As of today at 4:00pm Pacific Time, I am officially a candidate for US Representative for the 8th CD. (Seattle area). I am presenting a quick view of my political situation followed by my views on Iraq. This is by far the best forum I have seen. I am open to your thoughts.
Welcome to jimvaughnforcongress.com
I have been repeatedly attacked as a Republican calling myself a Democrat. The fact is, I am a no-nonsense, conservative Democrat and others have compared me to Scoop Jackson. I will stand up to my party when I disagree. The truth is that I am not happy with either party. I am angry with the Bush administration and how the war has been managed. I am also disgusted when I read the letter titled "Democrats can turn U.S. around."
Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, promising to solve our problems and get us out of Iraq. The new speaker of the House even had a plan to solve the problem of the increasing cost of gas. It was about $2.50 a gallon then. Inflation and the price of food were increasing about 2.5 percent to 3 percent a year. The stock market was growing, unemployment was down and the sales of new homes and automobiles were setting new records. Two years after the Democrats took control, gas is almost $4 a gallon. Inflation? Food and other essentials cost more each month. We are still in Iraq (and should be). The stock market is full of speculators, unemployment is up and we all know how the sales of homes and automobiles are doing.
Can we trust the liberal Progressive Democrats to turn the U.S. around, when they have done nothing for the past two years but whine about the war and point fingers at the Republicans? It is time for change. The Democratic party needs to change leadership and elect individuals that will quit whining and turn the country around. We need solid, common sense, no-nonsense, conservative Democrats.
Exiting Iraq: As a former armor officer and military analyst, my position on the Iraq War is that if it were left to the generals it would have been over by now and our service members would be home. The proper planning, adequate troop strength mission planning, mission execution and exit strategy is the business of the Pentagon not our politicians.
Regarding Colin Powell the New York Times stated, “… there should be an honored place in history's pantheon for statesmen whose ideas and instincts turned out to be right - even though they were ignored…. He did, however, offer cautions and reservations. The doctrine that has long been associated with his name is that any military intervention should have a well-defined mission, use enough force that it can be accomplished cleanly and successfully and include a clear exit strategy. Mr. Powell argued, before the invasion, for more time to line up a broader coalition of allies and for more extensive planning for postwar security and occupation.”
Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. His secular Ba'athist state was hated by fundamentalist Muslims. By kicking him out under the pretext of his "weapons of mass destruction," we have empowered Shi'ite Muslim fanatics who want to make Iraq an Islamic state, and greatly worsened the terrorist threat to the United States and its citizens.
More than four years of war has destroyed much of Iraq, disrupted its infrastructure, killed more Iraqis than Saddam did in all his decades in power, eliminated the religious freedom which existed before our invasion, caused previously thriving Christian and Jewish communities to flee the country, poisoned hundreds of thousands with depleted uranium, denied security to the citizenry, and left most Iraqis worse off than before we “liberated” them. Of course it has also cost thousands of American lives, left tens of thousands of young American soldiers so badly wounded they will never be the same, caused about half a million veterans to come home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, nightmares, and various mental illnesses, and added about two trillion dollars to the debt load our grandchildren must bear. Because of repetitive tours for the Reserves and National Guard, even the lucky ones who came back in one piece have paid a heavy price. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been dissolved, children have been estranged, homes have been foreclosed, and natural disasters like Katrina have not been adequately dealt with.
Everyone seems to agree that the beginning of an American withdrawal from Iraq will mark a turning point. What divides us is the speed and extent of the drawdown and whether it should be driven by a timetable or by a strategy that seeks to shape events.
The issue is not the mechanics of withdrawal. Rather, the debate should be over consequences: whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or a carefully planned strategy designed to enhance international security. If we withdraw, leaving nothing behind but a failed state and chaos, the consequences will be disastrous for the region and for America's position in the world.
Radical Islam is more than the sum of individual terrorist acts. It is an ideology in which Islam's radical wing seeks to sweep away secularism, pluralistic values and Western institutions wherever Muslims live. Its is fueled by the conviction that we are on the decline and lack the will to resist. Any event that seems to confirm these convictions compounds the terrorist revolution.
If a fundamentalist regime is installed in Baghdad or in any of the other major cities, such as Mosul or Basra, if terrorists secure substantial territory for training and sanctuaries, or if chaos and civil war mark the end of the American intervention, Islamic militants will gain momentum wherever there are significant Islamic populations or nonfundamentalist Islamic governments. No country within reach of jihad would be spared the consequences of the resulting upheavals sparked by the many individual centers of fanaticism that make up the jihad. In appropriate action will shrivel U.S. credibility around the world. Our leadership and the respect accorded to our views on other regional issues from Palestine to Iran would be weakened. The relief from military efforts would be brief before even greater crises descended on us.
