From the DLC website..March 21, 2003. "A New Kind of Warfare."

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jun-15-08 10:30 PM
Original message

From the DLC website..March 21, 2003. "A New Kind of Warfare."

We can not forget articles like this. We can not forget how many influences were working behind the scenes encouraging our Democrats to vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

Idea of the Week: A New Kind of Warfare

The first act of the war in Iraq was an important indicator that a different kind of campaign was underway: a cruise missile attack aimed at "decapitating" the regime and achieving a quick and relatively bloodless victory based on the paralysis that is likely to seize a totalitarian police state when the Maximum Leader and his closest aides are out of commission.

While the effectiveness of the "decapitation" strategy is unclear, it is clear the world is witnessing the first really full-scale field test of what has been called the "revolution in military affairs." Its fundamental principle is a new kind of warfare in which overwhelming technological superiority makes it possible to achieve military and political objectives in an extraordinarily swift and narrowly targeted manner. Its tools -- smart bombs, satellite-guided cruise missiles, vastly expanded special ops units, infantrymen with PDAs, pervasive access to Global Positioning Systems -- obviously contribute to military tactics on the ground and in the air. That's why our armed forces are able to take on a much larger mission than in the first Gulf War with far fewer troops. But military transformation also makes it possible to win battles by psychological means as well as by bombs and bullets, as reflected in the sustained efforts of U.S. officials from the president and the defense secretary on down to field commanders to convince Iraqi soldiers and citizens to surrender. Call it an effort to achieve victory by satellite broadcast and by cell phone.

This strategy was also called the shock and awe strategy. The use of the word "decapitation" is in itself shocking. Lest you have any doubt that this group basically approved this war, read on.

It's too early to tell if this strategy will work, but it shows the United States is beginning to modify the Powell Doctrine of "overwhelming force" that was in turn developed in reaction to the perceived failure of "limited war" during the Vietnam era. And it also illuminates the gap between Americans who understand it's now possible to win wars without massive civilian casualties, and Europeans who still think of the use of force as an all-or-nothing proposition that inherently taints victory with oceans of the blood of innocents. For the foreseeable future, the world community's collective security will continue to depend on a credible threat of military force against aggressors and evildoers. That threat becomes more credible as military force itself becomes more nimble, selective and decisive.

We've long promoted the "revolution in military affairs" and its potentially transformative effects.

I wonder if they would like to revisit those words now.

Just before the vote in October 2003, the New Dem Dispatch dispatched this memo to its members.

A Time for Resolve

October 3, 2002.

Today Congress is expected to begin formal debate on a resolution authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq if that regime does not radically change its behavior. We're proud that our chairman, Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), and two of our former chairmen, Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), and House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt (MO), took the lead in ensuring bipartisan support for an approach that will give the President the authority he needs to take the next steps toward Iraq, while reflecting the belief of the American people that we should seek the broadest possible international support.

But then in the next breath they urge a vote against Levin's amendment to require UN approval before troops could be committed.

Although the scope of the debate on an Iraq resolution is still unclear, it appears the Senate may consider an alternative resolution by Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) that would require specific U.N. approval before U.S. troops could be committed to a military action. We urge Democrats and Republicans alike to reject this alternative. As former President Clinton reminded his listeners in a speech to the British Labour Party annual conference yesterday, the United States and the United Kingdom were forced to act without U.N. approval in Kosovo because Russia used its veto power to prevent any resolutions in the Security Council. Much as we hope for effective U.N. and international support for dealing with Saddam Hussein, we cannot make such support a precondition for action.

But we also urge the White House, now that strong bipartisan support for a use-of-force resolution is assured, to avoid playing party politics with the Congressional debate.

They started the attacks on those who spoke out against the war, using the words fringe activists and calling them out of touch and too liberal.

Lately I have been criticized when I post things about holding our Democrats responsible when they stand too much with the right wing. I hear a lot about how Democrats in red states must behave differently.

My philosophy is that if you ignore such things they will repeat them...and drums are beating for Iran now.

This group, the Democratic Leadership Council, was formed to win Southern red states. That was their goal.

We ended up in a tragic war with no end in sight. They were trying to be strong on national security. Now we are far weaker and far more vulnerable.

Howard Dean's campaign met the beginning of the end when he spoke up in December 2003, saying we were no safer with Saddam gone.

I will let Jimmy Breslin say it, he does it far better than I can. The article is archived, but I have it saved. He pointed out the utter hypocrisy of the attacks on Dean at that time.

No safer with Saddam in Slammer

January 2, 2004

First, the other day, Howard Dean, candidate for president, said he didn't think that the capture of Saddam Hussein made us any safer in America. The other politicians screamed that he was un-American

..."On the day he was found, an American soldier was killed. After that, 10 more were killed in a week. The Homeland Security raised the alert to orange. Planes coming to New York from Paris, London and Mexico were canceled. New Year's Eve in Times Square was a neon arsenal."

...."Of course we were no safer with Saddam in a detention pen. And Dean was a miserable traitor for saying this, his opponents raged.

Howard Dean then said that maybe he was old-fashioned but he didn't think you could judge or punish Osama bin Laden until you had a trial and found him guilty. That was as controversial as saying that when it rains in Queens, the Van Wyck Expressway gets wet. But suddenly, the Democratic candidates said the statement was atrociously unpatriotic. How can this man Dean say that bin Laden deserves a trial? They said that this was a perfect illustration of Dean talking without thought. And completely un-American, too.

Breslin further mentioned that the consultants from the Democratic leadership took to the airwaves to condemn. He gave this example from Joe Lockhart...about learning to play the game.

"It's the unplanned, offhand comments that often seem to play a critical role. You've got to be able to become a master of the game, not someone who just rails against the game."

Master of the game? Let all those "masters of the game" go on TV now and tell us how safe we are, how much better off we are.

We are there because Democrats failed to take a stand because they were trying to win in red states, not by standing up and saying who we are as Democrats....but by trying to be like the Republicans so as not to offend.

Sound familiar?