Edwards Outlines Plan to Fight Terrorism

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Outlines Plan to Fight Terrorism
Lays out smart, mission-focused plan for shutting down terrorists
John Edwards for President
Thursday, June 7, 2007
----
New York, New York--At a press conference today in New York City, Senator John Edwards outlined his plan to keep Americans safe and fight terrorists. With terrorism around the world on the rise, Edwards believes we need a change from the Bush "Global War on Terror Doctrine," which hasn't worked and has only been used to justify the worst abuses of his Administration. Edwards laid out a mission-focused plan to shut down terrorists and stand up for American values.

"For six years, George Bush has used the language of terrorism to force through an ideological agenda that undermines our values and does nothing to undercut terrorism," said Edwards. "By the Bush Administration's own admission, we are less safe today. We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a cynical political strategy to shut down debate. As president, I will strengthen our military to better address the threat posed by terrorist groups, and launch a sweeping global effort to ensure that terrorism does not take root in weak and failing states."

President Bush's "War on Terror Doctrine" has not made us safer—the State Department released a report a little over a month ago stating that there was a 29% increase in terrorism worldwide from 2005 to 2006, with most events in Iraq and Afghanistan, where thousands of Americans are at risk. It has also undermined the military strength that is America's greatest resource against terrorists. The policy has placed our service members under incredible stress and repeated deployments, while drawing down our resources and equipment.

Edwards will put America on an offensive footing against those who would harm us. In order to fight terrorism, Edwards will strengthen our military force structure and recognize what our military commanders have made clear military action is only one of the tools we have to stop terrorism; we have to supplant the lure of violent extremism with the hope of education, opportunity, and prosperity.

As president, Edwards will take the following six key steps to shut down terrorism both its effects and its root causes:

*Force Structure: The force structure of our military should match its mission. The Administration's mismanagement of the military has not only breached the faith at the highest levels—it has led to a very dangerous situation for our security. We are sending some troops back to Iraq with less than a year's rest. Edwards believes we need to ensure that our force structure is well-equipped for the challenges of the new century. We must have enough troops to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop. As president, Edwards will also double the budget for recruiting and raise the standards for the recruiting pool so that we can reduce waivers issued for recruits with felonies, which have skyrocketed under President Bush.
*Intelligence Strategy: We must aggressively gather intelligence in accordance with proven methods. Valuable information can be gained through interrogation, both about past and future attacks, and we must do everything we can to gather this information to keep us and our allies secure. At the same time, we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, Edwards will immediately address the issues that have become blemishes on America's image in the world by closing Guantanamo Bay, restoring habeas corpus, and banning torture.
*Meetings with Military Leadership: The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out. As president, Edwards will institute regular, on-on-one meetings with top military leadership. He will also reinstate a basic doctrine of national security management that has been demolished by the Bush Administration: military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions.
*"Marshall Corps": Weak and failing states create hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability that creates security dangers for the U.S. and our allies. As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions. He will also implement new training for future military leadership and create a undersecretary for stabilization and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff.
*Rebuild Equipment: Over 1,000 vehicles like tanks and helicopters have been lost in Iraq, and our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use. Our forces are not equipped to meet the challenges presented to them. As president, Edwards will re-invest in the maintenance of our equipment so our strategy against terrorists is as effective as possible.
*National Security Budget: The military budget itself also needs substantial reforms to keep us as safe as possible and to deal with 21st century threats. Today, dozens of agencies perform overlapping tasks, and there is no central, overall accounting of all security activities performed by all relevant agencies. We have nuclear proliferation programs in the Defense, State, and the Energy departments, and more than 15 different security assistance programs, running out of both the State Department and the Defense Department. As president, Edwards will implement a new National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, and our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies.

FULL FACT SHEET/POLICY PAPER: "John Edwards' Plan against Terrorism: A Strategy To Shut Down Terrorists and Stop Terrorism before It Starts"

[polichick]

1. He says, "We have to supplant the lure of violent extremism...

...with the hope of education, opportunity, and prosperity."

That's so true ~ even when it comes to the "Christo-fascist" movement in the US heartland. Despair is one of the motivating factors when it comes to religious extremists.