A responsible exit strategy must emerge from the integration of political and security elements; above all else, the consolidation of the national government. Real progress will have been made when the Iraqi armed forces view themselves and are seen by the population as defenders of the nation's interest, not sectarian or regional interests. They will have become a national force when they are able to carry the fight into Sunni areas and grow willing to disarm militias in the Shiite regions from which the majority of them are recruited.
To delegate to military commanders a time table for withdrawals places too great a burden on them. Their views regarding security need to be blended with judgments regarding the political and collateral consequences that a major initiative inevitably produces. We need to be aware of the grave consequences of failure.
The psychological impact, most immediately on the Iraqi political structure, will be crucial. Will the initial reductions , set to begin sometime after last week's elections, be viewed as the first step of a rapid and complete withdrawal? If so, the political factions in Iraq will maneuver to protect their immediate assets in preparation for the expected test of strength between the various groups. American preferences for a secular and inclusive government in a unified Iraq will shrink. It will be difficult to broaden the base of a government at the very moment it thinks it is losing its key military support. In this situation, a limited withdrawal not formally geared to a fixed timetable and designed to placate American public opinion could acquire an irreversible character.
If the experience of Vietnam is any guide, the numbers of returning troops will test the U.S. domestic policies. Pressures to continue or accelerate the withdrawals could be magnified so that all progress will be lost. I am concerned that this scenario will cause the Iraqi terrorist factions to achieve national recognition for accelerating the U.S. withdrawal, perhaps by turning on us either politically or with some of their militia.
The United States cannot withdraw without establishing some international consensus. The passions, convictions and rivalries of the factions in Iraq will continue. A regional system will emerge in Iraq in one form or another. We must meld political and security objectives prevent the creation of radical states.
The countries that are relevant to Iraq's security must be given a sense of participation in the next stage of Iraq policy. Political institutions in Iraq need to be built into an international and regional system. Otherwise the United States will have to function alone as the permanent policeman, a role that any projected Iraqi government is likely to reject in the long run. The time has come not only to define the strategic future in Iraq but also to broaden the base of political consultation in the region at large.
A political organization, similar to the United Nations that includes key European allies, India (because of its Muslim population), Pakistan, Turkey and some neighbors of Iraq should be convoked after the Iraqi election. Political discussions between the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and Iranian authorities regarding Iraq have already been approved. This group would be to advise on the political evolution of Iraq, to broaden the basis of legitimacy of the government and to reflect a broad international interest in the stability and progress of the region. As time goes on, the group could become a forum to deal with other issues affecting Middle East stability, including some of the causes of Islamic radicalism. A political framework is not a substitute for a successful military outcome, but military success cannot be sustained without it.
As a part of our exit strategy I would like to see a transition in which our troops are replaced by peacekeepers from the United Nations and Iraq 's neighbors. To make that happen, our government will have to:
1. Give up control of the rebuilding projects (let Halliburton bid like anybody else, and let them hire Iraqis for a change),
2. Give up the 14 permanent military bases we are building in Iraq.
An article on CNS.com states, "We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," they added.
Iraqi oil exports are over 1.9 million barrels of oil per day, with revenues estimated at $41 billion in 2007 and $9.4 billion in 2008 (year to date).
Extrapolating the $9.4 billion of oil revenues for the first two months of 2008 yields an estimate of $56.4 billion for all of 2008," they wrote. That figure will probably be low given the predictions for oil prices to continue to rise over the coming year. In essence, we believe that Iraq will accrue at least $100.0 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008.
"It's totally unacceptable that there's no decent accounting for their money," Levin said in a statement. "But the problem is our money. Why are we spending our money five years later when they have a surplus? That's just extraordinary."
According to a Jan. 30, 2008 GAO report, the Defense Department's obligations through fiscal year 2007 include about $378.1 billion for operations in and around Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
In the interest of saving money, we also need to address our presence in other countries. After 60 years, there is no reason for us to still be occupying Germany and Japan . I would bring home our troops. This change in mission and deployment would allow the defense budget to be reduced substantially. We now have a trillion dollars in new weapons on the books for future procurement -- useless nukes and unneeded cold war weapons. At the same time, we have thousands of soldiers and their families on food stamps. Our priorities must change. The defense budget no longer bears any relationship to our national security. It has become little more than corporate welfare for the weapons manufacturers Eisenhower warned us about... and a subsidy for the transnational financial interests our military protects. In the long run, defense spending can be cut by more than 50% while increasing our national security. Because of the enormous costs of the Iraq war, achieving this goal will take time. It is time for congress to do something.
