Please explain?

[J. J.]

I posted this on another thread, and didn't get an answer.

I am asking the question seriously and am looking for someone to explain the policy.  I am not making a judgment as to if the policy is good or bad, just what it is.

Let me try to follow this:

1.  Kerry votes against the Gulf War in 1991; he said that 2003 invasion "the wrong war at the wrong time."  He says it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein.  What was his policy relating to Hussein?

2.  Kerry votes to "give the president the authority" to invade Iraq in 2003, but didn't want him to use it.  Does that mean he's for or against the war?

3.  Kerry says that under his "plan," he'll bring the troops home, starting in 6 months.  Rumsfeld says that starting in January, the troops will come home.  What is the difference between Kerry's policy and Bush's policy?

4.  After Kerry brings the troops home he plans to increase the size of the Army by two divisions (about 24,000-25,000 troops).  Why?

5.  After Kerry brings the troops home, he plans to use the Army Reserve and National Guard for homeland security.  How does he plan to use them? 

6.  Kerry wants the Reserves/Guard out of Iraq because it creates too much strain on them to be serving; he wants them to serve here.  Why won't this create the same strain?

7.  What is Kerry's overall policy on homeland security and defense?

I really do not understand what the answers to these questions are.

[shankbear]

He is adrift in the vast expanse of the Pander Sea.  When the waves on the Pander Sea wash one way, his drifts that way.  When the breezes blow the other way, there he goes.  He is a tower of Jello.

His plan to have a plan is quiet a plan.  His simultaneous support and opposition to the military action in Iraq is puzzling at best.  His votes for and against providing the best equipment and support for our troops is unconscienable.

"Adrift on the Pander Sea".  Film at 11:00.  Right after "Stolen Honor"

[J. J.]

I was hoping for a serious answer.  I'm asking and I'm listening.  Would someone articulate it?

[J. J.]

Sorry J.J.  I do not think anyone can make sense of it.  Maybe Dr. Seuss. 

Weeelll, we do have Kerry supporters here, and I was hoping that they could explain.  I really am not seeing a definable policy.

[J. J.]

I am very serious in asking the question.  I do not understand what the Kerry defense/homeland security policy is.  I'm looking for a serious explanation of it, not whether it is good or bad, just what it is.

[J. J.]

I'm interested in an explanation of the policy. 

[Citizen James]

1. 12 years is a long time, a lot of things can change.   Keep in mind, hindsite is 20/20.  At the time, we didn't know if we would have an easy victory, or a quagmire like we have now.  I looked up the congressional testamony for January 12, 1991:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(I find it an interesting side note that even then he admits we armed Saddam, and critisizes us for doing nothing to hold him accountable for what he did with the arms we gave him - until 15 years later when we need an excuse)

The senate record on his reasoning over the second vote is very verbose (this is the senate after all), and demonstrates a good deal of understanding of the complexity of the situation.   His speech is far too long to cut and paste, but I think this gets to the crux of it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. See the second part of 1 - above.

3. Sometimes plans of policy don't differ, other times they do.  Does Kerry have to diametricly oppose each and every Bush position to be considered an opponent?

4. The bringing the troops home, as mentioned, was a best case scenerio.  In addition, this has shown how overstreched our millitary is.  It would be far better if we relied on full time professional soldiers to get the job done with the ones we do keep stationed there, rather than continuing to keep guardsmen in for multiple rotations because we are streched too thin.  The national guard is supposed to be our reserve, and our regional disaster relief - not our main fighting force.  Kerry want's to primarilly increase the size of the special forces - which would be the forces most useful in 'snatch and grab' or 'hit and run' operations against terrorist cells.

5. A good question.  I was unable to find specific details, but I suspect they would be called up at points of heightened alert to guard locations which could be considered to be at risk, or to better secure the borders, or to respond to the aftermath of a terrorist attack should one occur.  (along with their usual duties of responding to natural disasters).

6. There aren't nearly as many armed and active insurgents in the US.  Plus, being closer to friends and family would help their piss-poor morale.  I'm not sure you've seen the reports, but the reservists are being greatly undersupplied on vital items like body armor, night vision goggles, and properly outfitted vehicles.  Stuff the regular army folks have in ample supply.  If they were watching the border that wouldn't be half the problem as it is when their asked to head through the red zone. 

7. You want the verbose version or the short version.  I'm tired right now, and I have my doubts anyone is listening anyway, so I'll go with the short version:

Increase security at the borders and at ports
Increase security at chemical plants and other barely defended targets of opportunity.
Reinstitute the COPS program, which helps fund additional police officers keeping an eye on our nations streets.  (Helps in fighting crime too.) 
Work to quickly secure loose nuclear material in the former soviet union so it doesn't fall into the hands of terrorists. (If it hasn't already).
Increase resources to track down and disrupt the financing of terrorist groups.
Lobby congress for stronger fuel standards to decrease our dependence of foriegn oil.
Increase the size of the special forces - who are best equiped and trained for surgical conterterrorist strikes.

