administration, our country is less
secure and more isolated than it has
been at any time in recent history. This administration has dug
America into a very deep hole - with
very few friends to help us climb out.
* * *
It doesn't have to be this way. The next President will have an
awesome responsibility - but also the
greatest opportunity since FDR - to change the direction of our
country... and the world.
It starts with a much clearer understanding of how the world has
changed over the past two decades. As
Yeats wrote in "Easter 1916," our world has "changed utterly, a
terrible beauty has been born."
The emergence of China and India as major economic powers. The
resurgence of Russia floating on a
sea of oil. A unifying Europe. The spread of dangerous weapons and
lethal diseases. The shortage of
secure sources of energy, water and even food. The impact of climate
change. Rising wealth and
persistent poverty. A technological revolution that sends people,
ideas and money hurtling around the
planet at ever faster speeds. The challenge to nation states from
ethnic and sectarian strife. The struggle
between modernity and extremism.
That's a short list of the forces shaping the 21st century. No one
country can control these forces, but
more than any other country, we have an ability to affect them - if we
use the totality of our strength.
Our military might and economic resources are necessary but not
sufficient to lead us into this new
century. It is our ideas and ideals that will allow us to exert the
kind of leadership that persuades others
to follow and to deal effectively with these forces of change.
Over the next few months, I'll speak in detail about how Democrats
will exert that kind of leadership.
For today, I want to concentrate on this administration. It has
squandered our ability to shape this new
world. It has put virtually all of these issues on the back burner,
failing to devote the intellectual capital
and constant effort they require. It has destroyed faith in America's
judgment. And it has devalued
America's moral leadership in the world.
Instead, this administration has focused to the point of obsession on
the so-called "war on terrorism" and
produced a one-size-fits-all doctrine of military preemption and
regime change ill suited to the
challenges we face.
It has made fear the main driver of our foreign policy. It has turned
a deadly serious but manageable
threat - a small number of radical groups that hate America - into a
ten-foot tall existential monster that
dictates nearly every move we make.
Even if you look at the world through this administration's distorted
lens, you see a failed policy.
This failure flows from a dangerous combination of ideology and
incompetence and a profound
confusion about whom we're fighting.
It starts with the very language the President has tried to impose:
"the global war on terror." That is
simply wrong. Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different
groups and countries are using it
toward very different goals. If we can't even identify the enemy or
describe the war we're fighting, it's
difficult to see how we will win.
The most urgent threat is the intersection of the world's most radical
groups - like Al Qaeda - with the
world's most lethal weapons.
But we also must confront groups that use terror not to target us
directly, but to advance their own
nationalistic causes. We must deal with outlaw states that support
them and otherwise flout the rules.
We must face a civil war in Iraq, a renewed war for Afghanistan, and
an ideological war for the future of
Pakistan. We must help resolve a historic conflict between Arabs and
Israelis.
And we must contend with Iran, especially its efforts to acquire the
capacity to build a nuclear weapon.
This administration spent five years fixated on changing the Iranian
regime. No one likes the regime,
but think about the logic: renounce the bomb - and when you do, we're
still going to take you down.
The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile
material and is closer now to the bomb
than when Bush took office.
Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should
make it very clear to Iran
what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a
dangerous nuclear program but also what it
stands to gain if it does the right thing.
That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and
China, on the same page as we
ratchet up pressure. But is also means doing much more to reach out to
Iran - including through direct
talks - to exploit cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran's
rulers and its people, who are
struggling economically and stifled politically. The Iranian people
need to know that their government,
not the United States, is choosing confrontation over cooperation.
Saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It forces
Iranians who despise the regime to
rally behind their leaders and spurs instability in the Middle East,
which adds to the price of oil, with the
proceeds going right into Tehran's pockets. The worst nightmare for a
regime that thrives on isolation
and tension is an America ready, willing and able to engage. It's
amazing how little faith this
administration has in the power of America's ideas and ideals.
All these fronts throughout the Middle East and South Asia are
connected. But this administration has
wrongly conflated them under one label, and argued that success on one
front ensures victory on the
others. It has lumped together, as a single threat, extremist groups
and states more at odds with each
other than with us. It has picked the wrong fights at the wrong time,
failing to finish a war of necessity
in Afghanistan before starting a war of choice in Iraq.
The result is that, to quote the findings of the most recent National
Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist
Threat: "Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West... [it has]
regenerated... and remains
determined to attack us at home."
Of course, we must destroy Al Qaeda.
But instead of rolling back the threat it poses, this administration's
approach has helped produce a global
breakout of extremism, which now threatens more people in more places
than it did before 9-11.
