The Command T.O.C.

Mike Huckabee Declares His Foreign Policy - The Good Part (Scary Part to Follow in Part II)

You know, I am starting to like this Mike Huckabee (Web Site, news) guy. He seems to be a down to earth, "normal" American who is trying to make things better. He has decided to layout in Foreign Affairs his foreign policy agenda or platform. I have read it and for the most part agree with his points on Iraq but he still retains too much of the "neo-con" militaristic attitude that has made the United States a pariah in the world.

While he speaks of diplomacy in Iran and staying close to Russia (using the frightening statement.. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer") he also believes we should virtually double our spending on the military. He still believes too much in military solutions for my liking.

In this "Part One" article, I will discuss the parts of his policy I agree with. Part II will come tomorrow and there I will discuss my fear of some of his policies.

I like that he has "told it like it is" by saying what we, at The Command T.O.C. knew all along, which is that George W. Bush's hubris has led America into a disastrous war. He has written an article in Foreign Affairs magazine entitled, "America's Priorities in the War on Terror". He starts off by saying:

"The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. "

Yes, the Bush "do it alone" kid has actually weakened our national security, emboldened countries such as Russia, and done more to isolate America from the world. Our friends do not like us anymore and our enemies hate us even more.

He goes on to discuss the military fiasco that has been the occupation of Iraq. As we have said here many times, the fact that we tried to do this "on the cheap" and the flawed plan of Rummy, Wolfie and Cheney who believed we would be greeted with rose petals has cost many thousand American soldier lives. Huckabee says:

"If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms. Liberating a country and occupying it are two different missions. Our invasion of Iraq went well militarily, but the occupation has destroyed the country politically, economically, and socially. In the former Yugoslavia, we sent 20 peacekeeping soldiers for every thousand civilians. In Iraq, an equivalent ratio would have meant sending a force of 450,000 U.S. troops. Unlike President George W. Bush, who marginalized General Eric Shinseki, the former army chief of staff, when he recommended sending several hundred thousand troops to Iraq, I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice. Our generals must be independent advisers, always free to speak without fear of retribution or dismissal."

And that is what we like to hear. Get back to the days when true military leaders, like Powell, ran the military. Bush fired the true military leaders he had and what he was left with were a bunch of "yes men" more interested in fostering their post military career income than they were in protecting and leading soldiers.

Huckabee also shows a bit of insight into how the real world operates when he identifies that one of the main reasons Iran is so powerful now is that WE (Yes, We, the United States) disrupted the balance of power in the Mid-East when we got rid of Saddam. Think Saddam would have allowed Iran to get Nukes? Wouldn't it have been in the best interest of the United States if Saddam went back to war with Iran rather than us taking Saddam out and thereby strengthening Iran. Huckabee says:

"When we overthrew Saddam, whose regime was a bulwark against Iran, we upset the regional balance of power. "

By doing this, Bush has made America less safe than if Saddam were in power. And, as Pat Buchanan points out in his new book, "Day of Reckoning" (See my summary and opinions here ), it is NOT America's job to go around the world creating democracies unless those democracies make us, the United States, more safe. That has not occurred in Iraq.

These statements Huckabee makes are good and they identify that he has learned something from the fiasco of the last 8 years. Now, in Part II, I will discuss what I think is not good about his policy. But, here is a sneak preview, with virtually no other power in the world who can barely touch us, he wants to go back to Reagan size military budgets. Yikes!!

State of Emergency Declared in Pakistan

Looks like our friendly dictator (The one we like) has decided he has had enough of democracy (what little there was). Musharraf has declared martial law and a state of emergency due to unrests. What is one of the first things he does? Army troops storm the Supreme Court and they surround the judges homes.

I am sure those pesky judges are causing a lot of social unrest and violence. This is just another example where we pick and choose the dictators we like and dislike. Don't tell me we are in Iraq to bring democracy when we align ourselves with a person who is essentially a military dictator.

This is Dick Cheney's (News) dream - declare martial law, surround the Supreme Court, take over Congress and oust those pesky judges.

But.. The President is Perfectly Willing to Violate Current Laws....

In my posting on illegal immigration, I showed how the President is perfectly willing to consciously and deliberately NOT ENFORCE current laws in direct violation of his oath of office. What is interesting about this, is that in the case of illegally holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, he is perfectly willing to VIOLATE laws which currently exist and make up his own.

Reuters reports the following:

"A pair of recent rulings, one from military judges and the other from a U.S. appeals court, delivered new legal setbacks for Bush's tactics in dealing with terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in the United States.    