[BushOut06]

3. At this point, I'm not sure how much good it will do

People living in countries that give rise to religious extremism aren't very trusting of the United States. I don't think they really care who is in the White House - they probably aren't going to know who Edwards or any other Democrat is.

It's going to take a long time and a lot of work to overcome decades of American imperialism.

[JohnLocke]

4. You're right, in a sense.

It does remind me of what JFK said in his inaugural address:

"All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

[barb162]

5. Is the "Christo-fascist" movement a terrorist group?

Why don't you deal with the people doing terror acts today? I mentioned the London bombings in my other post. Those bombers had education , prosperity and opportunity in England. SO why did they bomb? It sure wasn't the "Christo fascist" movement that bombed the London subways, the Madrid trains, etc. Does al-qaida (and other Islamic terrorists) not exist?

[polichick]

6. Christo-fascists are just some of America's extremists...

Feeling that society has left them behind (jobs out-sourced, no healthcare, etc.), they are filled with despair and preyed upon by ministers who convince them that the world is so far gone the rapture is the only answer.

My point was that even in this country people get crazy when they're convinced things are hopeless.

[barb162]

7. But they are decidedly not terrorists, as Islamist/ al qaida type groups are

Just sayin' I find it interesting you bring up a group that is not terrorist and seemingly ignore the known and very real terrorist groups and their motivations.

[polichick]

8. I was commenting on Edwards' suggestion about hope...

If we want to stop terrorism we have to see both their extremists and our extremists as human beings, and try to figure out what's going on in their heads and hearts.

[barb162]

9. What if "their" terrorists want nothing less than world domination?

You know, Osama and his world caliphate? Some fundamentalist Christians are seemingly only worried about the rapture and personal salvation or whatever it is according to whatever sect and they are NOT TERRORISTS, which is what the Edwards paper is about.

[polichick]

10. As long as we disregard them as human beings...

We won't solve the problem.

Edwards' point is a good one ~ if people have HOPE for a better future, they are less likely to fall prey to charismatic leaders like Osama and wacko fundi preachers.

[barb162]

11. Would you answer my question about world domination as a goal

of al qaida type terrorist groups? Osama attracted many well-educated, middle class types like Mohammed Atta. How do you explain that? BTW, I think we don't disregard them.
Are you equating terrorists like bin Laden with Christian preachers?

[polichick]

12. If true, it's the leaders that are into "world domination."

Without followers they can't do much about it ~ with more hope, you have fewer followers. Get it?

I'm purposely using an American example of extremism because it's easy to forget that we're just as susceptible to the craziness created by fear and hopelessness. But let's not forget that we have a wacko in the WH who actually believes that God told him to kill all those Iraqis ~ even though they had nothing to do with 9-11. And George Bush, our charismatic leader, used fear to get most of the country to go along with him. I could ask you the same question: How do you explain all those educated Americans jumping on the bandwagon? (That's rhetorical, of course ~ it's painfully clear to me.)

[Flatulo]

25. They can jump on any bandwagon they like, as long as it's

not loaded with explosives.

We do have the freedom here to be as stupid as we want in our religious beliefs. We do not have the freedom to blow up others in exercising said freedoms.

Sorry for being snippy, but I have a real probelm with setting any kind of moral equivalence between Christian conservatives and Islamic radicals. The former group is crazy, but the latter is crazy and dangerous.

[polichick]

30. What was Shock and Awe??

The words themselves are about terrorism ~ our extremist charismatic leader believed that God was leading him, and then used fear to take most of the country into a completely unjustified "war." Their extremists took out 3000; ours (the leaders, not the troops) took out hundreds of thousands. Who's more dangerous? Like it or not, Bush used religion and fear to get people to blindly follow. If we're going to keep pointing fingers instead of trying to understand what's really happening, we'll end up like Israel and the Palestinians ~ fighting forevermore.

As for "world domination" ~ they say that's their goal because they're terrified that it's ours, and by this action in Iraq we've only proven it in their minds.

(Gotta go, but before anyone gets too upset I should explain that my background is social/cultural anthropology ~ I'm not bashing the US; we're trained to see things from the other culture's perspective. If Bush had listened to the anthropolgists who tried to warn him, we wouldn't be in this mess.)

