Advertisement
Senator Evan Bayh
Address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC
February 2, 2006
Welcome and thank you for joining me.
Two weeks ago, Karl Rove – the President’s deputy chief of staff and the architect of recent Republican election victories – told the Republican National Committee that the 2006 elections should be a referendum on who can best secure the country in the post 9-11 world. Some in my party are afraid of this fight. They urge that we change the subject to domestic issues that work better for Democrats. Others argue that it is wrong to inject “politics” into something as important as National Security.
I strongly disagree.
Educating our children, providing quality health care and securing retirement are all critical challenges – but the American people will not trust us on any of those issues if they don’t first trust us with their lives.
And who can best protect America during these perilous times is of paramount importance. The records, proposals, strengths, and weaknesses of every candidate and party must absolutely be discussed. What else are elections for?
So today, I say to Mr. Rove and his fellow partisan strategists: You have thrown down the gauntlet, and I will pick it up.
As an American, I welcome this debate on national security because in an age of global terror, there is nothing more important than protecting the American people. It is a dangerous world - 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11th. Suicidal terrorists have pledged to attack again - and they have in London, Madrid, Amman, Bali, and across Iraq. North Korea has expanded its nuclear arsenal. Hamas will soon be in charge of the Palestinian Authority. And the radical leader of Iran who is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons – has pledged to destroy Israel and asked his people to imagine a world without the United States.
As a lifelong Democrat I welcome this debate, because it is one we can win. George W. Bush’s saying he wants the 2006 election to be about national security is like Herbert Hoover proudly claiming that the 1930 election should be a referendum on the economy. And if the Democratic Party can get its national security act together, the result should be the same.
Karl Rove has claimed that Democrats were too weak to defend the nation, that President Bush is simply tougher. Tough is good, but six years into the Bush Presidency it is clear that tough is not enough.
We need a foreign policy that is both tough … and smart. The good news? That it is the historic legacy of the Democratic Party. It is a legacy we must now reclaim.
Today’s Democrats stand on the shoulders of a proud tradition of Democrats who have defended this nation.
It was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt who stood up to fascism, and the isolationist forces in the country that said Hitler was Europe’s problem, and who led America’s greatest generation to save the world from tyranny.
It was Democrat Harry Truman that drew the first line in the sand against the spread of global communism, rebuilt Europe and Asia after WWII, and ushered in the policy of containment that laid the foundation for victory in the Cold War.
It was Democrat John F. Kennedy who called on us to “bear any burden and pay any price” in defense of liberty and stared down the Kremlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was Democrats who fought tyranny in all of its manifestations. Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Apartheid in South Africa. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Communism in Eastern Europe. It has only been since the Vietnam War that Democrats have been viewed by the American people as congenitally weak – too soft to be entrusted with our national security, as concerned with protecting Americans from our own government as from suicidal terrorists. But that can change, and if we aspire to national leadership, it must.
We must begin by speaking loudly and clearly against the way that this Administration has undermined our nation’s security and bungled the war on terror.
To be blunt, Karl Rove and George W. Bush have been much better at national security politics than national security policy. They may have won some elections, but the American people have lost valuable ground.
As Americans and Democrats, it is important to begin by understanding how badly the President has failed to secure the country in a post-9/11 world – not for the purpose of laying blame, but to lay a foundation for an America that is secure, strong, and free. As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do.
In the coming year, I will give a series of speeches setting out what I believe to be the building blocks of a tough and smart national security strategy. There’s not time for that today, but to begin, I wanted to briefly share with you a few ideas that would make America more secure.
In the era of global terrorism, there is no threat greater to our national security than the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet on this President’s watch, North Korea has acquired many more nuclear weapons than when he took office. Up to two-thirds of Russia's weapons-grade material remains inadequately secured. And, Iran, “the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world,” may be only months away from having the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.
Four years ago this month, the President stood before the nation and famously declared Iran and North Korea as a part of the “Axis of Evil.” That’s tough talk, and I commend him for it.
But did the President really believe that Kim Jong Il and the radical mullahs in Iran would respond to rhetoric alone? That was incredibly naive, foolish, and dangerous to our security.