So even on its own terms, the national security strategy of this
administration has been a failure. We
cannot afford four more years.
* * *
Last month, a man I greatly admire and consider a friend, Senator John
McCain, set out his vision for
our foreign policy.
To his credit, John repudiates some of the Bush administration's
approach to the world. He recognizes
that the power of our example is as important as the example of our
power... that allies we respect, not
disdain, can advance our interests. He is especially eloquent about
his abhorrence for war - as John is
uniquely placed to be.
But John McCain remains wedded to the Bush Administration's myopic
view of a world defined by
terrorism. He would continue to allow a tiny minority to set the
agenda for the overwhelming majority.
It is time for a total change in Washington's world view. That will
require more than a great soldier. It
will require a wise leader.
Nowhere is this truer than in Iraq. The war dominates our national
life. It stands like a boulder in the
road between us and the credibility we need to lead in the world and
the flexibility we require to meet
our challenges at home.
When it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John McCain and
George W. Bush. They are joined
at the hip.
When it comes to Iraq, there will be no change with a McCain
administration... and so there is a real
and profound choice for Americans in November.
* * *
Like President Bush, Senator McCain likes to talk about the dire
consequences of drawing down our
forces in Iraq.
He argues that Iraq is the meeting point for two of the greatest
threats to America: Al Qaeda and Iran.
It's an argument laden with irony. After all, who opened Iraq's door
to Al Qaeda and Iran? The Bush
administration.
"Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy: it wasn't there
before the war, but it is there now. As
to Iran, its influence in Iraq went from zero to sixty when we toppled
Saddam's Sunni regime and gave
Shi'ite religious parties inspired and nurtured by Iran a path to
power.
No matter how we got to this point, President Bush and Senator McCain
argue that if we start to leave, it
will further empower Al Qaeda and Iran.
I believe they are exactly wrong. And so do a large number of very
prominent retired military and
national security experts who testified before the Foreign Relations
Committee this month.
Would drawing down really strengthen "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and give it a
launching pad to attack
America?
Or would it help eliminate what little indigenous Iraqi support "Al
Qaeda in Iraq" retains?
Most Sunni Arabs have turned on "Al Qaeda in Iraq," alienated by their
tactics and ideology. "Al Qaeda
in Iraq" is down to about 2000 Iraqis and a small number of foreigners
whose almost exclusive focus is
Iraq. When we draw down, the most likely result is that Iraqis of all
confessions will stamp out its
remnants - and we can retain a residual force in or near Iraq to help
them finish the job.
Last week, I asked our ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to tell us
where al Qaeda poses a greater
threat to America's security: in Iraq, or in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He said: Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
So what about Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan - the people who
actually attacked us on 9-11? If
we draw down, would they be emboldened?
Or, to paraphrase the National Intelligence Estimate on Terrorism,
would they lose one of their most
effective recruiting tools - the notion that we're in Iraq to stay,
with permanent military bases and
control over the oil? And would they finally risk the full measure of
America's might.
Senator McCain has taken a lot of heat for saying he would not mind if
American troops stay in Iraq for
a hundred years. The truth is, he was trying to make an analogy to our
long term presence in peaceful
post-war Germany, post-armistice Korea and post-Dayton Bosnia.
But Germany, Korea or Bosnia after the peace are nothing like Iraq
today - with thousands of bombs,
hundreds of American injured and dozens of American killed every month
- and there is little prospect
Iraq will look like them anytime soon.
Worse, saying you're happy to stay in Iraq for one hundred years fuels
exactly the kind of dangerous
conspiracy theories about America's intentions throughout the Arab and
Muslim worlds that we should
be working to dispel.
What about Iran? Would drawing down increase its already huge
influence in Iraq? Or would it shift
the burden of helping to stabilize Iraq from us to them and make our
forces a much more credible
deterrent to Iran's wider misbehavior?
The idea that we could or even should wipe out every vestige of Iran's
influence in Iraq is a fantasy.
Even with 160,000 American troops in Iraq, our ally in Baghdad greets
Iran's leader with kisses. Like it
or not, Iran is a major regional power and it shares a long border -
and a long history - with Iraq.
Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000 Americans troops
bogged down and bleeding, caught
in a cross fire of intra Shi'a rivalry and Sunni-Shi'a civil war.
The challenge for us is not eliminating all Iranian influence in Iraq,
but forcing Iran to confront the
specter of a disintegrating Iraq or all-out war between different
Shi'a factions.