[Flatulo]

32. I daresay that the vast majority of Americans who supported going into

Iraq were not basing the opinion on saving the heathens. They were drinking some other kool-aid.

If you have any data showing that Christianity was any motivation for the war, I'd like to see it.

I believe it was about resources.

[polichick]

34. Bush used the religion card, along with fear...

...to play on his followers emotions. God was directing him, remember? His motivation wasn't religion ~ it was just a tool. In reality it most certainly was about oil ~ so they're not worried about domination for nothing!

[Flatulo]

36. As I recall, the reasons were WMD, and bringing freedom to the

Iraqis.

I can't see into the mans' heart, but no doubt Bush thinks he talks to God. He has said as much.

In that regard, you are correct - here is a very dangerous Christian.

[polichick]

38. Like I said, I gotta go, so I'll end with this...

If Islamic fundamentalists weren't fearful about their future, guys like Osama wouldn't be able to rally enough followers to do much damage.

And if Americans hadn't been fearful about their future after 9-11, the administration wouldn't have been able to rally enough followers to do much damage.

So Edwards was correct in suggesting that giving people hope has to be part of the plan.


That's it for me...have a good one!

[Flatulo]

40. Sorry, I am not following this logic... if Islamic radicals are

fearful of their future, then why do the blow themselves up while grinning from ear-to-ear with anticipation of the bliss that awaits them?

Sounds to me like they are supremely confident that they are going on to a better world.

This, in my opinion, is a sick twisted ideology that sprinking 'hope' on is not going to defeat.

These people have been completely brainwashed by very evil men.

[polichick]

50. Just as America was brainwashed...

Many of our troops have died believing they were doing something noble too ~ although more and more understand that they've been used as pawns.

It's definitely harder to recruit people to do anything when they have other options, hope for their future ~ college, jobs, etc.

[barb162]

66. So how were the English home grown college students recruited

by the radical Islamists. They had hope for the future, they were in college, they weren't living in a failed state, their parents weren't poverty-stricken, etc. They had options.

[polichick]

67. Same way America was recruited for a bogus war...

You seem bent on thinking of "them" as evil and us as good ~ but nothing is ever that simple.

[barb162]

70. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't deal with reality in terms of evil

and good. That seems to be your department, along with evasion of direct questions and failed attempts at equating harmless fundie Christians with violent Islamic terrorists.

[polichick]

72. I'm not the only poster who has spelled it out for you...

But you only see what's comfortable to see. Enjoy your day!

[barb162]

73. You haven't cited one specific or non-specific fact about anything.

Get that? F-A-C-T. I ask for references and all you seemed to do was change the subject to another allegation with nothing to back it up, with those pesky little things known as facts.

[barb162]

43. Well put!

[barb162]

42. I see no Christian fundies beheading people these days? Get it?

I swear you're trying to evade the real issue here, Terrorism. The issue here is not extremism per se. Religious extremism isn't necessarily terrorism. Sometimes it is in the case of Islamic fundamentalists. I wonder why your examples are not of Islamic fundamentalists. Was Mohammed Atta filled with fear and hopelessness? I doubt it.

[polichick]

46. Wake up...Shock and Awe WAS terrorism...

A campaign given a name synonymous with terror, carried out on innocent people. And it was sold to a fearful American public using religion and fear ~ same stuff being used to sell Islamic terrorism. We are not immune to brainwashing or above such disgusting tactics ~ I'm sorry that you can't see it.

You would certainly get it if some guys from Canada blew up a building in Spain, and Spain "retaliated" by carrying out a Shock and Awe campaign against us.

They don't hate us because of our freedoms, they hate us for our arrogant behavior in their region over many years. Until we start seeing ourselves through their eyes, it will continue.

[barb162]

60. I'm awake. Are you? .Shock and Awe went after gov. installations

and military installations. Shock and Awe was not about carpet-bombing multiple residential neighborhoods in Baghdad with the aim of taking out Baghdad's millions of civilians. Now how do you compare that with Islamic terrorists bombing subways filled with civilians in London or hijacking planes aimed at office buildings filled with civilians in NY or suicide bombing restaurants and market squares filled with civilians. Your analogies are plainly ridiculous.

