Republican Barbara Boxer-challenger Chuck DeVore wrote an Opinion
in the
Washington Times this morning in which he discusses the need
for a conservative foreign policy based on more than simple
opposition to Obama. His recommendation focuses on the need for
modernizing the military through research, technology, and more
effective spending. Overall, he plays a realist tone -- basing
power on military, economic, and political strength.
His points on modernization of the military are pretty
uncontroversial, but what can raise an eyebrow or two is his
position on Afghanistan, where he says:
"As a result of culture and geography, Mr. Obama's Afghan surge
will likely fall short of its objectives while spending $40
billion per year. Employing conventional forces in pursuit of
terrorists and guerrilla forces is always an expensive
proposition. Attempting to build nations on soil not yet
fertile to the concepts of democracy and national unity is even
more problematic. Neither is needed to produce the
result we want: deadly consequences for attacking
Americans.This can be done with special
forces, drones and better human intelligence."
(emphasis added)
His objective in Afghanistan ("the result we want") is "deadly
consequences for attacking Americans." For that, he says, we do
not need to "employ conventional forces."
In light of the Christmas Day Crotch bomber, where the reports
indicate that the suspect attempted to blow himself up, I find it
surprising that DeVore would consider "deadly consequences" as
the objective for the American military in Afghanistan. Moreover,
suicide
attacks and attempted suicide attacks in Afghanistan against
American soldiers number in the hundreds annually. Hence, many
terrorists are not deterred by the threat of retaliation. Deadly
consequences are not our objective, but rather, they are the
objective of the enemy. If his "result we want" is questionable,
then so are his recommended tactics for achieving that objective
(special forces, drones, intelligence, not more conventional
troops).
Given DeVore's support from the conservative grassroots, his
non-interventionist position could indicate a switch in party
position as President Obama is approaching a year of ownership of
this war. Liberal Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer also opposes
the Afghan surge. His primary opponent, Carly Fiorina --
who is often called a "RINO" --
supports the president's surge. The Republican consensus thus
far has been to support the surge.
So Mr. O'Connell, are you suggesting that our objective should be
nation building? Good luck with that.
Chris| 1.13.10 @ 9:21AM
It's cheaper and more efficient if we wipe out a regime every 10
years that supports or allows terrorists in their midst instead
of the stupidity in Iraq or Afghanistan. DeVore is right.
I assume that Mr. O'Connell doesn't support stopping Muslim
immigration or severely limiting flights from Muslim countries.
Sean| 1.13.10 @ 11:05AM
Devore is right. Just look up Able Danger where the special
forces had terrorist cells targeted before Sept. 11th including
two of the three in the US, but were not given the go ahead to
take them out. To me that would have been a much cheaper way to
dealing with people that want to attack us.
rt| 1.13.10 @ 11:56AM
Obama's half-assed plan in Afghanistan will not work. He is not
there to win, but to pacify, thats no way to win a war. If we are
not going there to win, why risk the lives of our brave American
soldiers in the first place?
Devore is basically saying that we must go there to win with
minimum casualties. So I'm with Devore anytime before I even
would consider RINO Fiorina.
Sheila| 1.13.10 @ 2:15PM
My husband and I represent two sides of the "conservative
grassroots." He supported Bush's Iraq policy and supports the
increase of conventional troops in Afghanistan (but not Obama's
specific policy." I support neither. Ideally, I would say "nuke
them all." Realistically, I am much more in concert with Chuck
Devore here. The neocon credo of exporting democracy and Bush's
"we are all the same" pabulum just doesn't wash. People and
cultures and religions are different. As an American, I don't
really give a fig about building democracy in a dark ages, tribal
muslim society. I do support deadly consequences for attacking
Americans. The difference here is the author's definition of what
deadly consequences means. Our care for the civilian populace
and/or public opinion has critically hindered rendering any real
consequences at all. War is not chess, Mr. O'Connell.
As a grassroots "Tea Party" supporter of Chuck DeVore for US
Senate, I must agree with his assessment of the lack of value in
spending taxpayer money on nation building and policing the
world, while at the same time putting our troops in harm's way.
Spending control needs to be the number one priority.
Red Phillips| 1.13.10 @ 8:54AM
So Mr. O'Connell, are you suggesting that our objective should be nation building? Good luck with that.
Chris| 1.13.10 @ 9:21AM
It's cheaper and more efficient if we wipe out a regime every 10 years that supports or allows terrorists in their midst instead of the stupidity in Iraq or Afghanistan. DeVore is right.
I assume that Mr. O'Connell doesn't support stopping Muslim immigration or severely limiting flights from Muslim countries.
Sean| 1.13.10 @ 11:05AM
Devore is right. Just look up Able Danger where the special forces had terrorist cells targeted before Sept. 11th including two of the three in the US, but were not given the go ahead to take them out. To me that would have been a much cheaper way to dealing with people that want to attack us.
rt| 1.13.10 @ 11:56AM
Obama's half-assed plan in Afghanistan will not work. He is not there to win, but to pacify, thats no way to win a war. If we are not going there to win, why risk the lives of our brave American soldiers in the first place?
Devore is basically saying that we must go there to win with minimum casualties. So I'm with Devore anytime before I even would consider RINO Fiorina.
Sheila| 1.13.10 @ 2:15PM
My husband and I represent two sides of the "conservative grassroots." He supported Bush's Iraq policy and supports the increase of conventional troops in Afghanistan (but not Obama's specific policy." I support neither. Ideally, I would say "nuke them all." Realistically, I am much more in concert with Chuck Devore here. The neocon credo of exporting democracy and Bush's "we are all the same" pabulum just doesn't wash. People and cultures and religions are different. As an American, I don't really give a fig about building democracy in a dark ages, tribal muslim society. I do support deadly consequences for attacking Americans. The difference here is the author's definition of what deadly consequences means. Our care for the civilian populace and/or public opinion has critically hindered rendering any real consequences at all. War is not chess, Mr. O'Connell.
SV| 1.18.10 @ 2:50PM
As a grassroots "Tea Party" supporter of Chuck DeVore for US Senate, I must agree with his assessment of the lack of value in spending taxpayer money on nation building and policing the world, while at the same time putting our troops in harm's way. Spending control needs to be the number one priority.
More:
http://septvote.blogspot.com/2.....nding.html