By drawing down, we can take away Iran's ability to wage a proxy war
against our troops and force
Tehran to concentrate on avoiding turmoil inside Iraq's borders and
instability beyond them.
Finally, would our responsible draw down accelerate sectarian chaos?
Or would it cause Iraq's leaders and Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors to
finally act responsibly? To date,
both have used our large presence as a crutch or an excuse for
inaction. When that stops, they will have
to start to fill the vacuum or put their interests at much greater
risk.
* * *
We should debate the consequences of drawing down in Iraq. But more
importantly, we should talk
about what both President Bush and Senator McCain refuse to
acknowledge: the increasingly
intolerable costs of staying.
The risks of drawing down are debatable. The costs of staying with
140,000 troops are knowable - and
they get steeper every day:
* The continued loss of the lives and limbs of our soldiers;
* The emotional and economic strain on our troops and their families
due to repeated, extended
tours, as Army Chief of Staff General George Casey recently told
Congress;
* The drain on our Treasury - $12 billion every month;
* The impact on the readiness of our armed forces - tying down so many
troops that, as Vice Chief
of Staff of the Army Richard Cody said, we don't have any left over to
deal with a new
emergency; and
* The inability to send enough soldiers to the border between
Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al
Qaeda has regrouped and is plotting new attacks.
When I visited Afghanistan in February, General McNeil, who commands
the international force, told
me that with two extra combat brigades - about 10,000 soldiers - he
could turn around the security
situation in the south, where the Taliban is on the move. But he can't
get them because of Iraq.
Even when we do pull troops out of Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, says he
would want to send them home for a year to rest and retrain before
sending them to Afghanistan.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day when we fully
join the fight against the real Al
Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who attacked America seven years
ago.
* * *
It is long past time to clearly define our interests in Iraq.
It is not in our interest to intervene in an internal power struggle
among Shi'a factions.
It is not in our interest to back one side or the other, or get caught
in the cross fire of a Sunni-Shi'a civil
war.
It is in our interest to start to leave Iraq without leaving chaos
behind.
Even if we could keep 140,000 troops in Iraq, they will not be the
deciding factor in preventing chaos.
Instead, we need to focus all our remaining energy and initiative on
achieving what virtually everyone
agrees is the key to stability in Iraq: a political power sharing
agreement among its warring factions.
I remain convinced that the only path to such a settlement is through
a decentralized, federal Iraq that
brings resources and responsibility down to the local and regional
levels.
We need a diplomatic surge to get the world's major powers, Iraq's
neighbors and Iraqis themselves
invested in a sustainable political settlement.
Fifteen months into the surge that President Bush ordered and Senator
McCain embraced, we've gone
from drowning to treading water. We are no closer to the President's
stated goal of an Iraq that can
defend itself, govern itself and sustain itself in peace. We're still
spending $3 billion every week and
losing 30 to 40 American lives every month.
We can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves and doing
great damage to our other vital
interests around the world. That's exactly what both the President and
Senator McCain are asking us to
do.
They can't tell us when, or even if, Iraqis will come together
politically, which was the purpose of the
surge in the first place.
They can't tell us when, or even if, we will draw down below pre-surge
levels.
They can't tell us when, or even if, Iraq will be able to stand on its
own two feet.
They can't tell us when, or even if, this war will end.
Most Americans want this war to end. They want us to come together
around a plan to leave Iraq
without leaving chaos behind.
They're not defeatists. They're patriots who understand the national
interest - and the great things
Americans can achieve if we responsibly end a war that we should not
have started.
I believe it is fully within our power to do that. Then, with our
credibility restored, our alliances
repaired and our freedom renewed, we will once again lead the world.
We will once again address the
hopes, not play to the fears, of our fellow Americans.
That is my hope for next November - and for the country we all love.
May God bless America and protect our troops.
###
email me for Senator Biden modern nuclear weapon design. I have free
sketchs of my version availible.
They are low cost 2D lobe compression weapons or even an explosive
compressionLESS design alternative was to be always considered.
eaglesondouglas123@xxxxxxxxx
www.theeagleson.com
has a design for the trigger accelerator allowing low enrichments to
be the core of a small lucite layer hydrogen weapon.
.
- References:
- BIDEN: "2008 and the Stakes for America's Security"
- From: Jack Linthicum
- BIDEN: "2008 and the Stakes for America's Security"
- Prev by Date: Re: Repost: Chinese Submarines
- Next by Date: ASW Status; Bubblehead birthdays
- Previous by thread: BIDEN: "2008 and the Stakes for America's Security"
- Next by thread: Re: BIDEN: "2008 and the Stakes for America's Security"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
