As a political "frame," it's been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It's even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents "weak on terror," they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.But the worst thing about this slogan is that it hasn't worked. The so-called "war" has created even more terrorism--as we have seen so tragically in Iraq. The State Department itself recently released a study showing that worldwide terrorism has increased 25% in 2006, including a 40% surge in civilian fatalities.
"For six years, George Bush has used "Global War on Terror" as a political sledgehammer to force through an ideological agenda that undermines our values and does nothing to undercut terrorism... by the Bush Administration's own admission, we are less safe today. Today, we know two unequivocal truths about the results of Bush's approach - there are more terrorists and we have fewer allies.
We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a cynical political strategy to shut down debate. Here's mine:
First, I will strengthen our military to better address the threat posed by terrorist groups to the United States. I will strengthen our force structure, hold regular conferences with top military leadership so their advice isn't filtered, and give back military professionals control over major operational decisions. Second, I 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. I will launch a sweeping global effort to provide education, fight poverty, increase democracy and create a 10,000-member strong "Marshall Corps," all to ensure that terrorism does not take root in weak and failing states.
I believe that every candidate for president, Republican and Democrat, understands that there are terrorists who mean us harm and must be stopped. To suggest otherwise is to do exactly what I have criticized the Administration for doing - reduce the fight against terrorists to a bumper sticker slogan and use it for political gain. Using fear as a wedge issue may help win elections, but it won't protect Americans ... we must come together, and cast fear aside."
The Mission-Focused plan would put America on an offensive footing against those who would harm us. This plan will employ a more effective strategy to hunt down those who would threaten us, including Islamic extremists, and to shut down terrorism where it starts -- in weak and failing states, which breed instability and radicalism. This plan will:
- Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century to ensure the force structure of our military matches its mission. 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.
- Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods and avoids actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law.
- Hold regular meetings with top military leadership. Edwards will also reinstate a basic doctrine of national security management -- 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.
- Create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, to stabilize weak and failing states.
- Re-invest in the maintenance of our equipment so our strategy against terrorists is as effective as possible.
- 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.
Join the campaign to Change America
- posted by Team Edwards
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
I'd like more details on the "Marshall Corps" idea.
I live within walking distance of the WTC site, and watched with horror as the planes flew into the two towers and then the towers fell. I lived through the horrors of the aftermath, which in fact still continue. So I'm especially interested in national security. It's shocking that four planes could have been hijacked at the same time and no effort was made to get the situation under control before they could be used to do so much damage, in spite of all the warnings we'd had. We still have shockingly little internal security or control over potential sabotage to chemical plants, nuclear facilities, or even airports, pipe lines, or army bases, as recent arrests indicate. How many years is it going to take before we wake up and actually do something other than telling everyone to 'Be afraid, be very afraid'?
And yes, John Edwards does belong to Gather. I'm actually connected to him.
Douglas, you might want to also take a look at that speech. I think he may have addressed some of what you're talking about.
We also need to remember that some weapons won't work the first or third time out. It's all experimentation, until they get them in the field. Weapons procurement isn't run quite as casually as office chairs or chin straps.
I guess there are a lot of drive by 1's on this post, since none of the comments seem excessively negative.
Also, a small army isn't what we need to win small wars (if you consider Iraq a small war). Our problem is that we don't have enough troops. If we sent 300,000 troops to Iraq in 2003, we would have been out of there a few years ago. You need manpower to win a counterinsurgency.
There is absolutely no doubt that America has the military prowess to win any war. Unfortunately, we do not have the same ability to rebuild nations we have snuffed out or as good at occupying foreign countries. There are a lot of differences between countries like Viet Nam and Iraq and the Western European countries we defeated in WWII.
It is my deepest desire that responsible proactive idealism, like that found in the wording you quoted, could rule this country once again. Our great economy could be doing so many better things.
We've got to let go of the selfish self-servingness.