I'm sure there's more, but I should get to bed.

Any other questions?

[J. J.]

First of all, I want to thank you for responding.

One points 1-2, is this a fair summary:

Kerry is saying that, while it is a good thing that Saddam Hussein is out of power (and I'm not suggesting that he think it's bad that he is out), it wasn't a good idea to use military action to force him out?  Is that a fair summary?

On point 3, I'm not seeing a difference in "exit strategy."  Is there a difference?

On point 4, is Kerry suggesting that these two divisions are totally Special Forces?  I'm not hearing that.

On points 5-6, is Kerry really suggesting using the NG/R as border patrol/port security?  This, obviously would not have them returning to civilian jobs.  This is the really unclear point.

On point 7, the question is how?  Is he really suggesting that the NG/R be used for port/facility security?  This was raised in the debate and he has not, IMO, been clear.

[Silent Hunter]

"Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" and "We should have had allies by our side" are two opposed policies. He's saying in the first the entire invasion was wrong, while in the second, it would have been alright with allies. What is it, Senator?

[J. J.]

Well, I do think the first premise is intellectually honest, if my summary is correct.  I don't agree with it, but I feel that it is honest.  I can understand it.

[MODU]

1.  Kerry votes against the Gulf War in 1991; he said that 2003 invasion "the wrong war at the wrong time."  He says it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein.  What was his policy relating to Hussein?  Kerry is not a person for war.  Understandable since I too wouldn't want to send troops to war, but at least I know the difference between doing what I feel and what needs to be done.

2.  Kerry votes to "give the president the authority" to invade Iraq in 2003, but didn't want him to use it.  Does that mean he's for or against the war?  I think he was trying to have it both ways.  Similar as above.  He didn't want to have the troops involved in another war, but he didn't want to look like a anti-war protestor in Senate clothing.

3.  Kerry says that under his "plan," he'll bring the troops home, starting in 6 months.  Rumsfeld says that starting in January, the troops will come home.  What is the difference between Kerry's policy and Bush's policy?  The troops aren't coming home "permanently" from Iraq any time soon.  They will be rotated out again, giving each soldier a chance for some overdue R&R.

4.  After Kerry brings the troops home he plans to increase the size of the Army by two divisions (about 24,000-25,000 troops).  Why?  We need to increase the size of our armed forces (especially the Marines and Army) in order to continue the war on terror.  Special forces would be preferred, but we also need additional soldiers in the fields of communications and logistics.

5.  After Kerry brings the troops home, he plans to use the Army Reserve and National Guard for homeland security.  How does he plan to use them?  We can't dispatch our troops on US soil.  Kerry is trying to mislead the public on that.  However, the role of the national guard could be updated to reallocate the Guard to border patrol.

6.  Kerry wants the Reserves/Guard out of Iraq because it creates too much strain on them to be serving; he wants them to serve here.  Why won't this create the same strain?  The Guard is not meant to serve extended stays in foreign nations.  They are to protect the US while we are engaged in war abroad.  This is a product of our super-downsizing of the military during the 90s following the end of the cold war and the easy win in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

7.  What is Kerry's overall policy on homeland security and defense?  To do it "better" than Bush. 


-----

Hope that clears up Kerry's positions.

[J. J.]

3.  Kerry says that under his "plan," he'll bring the troops home, starting in 6 months.  Rumsfeld says that starting in January, the troops will come home.  What is the difference between Kerry's policy and Bush's policy?  The troops aren't coming home "permanently" from Iraq any time soon.  They will be rotated out again, giving each soldier a chance for some overdue R&R.

4.  After Kerry brings the troops home he plans to increase the size of the Army by two divisions (about 24,000-25,000 troops).  Why?  We need to increase the size of our armed forces (especially the Marines and Army) in order to continue the war on terror.  Special forces would be preferred, but we also need additional soldiers in the fields of communications and logistics.

5.  After Kerry brings the troops home, he plans to use the Army Reserve and National Guard for homeland security.  How does he plan to use them?  We can't dispatch our troops on US soil.  Kerry is trying to mislead the public on that.  However, the role of the national guard could be updated to reallocate the Guard to border patrol.

6.  Kerry wants the Reserves/Guard out of Iraq because it creates too much strain on them to be serving; he wants them to serve here.  Why won't this create the same strain?  The Guard is not meant to serve extended stays in foreign nations.  They are to protect the US while we are engaged in war abroad.  This is a product of our super-downsizing of the military during the 90s following the end of the cold war and the easy win in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

7.  What is Kerry's overall policy on homeland security and defense?  To do it "better" than Bush. 


-----

Hope that clears up Kerry's positions.

Well, first I'll give James points for one and two.  I don't agree with the policy, but it is an intellectually honest one.  MODU, your point here is less favorable to Kerry.