"In case after case, this nation's judicial branch has told the administration that it may not trample on fundamental rights in the name of national security," said Hina Shamsi of the New York-based group Human Rights First."

A host of people have called for this to be closed but Bush continues to violate the law and keep it open. Heck, even General Powell called for GITMO to be closed.

The conclusion here is clear: We currently have a president who does not enforce laws which are passed and he is obligated to enforce and he VIOLATES laws which he is obligated to follow.

I ask.. who is the criminal??

The War for Iran Begins

There is more and more evidence that the war for Iran is in the "brewing" stage (We have moved an extra carrier to striking distance, Patriot missiles into Iraq and Admiral Fallon is now in charge of CENTCOM) and will soon get very hot; either because we provoked them in Iraq or because we conduct an attack on their nuclear sites. To this point, I am torn.

First, if Iranians are in Iraq making devices which are killing American soldiers, as is claimed in this article, we have to find them and put them out. As long as we are in Iraq, we have to fight to defend ourselves. Now, I believe we should leave Iraq but if we are there, we must defend ourselves.  However, the problem is that the United States Government and President Bush specifically have no credibility. Because of his lies and deceit going into Iraq he has lost any credibility of any claims he is making about Iran. So, what do we do? Do we give him the benefit of the doubt or do we fight him on this? It is a tough choice because if we fight him and it turns out he is right, American soldiers will have died. But if we do not fight him and he turns out to be wrong, we will just be fools once again as most were in March of 2003. So you know where I stand, I am in the camp of defend ourselves as we are leaving the Country. Not an offensive move but a defensive retrograde move.

I believe two major items are going on. First, the President is daring Iran to fight us. He is encouraging their further aggressive behavior by deploying provocative weapons systems and by ignoring the call to engage them politically. Second, he is doing this in part to cover for the sins of his disastrous move into Iraq. If this turns into a full scale "defend Iraq against Iran" war, then he will hope that all the mistakes made by him in Iraq will be a long distant memory.

First, the provocation is explained. This article titled Bush's Iraq Plan: Goading Iran into War highlights all the moves Mr. Bush is making right now in preparation for war with Iran. First, it is clear that Bush has not only ignored the Iraq Study Group recommendations, he actually has thrown them out and burned them. It is over. After all, what the hell does James Baker know about anything? We have the President of a baseball team running the Country now! The fact that James Baker made a career of working with foreign governments is meaningless. He has decided that military provocation is better than political engagement with Iran; that much is clear.

Second, the deployment of weapons systems (Patriot Missile) which have nothing to do with defending against insurgents in Iraq and everything to do with defending against missile attacks from Iran is interesting. The Patriot Anti-Missile battery deploying does nothing to stop insurgents. However, combined with an additional air craft carrier group going to the Mideast, the story becomes well understood. Imagine, you are sitting in Tehran and your enemy in words sends weapons to blow your missiles out of the sky and a carrier which can bomb your land to your coast, what would you assume?

The second topic about Bush covering for the sins is all but proven. If he can get this to be a wider scale war with Iran he can accomplish a major task for his government. He wants to somehow show the American public that he was right all along and that there were "foreign influences" which drove the insurgency. If he can do that then he can go back and say, "We were treated as liberators but it was the other guys who mucked it up for us". By taking this provoking actions, when and if Iran does respond, it will get so confusing that we will never know who did what to whom.

The attacks on Iran and the potential war it will create fall right at the feet of George W. Bush. He was the one who issued the orders despite the fact that the Iraqi foreign minister that the Iranians were working in an Iraqi Government approved office which was about to become a consulate.

What is scary and quite sad about all this is that Bush is willing to get young men and women killed to try to solidify his place in history. It is no longer about the men and women dying, it is about what will the history books tell us about Bush's legacy. Right now, it is a comic tragedy in our history books.

I am really starting to wonder if we have a deranged person leading our Country. He is a "born again" and don't the hard core evangelicals believe that the Mideast will blow up in a fiery Armageddon which will then bring the second coming of Christ and the end of the world? Something like that anyway. I am wondering if this guy believes that so much that he is helping it to happen.

Anyway, Bush has no credibility in the world or the United States so unfortunately, even if he is right this time (Every blind squirrel finds an acorn...), he will never get the benefit of the doubt. And, unfortunately, the Iranians and Syrians know that.

Now That's A War on Terrorism!!

US Helicopter gunships find Al Qaeda targets and attack them out in Somalia. Special forces hitting Al Qaeda.. now that is what we all voted for!