I should research what Edwards has to say about helping the disadvantaged and struggling within our borders. Average Americans who are struggling under Shop-Mart wages and competition with illegal labor, and immigrant labor within labor pools that are shrinking thanks to outsourcing and off-shoring are a cause of mine. I hope educational opportunities for the struggling classes will be highly favored in his domestic programs and agendas.
Is there anyone left on the planet, except maybe President Bush and VP Cheney who believe that invading Iraq was a part of the "war on terror"?
And now they engage in this propagandist nonsense about "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." First of all they weren't in Iraq until we opened the doors to them - not in any significant numbers anyway. Secondly fighting them there is not stopping and will not stop them from coming here. I say we do have to fight them here, and now.
The invasion of Afghanistan was unfortunate but extremely necessary. The invasion of Iraq was an is a poorly conceived, poorly planned, poorly executed tragedy. Sen. Edwards is among those who understand this.
I don't now about the world at large and what the state department is classifying as "terrorism" (roadside bombs in Iraq maybe) but of 498 terrorist events in the European Union in 2006 exactly 1 was perpetrated by the dreaded "Islamic Fundementalist Extremists" Bush insists are a terrible threat worth having thousands of our sons and daughters killed over.
Well, Senator, that's all very high-minded, and EXTREMELY ambitious. I'd be interested in hearing a LOT more about exactly how you intend to go about achieving all of those strategic objectives. I don't think 10,000 "Marshall Corpsmen" are going to quite be up to that challenge.
We are in the process right now of creating one of those "weak or failing states" you mention, which will likely, regardless of the outcome of Bush's "surge", be a hotbed for radical Islamic fundamentalist extremists (and potential terrorists) for years, if not decades, to come.
How, exactly, do you plan on coping with THAT particular threat?
"Civilians with training and experience need to be involved in stabilizing states with weak governments, and providing humanitarian assistance where disasters have struck. We need bankers to set up financial systems, political scientists to implement election systems, and civil engineers to design water and power systems. As president, I will create a "Marshall Corps," modeled on the military Reserves, of up to 10,000 expert professionals who will help stabilize weak societies, and who will work on humanitarian missions."
We have spent four years, and, literally, mountains of money trying to "stabilize", or rebuild, Iraq now. I wonder, where do you expect to find 10,000 highly-qualified, and experienced, civilian wonder workers? I suppose there is a core of such people who have worked in Iraq (Paul Bremer?), or are working there now, who have learned a great deal about how NOT to go about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN7RgDIXKug
Aren't the standards low enough without putting more criminals in the military.
I am an Edwards supporter and would like to here his stand on the illegal immigration problem.
Your labeling of illegal immigrants as criminals implies that you think anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. I reserve that more pejorative terms for those who commit violent crimes. abscond with another physical property or vandalize such property with malicious intent and for these reasons belong in jail or prison or deserving of a permanent punishment that would prevent them from ever committing such a crime again.
Astro Girl,
Just how this 10,000 strong Marshall Corps going to be recruited? Even if paid the equivalent of a measly $20,000 a year it would cost 200,000,000 dollars and year and I don't think you could find 10,000 civilian professionals who would be willing to take the risk of becoming targets for that kind of money. If Edwards is not talking about civilians stabilizing weak and failing states. they would have to be military and and that would only increase the problem of our image in third world countries, and 10,000 would not be enough to prevent them from becoming the new American targets.
Edward's has a talent for saying all the right buzz words, but closer analysis of his attempts at adding substance suggest little possibility of making his grandiose ideas a reality.
It is plain simple English.
You can't work here without using false documents if you are here ILLEGALLY.
Some respondents have said that America's military is powerful enough to win any war, but I think that they are referring to a war like World War I, with clearly defined fronts and armies of uniformed soldiers. The war in Viet Nam and the current situation in Iraq are guerrilla wars, with opponents who do not wear uniforms. One person described our effort in Viet Nam as "elephants swatting mosquitoes."
Some South Vietnamese people realized that America was trying to save them from a Communist dictatorship, but others thought that we were just another colonial power who had replaced the French. We should try to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, unlike the Bush administration.