3.  There doesn't seem to be too much difference in the exit option of either candidate.

4.  Kerry has used the word "divisions" which is a technical term for a type of unit, a field or combat unit.  Special forces and longigistical support are not generally separate divisions, but attached to divisions, or higher level command.  He is not referring to longistical support or special forces.

5.  The boarder is on American soil.  This one is not being explained.

6.  The guard has been traditionally used in foreign service.  PA 28th Infantry Division was deployed to Europe in both WWI and WWII (on the front line at the Battle of the Bulge).  It does serve in a disaster relief role as well, but that is not its main role.

7.  The question is "how."  So far, the specifics have not been reveiled.

So far, I'm getting the impression that while Kerry think it is good that Hussein in out of power, it was not the US's role to effect that removal (points 1-2).  There is very little difference in the exit strategy (point 3).

Is that a fair summary?

[opebo]

None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important.

[Mr. Fresh]

None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important.

Maybe not to you.

[J. J.]

None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important.

Tell that to someone who wasn't under the flight path AA Flight 77 on 9/11/01. 

[J. J.]

None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important.

Interestingly, Kerry just used the term "win the peace" in a campaign speech, so I guess he thinks it's important.  Maybe that's the reason he agreed to debate on it.

Yes, opedo, the electorate does regard it as important, with the exception of a few people like you, and Michael Moore. 

I am attempting to ask serious question, without political rancor on this thread, about policy (and have chided Republicans who entered political comments). 

It's comments like that, opedo, that make the Republicans, and I would suspect more than a few Democrats, think that the party is "The Loony Left From Outer Space."  I do not agree that they repesent your party as a whole (or even a majority), or of its presidential nominee.

[opebo]

None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important.

Interestingly, Kerry just used the term "win the peace" in a campaign speech, so I guess he thinks it's important.  Maybe that's the reason he agreed to debate on it.

Yes, opedo, the electorate does regard it as important, with the exception of a few people like you, and Michael Moore. 

I am attempting to ask serious question, without political rancor on this thread, about policy (and have chided Republicans who entered political comments). 

It's comments like that, opedo, that make the Republicans, and I would suspect more than a few Democrats, think that the party is "The Loony Left From Outer Space."  I do not agree that they repesent your party as a whole (or even a majority), or of its presidential nominee.

Without political rancor?  Pot calling the kettle black!

And its OpeBo!

[J. J.]

None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important.

Interestingly, Kerry just used the term "win the peace" in a campaign speech, so I guess he thinks it's important.  Maybe that's the reason he agreed to debate on it.

Yes, opedo, the electorate does regard it as important, with the exception of a few people like you, and Michael Moore. 

I am attempting to ask serious question, without political rancor on this thread, about policy (and have chided Republicans who entered political comments). 

It's comments like that, opedo, that make the Republicans, and I would suspect more than a few Democrats, think that the party is "The Loony Left From Outer Space."  I do not agree that they repesent your party as a whole (or even a majority), or of its presidential nominee.

Without political rancor?  Pot calling the kettle black!

And its OpeBo!

Hardly,  as neither you, opebo, nor Michael Moore, the two people that I was critical of, is not the nominee; further, the Democratic nominee doesn't claim that homeland security and national defense is not very important.   I believe that the term I used about Kerry's position on the war as "intellectually honest," even though I disagree with it.  If you think calling someone's argument, that you disagree with, "intellectually honest," as "the pot calling the kettle black,"  please do of much of that as much as you want.

I have asked what Kerry's overall policy is relating to national defense and homeland security.  You have not answered the question except to say, "None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important."  Kerry thought it was important enough today to mention the exit strategy in a speech; he though that it was important enough to bring up the points in a nationally televised debate.

Several posted have answered, legitimately, parts of the question; I respect that, and thanked them for it.

I am deeply troubled that even Kerry supporters cannot explain some of the points that Kerry raise.  I frankly do not understand them either; it wasn't a trick question.

Your attempt, by saying, "None of the policies you mentioned, J.J., is very important," is a tacit admission that you don't understand it either.  Bush hasn't been the one saying Kerry will do these things; Kerry has been the one saying these things.   

I'd like to know what this policy is, not the opinions of if it's good or bad, or obepbo's opinion if it's unimportant.

[James46]

Does anyone here understand an extremely important fact.  The Guard and Reserve's basis mission is to support the Active Army units.  In simple terms, the active army provided the combat troops, but the ammo, water, food, gas, etc. they need are to be provided with service support units which are the Guard/Reserve.  Kerry doesn't have a clue to how the military is set up.  He's anti-military.  If he is elected, he's going to get a heck of lot of guys (and gals) killed.  Combat troops HAVE to have support.  Take away the Guard and Reserve and they DON'T have the support they need.  For the love of God, does anyone out there bother to check the facts before they talk.  A former Guardsman/Reservist.