You are at least correct in one thing, that they don't hate us for our freedom. Maybe the Islamic terrorists want to get rid of us because we are "infidel" in their eyes, which is quite different from a Christian fundie, who is worried about his own salvation and who doesn't try forcing his religion down your throat if you slam your front door in his face.

Again, do Christian fundies go around beheading people these days? Tell me something else; if a person is arrogant, do you have the right to behead them and mutilate their bodies?

[polichick]

69. You missed malikstein's post about fundie targets...

Again, you overlook the violence by our religious (or neocon) fanatics while pointing fingers at "the evil other." Sorry, extremism is extremism and terrorism is terrorism ~ no matter which fearful group carries it out.

(I see you just answered malikstein ~ but write off the violence yet again. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...)

[barb162]

71. "Talk" facts for a change, please. Really, just once.

The last terrorist Christian fundamentalist bombing aimed at INNOCENT CIVILIANS was when? Cite the reference(s) and links.

And would you like to discuss how many Islamic terrorist bombings there have been in the same time frame? If you want to discuss violent acts I think you should not refer to fundie Christians. They're annoying, but that's about it.

[Capn Sunshine]

18. It exists as long as you think it does

That's how terrorism works, right?
Are you afraid yet?

Even though the odds of dying by terrorism are less than being struck by lightning? Or
sharks?

What do you do when it rains?

It's all about context.

[polichick]

47. Yes...

Exactly.

[Flatulo]

78. Sorry, but that sounds like double-talk to me.

It has nothing to do with odds, or fear, or subjective reality.

I do not live in fear of getting hit by lightning, but I won't wave a golf club on my roof during a storm.

I do not live in fear of being killed in a car crash, but I wear my seatbelt.

I do not live in fear of a terrorist attack, but the reality is that there are religious fanatics in the world who want to kill.

They exist as surely as gravity does. We tried ignoring them for a decade, and that was not a particularly successful tactic. We tried invading Iraq, and that has likewise proven unsuccessful.

Playing the "Are you afraid yet" card may be fun, in the Bush-bashing sense, but it really accomplishes nothing. I applaud Edwards for proposing some approaches, even though I do not agree with all of them. At least he seems to be acknowledging that there is a problem.

[malikstein]

48. The Christo-fascists' preferred targets are

abortion clinics and federal buildings.

[polichick]

49. That's right...

Homegrown corn-fed terrorism...

[barb162]

68. And the last time you saw a federal building bombed was when?

12 years ago? Oklahoma City? And Timothy McVeigh was not religious and that was NOT a religion-inspired bombing. SO when was the last time, if ever, that a federal building was bombed by a Christian fanatic for reasons relating to religion? I can't think of any. I'd like you to cite an example as long as you're trying to make the case.

Abortion clinic bombings are entirely reprehensible, but tell me, when was the last one?

Meanwhile,how many deaths have there been in the last year, or last five years, caused by Islamic terrorists?

[malikstein]

79. I give up.

You have me stumped on how terrible terrorists are.

How's about this:

How much more likely are you to drown in your bathtub or be struck by lightning than to die in a terrorist attack? Look it up. You'll be surprised.

How many people die in America every year because they are denied health care? I know the answer to that one: 18,000 EVERY YEAR!

Now between a few piffle-weight terrorist attacks and national health care, where should we put our efforts?

People get their knickers in a knot about terrorists because their acts are spectacular. However, they are insignificant. We are not in danger from terrorists, but from people who would use the "terrorist threaten" to rob us of our democracy.

PS: Timothy McVeigh was Roman Catholic. Maybe snake handlers doubt that that makes him a Christian. AFAIK, the RC's are still consider followers of that magical guy from Galilee.

[barb162]

2. BS, 4th point

"Marshall Corps": Weak and failing states create hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability that creates security dangers for the U.S. and our allies. As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions. He will also implement new training for future military leadership and create a undersecretary for stabilization and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff".

Why did the 7/7/06 London bombings take place? Is England a failed state? Those were some home grown terrorists. Same thing with some other terror bombings around the world...no failed states, but the terrorism happens for other reasons. This shows me Edwards doesn't have a full grasp of the situation.

[venable]

14. of course there are exceptions, but do you sincerely believe that the conditions

of despair and hopelessness don't contribute to radicalizing, whether it's Christian, Islamic, or even secular.