Welcome to jimvaughnforcongress.com
I have been repeatedly attacked as a Republican calling myself a Democrat. The fact is, I am a no-nonsense, conservative Democrat and others have compared me to Scoop Jackson. I will stand up to my party when I disagree. The truth is that I am not happy with either party. I am angry with the Bush administration and how the war has been managed. I am also disgusted when I read the letter titled "Democrats can turn U.S. around."
Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, promising to solve our problems and get us out of Iraq. The new speaker of the House even had a plan to solve the problem of the increasing cost of gas. It was about $2.50 a gallon then. Inflation and the price of food were increasing about 2.5 percent to 3 percent a year. The stock market was growing, unemployment was down and the sales of new homes and automobiles were setting new records. Two years after the Democrats took control, gas is almost $4 a gallon. Inflation? Food and other essentials cost more each month. We are still in Iraq (and should be). The stock market is full of speculators, unemployment is up and we all know how the sales of homes and automobiles are doing.
Can we trust the liberal Progressive Democrats to turn the U.S. around, when they have done nothing for the past two years but whine about the war and point fingers at the Republicans? It is time for change. The Democratic party needs to change leadership and elect individuals that will quit whining and turn the country around. We need solid, common sense, no-nonsense, conservative Democrats.
Exiting Iraq: As a former armor officer and military analyst, my position on the Iraq War is that if it were left to the generals it would have been over by now and our service members would be home. The proper planning, adequate troop strength mission planning, mission execution and exit strategy is the business of the Pentagon not our politicians.
Regarding Colin Powell the New York Times stated, “… there should be an honored place in history's pantheon for statesmen whose ideas and instincts turned out to be right - even though they were ignored…. He did, however, offer cautions and reservations. The doctrine that has long been associated with his name is that any military intervention should have a well-defined mission, use enough force that it can be accomplished cleanly and successfully and include a clear exit strategy. Mr. Powell argued, before the invasion, for more time to line up a broader coalition of allies and for more extensive planning for postwar security and occupation.”
Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. His secular Ba'athist state was hated by fundamentalist Muslims. By kicking him out under the pretext of his "weapons of mass destruction," we have empowered Shi'ite Muslim fanatics who want to make Iraq an Islamic state, and greatly worsened the terrorist threat to the United States and its citizens.
More than four years of war has destroyed much of Iraq, disrupted its infrastructure, killed more Iraqis than Saddam did in all his decades in power, eliminated the religious freedom which existed before our invasion, caused previously thriving Christian and Jewish communities to flee the country, poisoned hundreds of thousands with depleted uranium, denied security to the citizenry, and left most Iraqis worse off than before we “liberated” them. Of course it has also cost thousands of American lives, left tens of thousands of young American soldiers so badly wounded they will never be the same, caused about half a million veterans to come home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, nightmares, and various mental illnesses, and added about two trillion dollars to the debt load our grandchildren must bear. Because of repetitive tours for the Reserves and National Guard, even the lucky ones who came back in one piece have paid a heavy price. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been dissolved, children have been estranged, homes have been foreclosed, and natural disasters like Katrina have not been adequately dealt with.
Everyone seems to agree that the beginning of an American withdrawal from Iraq will mark a turning point. What divides us is the speed and extent of the drawdown and whether it should be driven by a timetable or by a strategy that seeks to shape events.
The issue is not the mechanics of withdrawal. Rather, the debate should be over consequences: whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or a carefully planned strategy designed to enhance international security. If we withdraw, leaving nothing behind but a failed state and chaos, the consequences will be disastrous for the region and for America's position in the world.
Radical Islam is more than the sum of individual terrorist acts. It is an ideology in which Islam's radical wing seeks to sweep away secularism, pluralistic values and Western institutions wherever Muslims live. Its is fueled by the conviction that we are on the decline and lack the will to resist. Any event that seems to confirm these convictions compounds the terrorist revolution.
If a fundamentalist regime is installed in Baghdad or in any of the other major cities, such as Mosul or Basra, if terrorists secure substantial territory for training and sanctuaries, or if chaos and civil war mark the end of the American intervention, Islamic militants will gain momentum wherever there are significant Islamic populations or nonfundamentalist Islamic governments. No country within reach of jihad would be spared the consequences of the resulting upheavals sparked by the many individual centers of fanaticism that make up the jihad. In appropriate action will shrivel U.S. credibility around the world. Our leadership and the respect accorded to our views on other regional issues from Palestine to Iran would be weakened. The relief from military efforts would be brief before even greater crises descended on us.
