Real Security Democratic Style

The anonymous criticism of my last post “Democratic Message on Iran” focused on my use of AMERICAblog as a source of Democratic wisdom. Anony said: Bill is being completely dishonest about the democratic position. If you want to know what the democrats stand for, start here!

Ok, I went there and found a 123 page pdf file entitled “Real Security” which was produced by the Senate and House Democrats. It contains about 100 pages of criticism of the Bush Administration (expected) and some recommendations that I support.

For example, it says to increase the fighting army by 30,000 men (I recommended 100,000) and to double the size of the Special Forces. (Since Special Operations troops are especially special in terms of intelligence, strength and bravery, my prior suggestion to double military salaries should be revised to triple for the Spec. Ops.) They also suggest rebuilding the human intelligence capabilities that Clinton decimated.

I’m fine with the Democrats so far, but find it amusing that the anti-military Party is suddenly so gung-ho. Perhaps it has to do with the Congressional elections in November.

Turning now to the Iran situation, the report starts with some reasonable statements:

“Iran is racing to join the nuclear weapons club.”

“A nuclear Iran threatens regional and global security.”

Then it criticizes the Bush approach thus far.

“The US government has no viable plan for stopping Iran.”

“The US subcontracted the job to France, Germany and the UK.”

Well, by this time (somewhere around page 64) I was dying to know the Democratic Party plan. Are you ready? Drum roll, please. The Dems propose:

1. “A five year global moratorium on all new enrichment and reprocessing of uranium.”

2. “ Delivery of important economic benefits to Iran.”

3. “Give Iran the opportunity to buy additional nuclear reactors and fuel from Russia.”

4. “Assurances that the US will not attack Iran.”

5. “But, Iran has to understand the existential threat of a military response under some conditions.”

I am not kidding. It actually says this is what we should do about the Iranian madmen. Somehow, we are going to enforce a “global moratorium” on Uranium enrichment. How, pray tell, are we supposed to get the North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Pakistanis, … French, to stop doing what they are doing? Three of those countries have veto power on the UN Security Council, so that proposal won’t even make it out of the UN.

Then the world is supposed to pay off the Iranians with “important economic benefits” because they threatened us. And of course give them the ability to produce nuclear power (by paying off the Russians) since we will have the IAEA (a joke if there ever was one) watching to make sure they don’t enrich any of the nuclear fuel. We have to promise not to attack Iran, but they had better understand that we hold out the threat of an “existential military response.”

THIS is the Democratic Party’s approach to the Iranian crisis. Is there any wonder that the American people will not let them near the presidency?

California’s Democratic prima dona Diane Feinstein wrote a 1500 word piece in the LA Times today called “Confronting Iran: Will we learn from our mistakes and apply tough diplomacy – or rely once again on the failed doctrine of preemption?” Princess Di used about 1480 words to bash preemption and then laid out the Democratic Party plan: “The US should engage Iran diplomatically. We must push for a complete halt to Iran’s enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the IAEA. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with UN forces if necessary.” The woman is delusional, or perhaps she just forgot about the Chinese and Russian vetoes.

You have to wonder what drives the Democratic Party. Here is a clue from the “Real Security” report: “Polls indicate that large majorities of Europeans hold an unfavorable view of America and see the US as posing the greatest threat to international security.” Do you get it now?