Dems Real Security Plan

Well, at last House Dems can finally state that they have a plan. They do have ideas. (Not that anyone on this site doubted this, but destroying the GOP meme on this point alone is more than worth it)

Still there is the question of - what exactly is the plan?

Like most things, the devil is in the details and it's certainly something we on Dkos should discuss.

It appears to be a basically good plan, built on consensus and therefore not exactly bold, but one that few will be able to argue against.

Georgia10 has taken a couple bites of this apple already. Firedoglake has taken a Cop half-full/half-empty view of it. It's not as aggressive or progressive as some of us might like, but it's something and that's better than nothing.

And we've been seeing a whole lotta "nothin" lately, haven't we?

Under the Bush Administration our soldiers have needlessly suffered from lack of proper equipment. They had their benefits cut and been asked to pay for cheap armor that failed to protect them, and threatened with loosing their insurance if they attempt to buy better armor on their own dime.

The Real Security Plan addresses this in it's section on the 21st Century Military.

Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.

Enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that guarantees our troops -- active, reserve, and retired -- our veterans, and their families receive the pay, health care, mental health services, and other benefits they have earned and deserve.

It's one thing to loudly proclaim to "Support the Troops" with bumper-stickers and magnets -- it's another to actually Support them by ensuring they have the proper tools to do the job.

The Bush Administration failed has failed to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden almost five years after 9-11. They let him escape from Tora Bora. Most of al Qaeda was allowed to leave Afghanistan at the start of that War while resources were prematurely redirected to Iraq. The Real Security Plan would redirect our priorities back onto al Qaeda.

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Much of what is being described here sounds like the type of Pol/Mil (Political/Miltary) Delenda plans that Richard Clark drafted as head of the Counter-terrorist unit of the NSC.

Fighting terrorist based on reality rather than neo-con fantasy? Definately an improvement.

The Bush Administration has caused us to cut back on our police and first responders, continues to fail to search cargo containers, nearly sold our ports the the United Arab Emerates (and still might under cover of darkness), failed to protect us with proper supplies of flu vaccine and seems unprepared to deal with future pandemics. The Dem plan opposes this.

Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.

Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.

Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure -- such as ports, airports and mass transit -- to foreign interests that put America at risk.

Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment and cutting-edge technology they need.

Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.

On Iraq, most of what they have to say is fairly obvious... complete the training and transition of security concern over to Iraqi Forces, then support their internal political efforts to unite the nation. No brainer there.

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

But it's in this section on Iraq that we also have the money-quote...

Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Make that TRILLIONS of wasted taxpayer dollars and now your talking. This would suggest a real Phase II investigation which has been on hold for what - three years so far? It would mean looking into where our $8.8 Billion under the Coalition Provisional Authority disappeared too.

The last section on Energy Independance is also a no-brainer. Even Bush has talked about this stuff, although we all know darn well - he's not serious about it. While Democrats just might be.

Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.

Increase production of alternate fuels from America's heartland including bio-fuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives.

In many ways, this final element is probably our most important National Security issue. Our dependance on this oil keeps us locked into a Faustian deal with agencies and forces that have led us down a foreign policy rat-hole. One that those very same forces have every intention of maintaining, despite their claims of "America go Home (just leave all your dollars here)".

There's no Impeachment Talk, much as Ken Melhman and the RNC would like there to be. There's not any talk of Surrender, Premature Pull-out of Troops or other such nonesense.

I've said before, and I'll say again - it's not exactly a bad idea for Dems to approach the future in a fairly moderate - but focused plan. There is still only a 4-point gap in the polls on the question of "Who would do a better job on terrorism" between Republicans (45%) and Dems (41%).

They really don't need to fall into the RNC's trap of being overly radicalized -- that's OUR job. We need to play our role as BAD Rabid Liberals, while they play GOOD Moderate Liberals and can therefore de-energize the Republican Base.

Dems are not going to get Republican votes, but they can come across as not nearly as scary as the right-wing would like to portray them.

This plan does that, and I think it's all good.

Vyan