And if this is the case, then a Marshall Corps, configured and charged in the right, culturally appropriate way, can be a wonderful and very effective thing.

I'm a little surprised that Edwards has gotten so little attention here for these strong proposals, as it is garnering much favor and attention around the web and the media.

Yet, the publication announcement - three months hence - of someone not running has triple the posts.

Color me disappointed.

[Flatulo]

24. Forgive me for being so ignorant, but where exactly is

Christian radicalization taking place? You know, the kind where people blow themselves up to kill infidels?

SPeaking as an agnostic, I am just curious.

[venable]

26. it's not, in that way

not in the suicide bomb way, but there is little doubt that the christian right wing in this country is radical, and they do kill.

(I'm not sure if you were saying I did, but just to be clear, if I wasn't, I did not say you were ignorant)

[Flatulo]

29. I understand. I'm just trying to intellectually honest.

I can't honestly see any moral equivalence between the Christian right and the Islamic fascists who want to restore the Caliphate by violence.

The Christain right is a slight annoyance to me - the radical Islamist I see as idealogically un-rehabilitatable. Sometimes you just have to kill them.

I don't think spraying them with hope rays will accomplish anything except to convince them that we are weak and ready to be slaughtered.

But there's only a few million of them...

[barb162]

44. No, I think what is happening now , and I used the examples of

London and some others, is very little is from despair and hopelessness. Was Danny Pearl beheaded because of fear and hopelessness? I really doubt it. It was an act of aggression and hate. Was the Millenium plot with the airliners about depair and hopelessness? I doubt that too. I think these terror acts are an attempt to destroy the West and /or install radical Islam in its place. As I read very carefully about the English home grown terrorists, they are often well-educated young people who fall under the radical imans and groups preaching their infidel hate crap from the colleges and mosques.

[Flatulo]

13. Item 2 is interesting... "Valuable information can...

... be gained through interrogation, both about past and future attacks"

Um, yeah. About that. What if terror suspects decide that they don't feel like chatting? What then?

If we slap them around a bit and play loud music, will the left condemn a Democratic administration?

Oh, the hypocracy I can see coming...

[venable]

16. who said torture?

if edwards didn't, why do you?

[Flatulo]

20. It's all semantics bullshit. If we don't call it torture, then I guess it isn't.

Ir is it only Repubs who torture?

[JohnLocke]

21. " As president, Edwards will...close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture..."

"As president, Edwards will immediately address the issues that have become blemishes on America's image in the world by closing Guantanamo Bay, restoring habeas corpus, and banning torture."

[Flatulo]

23. When does interrogation rise to the level of torture?

[venable]

27. as John Locke posted: Edwards disavows torture

as it is wrong

(to say nothing of the fact that professionals who find the intel gained this way unworthy)

edwards is clear on this.

[Flatulo]

31. Hmmm, not getting an answer...

What interrogation techniques would Edwards authorize if terror suspects simply tell him to bugger off?

[venable]

45. legally defined non-torture interrogation

according to untrnational and american law, and basic morality and decency

[Flatulo]

51. According to that definition, telling someone that their mom wears men's underwear

qualifies as torture.

Torture is such a broadly interpreted term that is is essentially meaningless.

It's a bit like porn - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

[venable]

54. I'm at a loss here as to your point, re Edwards

sorry, I'm just not following what this has to do with Edwards.

He sets forth a clear set of actions and programs.

He is opposed to torture, and will end its use.

????

[Flatulo]

57. My point is this - the whole torture issue has been so manipulated

for political purposes that the definition of it is meaningless.

The UN definition of torture can be violated by calling someone an unflattering name. If the US, under an Edwards administration, sticks to this definition, then it is for all practical purposes completely useless to ever again bother detaining someone.

So Edwards' promise to avow the use of torture is tantamount to saying 'we will never detain or question anyone, because our hands are so tied that the whole exercise has become futile'.

I'm sorry if I am not explaining myself well, but this seems very clear to me. If you cannot use any form of psychological or physical coercion, then how do you get suspects to reveal information? By definition, an interrogation is extracting information from someone who does not wish to divulge the information.