A responsible exit strategy must emerge from the integration of political and security elements; above all else, the consolidation of the national government. Real progress will have been made when the Iraqi armed forces view themselves and are seen by the population as defenders of the nation's interest, not sectarian or regional interests. They will have become a national force when they are able to carry the fight into Sunni areas and grow willing to disarm militias in the Shiite regions from which the majority of them are recruited.
To delegate to military commanders a time table for withdrawals places too great a burden on them. Their views regarding security need to be blended with judgments regarding the political and collateral consequences that a major initiative inevitably produces. We need to be aware of the grave consequences of failure.
The psychological impact, most immediately on the Iraqi political structure, will be crucial. Will the initial reductions , set to begin sometime after last week's elections, be viewed as the first step of a rapid and complete withdrawal? If so, the political factions in Iraq will maneuver to protect their immediate assets in preparation for the expected test of strength between the various groups. American preferences for a secular and inclusive government in a unified Iraq will shrink. It will be difficult to broaden the base of a government at the very moment it thinks it is losing its key military support. In this situation, a limited withdrawal not formally geared to a fixed timetable and designed to placate American public opinion could acquire an irreversible character.
If the experience of Vietnam is any guide, the numbers of returning troops will test the U.S. domestic policies. Pressures to continue or accelerate the withdrawals could be magnified so that all progress will be lost. I am concerned that this scenario will cause the Iraqi terrorist factions to achieve national recognition for accelerating the U.S. withdrawal, perhaps by turning on us either politically or with some of their militia.
The United States cannot withdraw without establishing some international consensus. The passions, convictions and rivalries of the factions in Iraq will continue. A regional system will emerge in Iraq in one form or another. We must meld political and security objectives prevent the creation of radical states.
The countries that are relevant to Iraq's security must be given a sense of participation in the next stage of Iraq policy. Political institutions in Iraq need to be built into an international and regional system. Otherwise the United States will have to function alone as the permanent policeman, a role that any projected Iraqi government is likely to reject in the long run. The time has come not only to define the strategic future in Iraq but also to broaden the base of political consultation in the region at large.
A political organization, similar to the United Nations that includes key European allies, India (because of its Muslim population), Pakistan, Turkey and some neighbors of Iraq should be convoked after the Iraqi election. Political discussions between the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and Iranian authorities regarding Iraq have already been approved. This group would be to advise on the political evolution of Iraq, to broaden the basis of legitimacy of the government and to reflect a broad international interest in the stability and progress of the region. As time goes on, the group could become a forum to deal with other issues affecting Middle East stability, including some of the causes of Islamic radicalism. A political framework is not a substitute for a successful military outcome, but military success cannot be sustained without it.
As a part of our exit strategy I would like to see a transition in which our troops are replaced by peacekeepers from the United Nations and Iraq 's neighbors. To make that happen, our government will have to:
1. Give up control of the rebuilding projects (let Halliburton bid like anybody else, and let them hire Iraqis for a change),
2. Give up the 14 permanent military bases we are building in Iraq.
An article on CNS.com states, "We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," they added.
Iraqi oil exports are over 1.9 million barrels of oil per day, with revenues estimated at $41 billion in 2007 and $9.4 billion in 2008 (year to date).
Extrapolating the $9.4 billion of oil revenues for the first two months of 2008 yields an estimate of $56.4 billion for all of 2008," they wrote. That figure will probably be low given the predictions for oil prices to continue to rise over the coming year. In essence, we believe that Iraq will accrue at least $100.0 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008.
"It's totally unacceptable that there's no decent accounting for their money," Levin said in a statement. "But the problem is our money. Why are we spending our money five years later when they have a surplus? That's just extraordinary."
According to a Jan. 30, 2008 GAO report, the Defense Department's obligations through fiscal year 2007 include about $378.1 billion for operations in and around Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
In the interest of saving money, we also need to address our presence in other countries. After 60 years, there is no reason for us to still be occupying Germany and Japan . I would bring home our troops. This change in mission and deployment would allow the defense budget to be reduced substantially. We now have a trillion dollars in new weapons on the books for future procurement -- useless nukes and unneeded cold war weapons. At the same time, we have thousands of soldiers and their families on food stamps. Our priorities must change. The defense budget no longer bears any relationship to our national security. It has become little more than corporate welfare for the weapons manufacturers Eisenhower warned us about... and a subsidy for the transnational financial interests our military protects. In the long run, defense spending can be cut by more than 50% while increasing our national security. Because of the enormous costs of the Iraq war, achieving this goal will take time. It is time for congress to do something.
Comment