According to the UN's definitions, the only acceptable method is to politely ask. Anything stronger than that is torture. SO we've kind of painted ourselves into a corner as far as interrogation goes.

[venable]

58. no argument re interrogation/torture

my question was what does this have to do with Edwards.

he merely said tha his program will approach this issue through a variety of means, one of which is interrogations. Of course it would be but one of the means. But you brought up torture, not Edwards.

In answer to your question about those who don't want to divulge information - whatever is done in that regard, it will NOT be torture.

Simple.

does this person end up being a low yield intel source? maybe, maybe not. a skillful interrogator can, without breaking a sweat on either side of the questioning, find some helpful things, which, in concert with intel gathered on the ground or through electronic spying ( non domestic!), or though NOCs can be extremely effective.

ie the way it's supposed to be done.

[Flatulo]

59. My point was that by UN definition, coerced information = torture,

so it is a meaningless talking point for Edwards.

I see it as the equivalent of saying he will be more effective at interrogation, without going through the intellectual heavy lifting of figuring out exactly *how* you do it.

I think that since is it an intellectually vacant position, it weakens his overall strategy to offer it up.

[venable]

62. intelligence gathering is not bombshells

like 'here's my leader and this is what we are doing next tuesday'....it is a cumulative collection of mundane and seemingly innocuous facts that intelligence procedures get in banal ways, and assemble/interpret in ingenious ways.

when it's done correctly

[Flatulo]

74. You could be right. That is not my area of expertise.

[Flatulo]

22. My question is, what do we do with people who don't talk?

Is any form of coercion torture? I personally do not think so, but the left has played that card so incessantly against Bush that they will be unable to do anyting to terror suspects stronger than offering them tea. What then?

[ChiciB1]

64. What Are The Rules Set Forth By The Geneva Conventions??

Since I myself have never been one to "dig" much of military history I can't say I've read the thing, but I know I've heard it talked about a lot.

One person comes to mind who talks about it a lot is Jonathan Turley, so I suppose he does have some credible idea as to what it contains.

[Flatulo]

75. From Artilce 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture

Article 1

"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

By this definition, any form of physical or mental intimidation is illegal.

[calteacherguy]

15. Sounds like he's been taking notes from Wes Clark!

:thumbsup:

[venable]

17. ??????

why Wes Clark? Why not his 30 man military advisory committee, his foreign affairs advisors, his own vision?

[calteacherguy]

19. A lot of the language and ideas sound the same similar.

The ideas are not exclusive of course to any one political candidate. They've been around awhile. Nothing new...we need a Democratic Administration!

[venable]

28. I'm with you on that. n/t

[Adelante]

52. It seems pretty military-heavy to me

I don't think Wes sees fighting terrorism the same way. In fact, fighting terrorists is not something the military is suited to doing well. Special forces, intelligence gathering, good old fashioned police work, and criminal justice. The military needs to be strong for defense of the country, yes, but not so much for fighting terrorism.

[venable]

55. Not military heavy at all.

the only thing he says, re the military proper - is that we will increase the efficiency and force strength of the military.

I think everyone outside the administration understands that fighting terror is best done via intel, special forces, etc.

This is what many have been saying since before Afghanistan

I don't think we should have gone int Afghanistan the way we did. I think there are special forces that could have - with the proper international collaboration of intelligence agencies - done the job much better.

Kerry said it was fundamentally a police matter. I agree. Edwards and everyone outside of dick cheney's head agrees.

[Flatulo]

33. BTW, my intention is not to bash Edwards. I think he's a good man.

I'm just saying that the Dems have tied their hands somewhat by flailing the Bushies with the torture card. Now they will have no choice but to treat terror suspects with kids gloves or look like hypocrites.

Getting information from people is sometimes more difficult that just asking them, we seem to have left no wiggle room to use effective means that may not be very nice.

[zulchzulu]

35. "Edwards will put America on an offensive footing against those who would harm us."

I guess that's like the Iraq War Resolution that he co-sponsored with Joe Lieberman that many believe gave Bush a free pass to invade Iraq even though he knew the intelligence was bogus while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time. I'm still not sure if Edwards did or din't read the Iraq NIE reports since the campaign said he did...and he didn't.

The plan looks like the major amount of effort would be more military equipment, more troops signing up, more military leadership overriding civilian decisions with vacuous utterances about education, opportunity, and prosperity replacing "the lure of violent extremism".

Sounds great!

:eyes:

[Flatulo]

37. Hey, I like this guy - highly tuned BS filters.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. What is Obama's anti-terror plan? He is running for prez, not a local position

Obama has also spoken of beefing up the military:

==..To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace...

...We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests...

...We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines...

...I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened...

...I will work with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons ...

...Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table...

...We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces....

...To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military...

...I will rally our NATO allies to contribute more troops to collective security operations and to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization capabilities...

...We cannot expect Americans to support placing our men and women in harm's way if we cannot show that we will use force wisely and judiciously==

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/31/8023/76395

[venable]

56. man, tough crowd - This is an excellent, refined approach

and that is clear to anyone who will look with open eyes.

I think, zulchzulu, that you've misunderstood the proposals.

it has military control of 'OPERATIONS'. I think this is not the way you understood it, if you wrote what you wrote in your post. Unless you think that operations should not be under military control, as bush and rummy and dick do.

it is diplomacy driven (and if you follow edwards positions and statement, he has been arguing this for the last two years. ie it's not new)

the marshall corps is a great idea, especially in terms of diplomacy.

and on and on.

This is a very fine program.

there is not an ouce of BS in this, as much as that may disappoint some.

yea, and waiting on hearing how Obama's is more enlightened...it seems a bit more militaristic an approach.

[zulchzulu]

61. You're calling Obama "militaristic" while Edwards was co-sponsor of IWR?

Wow...pass that pipe...

:rofl:

[venable]

63. look at their respective lists of proposals

you proclaim edwards hawkish.

compare his proposals to obamas, and tell me which are more miliaristic.

[zulchzulu]

65. No...you do it...

You're the one who claims Obama (who was against the war from the beginning) is more hawkish than Edwards (who was for the war and even had his speeches cited on the White House web site to back attacking Iraq).

Let's see this...

:rofl:

[venable]

77. it's a simple request, look at the proposals

you said, or someone said, Edwards proposals sound militaristic.

I say they are not.

this is about the proposals, not the IWR

[Pastiche423]

41. Keep that terror mime going, johnnyboy!

[Adelante]

53. The best part is the Marshall Corps

The tone is kind of GWOT, though, Bush-like.

[Flatulo]

76. Let's define terrorism...

For the sake of this discussion, it may help if we agree on the definition of terrorism. From there we may be better able to fashion a response.

I will offer a simple definition - terrorism is the *deliberate* targeting of civilians with violence.

By my definition, a person who faces down a tank with a molotov cocktail is not a terrorist. A person who lobs said cocktail into a crowd of civilians is a terrorist. An Iraqi who fires an RPG at an American patrol is not a terrorist, but one who strolls into a crowded market and detonates an explosive belt is.

In wartime, civilians do get killed, but this is usually not deliberate (exception - in WWII, entire civilian populations were annhilated by firebombing cities to cause the complete destruction of the enemy society), therefore, I do not consider accidental killing of civilians in wartime to be terrorism.

I think it is extremely intellectually dishonest, and furthermore takes political correctness from the sublime to the ridiculous, to pretend that the single largest terrorist threat in the world today is not Islamic radicalism. To not accept this inescapable truth is nearly incomprehensible to me.

There is simply no moral equivalence between Jerry Falwell, who was simply an idiot, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who beheaded living human beings on the Internet.

To blame Islamic terrorism on US imperialism, wealth inequality, unemployment, etc also ignores the fact that some of the most reprehensible acts of violence are occuring in regions where the US has virtually no political, financial or military presence, like Indonesia and Thailand, where the economies are booming. It also ignores the fact that some of the most hopeless and destitute places in the world are not sprouting terrorists.

Sorry, but the common thread in the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks today is religion. Specifically radical Islam. An honest person can come to no other conclusion.

If people want to pretend that Christian or Jewish radicals are anything more than a mild annoyance, feel free, but you're only fooling youself.

While your heads are in the sand, Islamic radicals are sharpening their knives.

Sorry to take this post away from Edward's position paper, but I felt that we were getting nowhere with the back and forth over who is a terrorist.