Instead of the muscular approach John F. Kennedy employed to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Bush dithered. Unable to resolve disagreements between his “neo-cons” and “pragmatists,” he decided not to decide. His approach was neither smart nor tough.
How do we deal with Iran in a tough and smart way?
First, Iran must be made to understand that a nuclear Iran is not negotiable. We will not let a government that calls for the end of the United States or Israel acquire a nuclear weapon. It is that simple.
With that as our non-negotiable position, the administration must immediately go to the United Nations Security Council and call for strong economic, political, and diplomatic sanctions. If its nuclear activities persist, there will be consequences beyond that, including the use of force. We cannot afford to wait. The Iranian government must understand that if its nuclear activity continues, it will be treated as a pariah state.
Second, supplies of refined gasoline to Iran should be cut off. Iran may be one of the world’s largest exporters of oil, but currently imports 40 percent of their refined gasoline. By cutting that supply off, the Iranian economy will be hurt badly. Third, Iran must be isolated diplomatically, financially, and culturally. Their delegations should no longer be welcomed in countries around the world. Iranian assets should be frozen and financial and banking ties severed. Travel to and from Iran should be cut off and international flights should not be allowed to land or originate from the country. Most importantly, Iran should be denied the foreign investment for its energy sector that it so clearly craves.
And last, Iran should be assured that if they do the right thing, they will be welcomed back to the family of nations, with clear benefits including a carefully monitored civilian nuclear power program, membership in the WTO, and investment for a stable, more prosperous Iran.
This will not be easy. Time is not our friend. Bipartisan support for tough, thoughtful action is needed now.
While Iran and North Korea, two of the most radical, anti-American countries on earth, built up their nuclear arsenals, the Bush Administration’s focus was on Iraq. Here, too, they dissipated American strength by being tough but not wise.
Our country is deeply divided on whether going into Iraq was the right thing. History will ultimately judge. But there is absolutely no question the war has been prosecuted with stunning incompetence.
There is no greater responsibility for a President than conducting a war, and on that measure this President has failed. The cardinal rule in any war is that you plan for the worst and hope for the best, but this Administration hoped for the best and the American people have tragically reaped the worst.
We never had enough troops to secure that country. It’s obvious they had no plan for winning the peace. When I was in Baghdad last year, our top intelligence official told me things would be 100 percent better in Iraq if we’d only not sent the Iraqi army home.
Another U.S. official in Iraq recently told me that the Administration’s policy of complete De- Baathification was “insane.” The author of that policy was given our nation’s highest civilian medal.
Plenty tough. Not very smart.
I recently had the opportunity to visit some of our troops serving in Iraq. No matter how you feel about this war, they would make you so proud to be an American. They are young, brave and idealistic. These heroes deserve our wholehearted support and leadership worthy of their valor.
They deserve better than the false bravado of “bring ‘em on.” They deserve better than the illusion of “mission accomplished.” They deserve better than the flippancy of “you go to war with the army that you’ve got.” They deserve better than those things.
What happened in Iraq was they did come on. The mission is far from accomplished, and we went to the war with the army that we had but we didn’t give our troops the equipment that they needed. And that is tragic.
There are consequences to prosecuting a war on toughness alone. Iraq was not a haven for foreign terrorists before March 2003, but it is now. Iraq did not face the prospect of full-scale civil war, before March 2003, but it does now. Iraq was not susceptible to Iranian influence before March 2003, but it is now.
Tragically, because of naiveté, ideological illusions, and garden-variety incompetence, we are left with no easy answers in Iraq. There is no “transforming” approach at this juncture. With better leadership at the beginning, perhaps there could have been. Our troops could be on their way home with success in hand. Not now. We are where we are and must make the best of a very difficult situation.
While in Baghdad last month, one of our top generals told me “there is no military solution in Iraq – only a political solution.” He was right.
We must let all of the Iraqi factions know that they must make the difficult compromises necessary, or they will cease to have our support. Our presence cannot be used to avoid hard choices. Nor will we be sucked into an Iraqi civil war that a political stalemate could produce.
Shia must include Sunnis in the government in a meaningful way. And in the Army. And in the police. Complete de-Baathification must stop.
Sunnis must embrace majority rule and reconcile themselves with the new Iraq. There is no going back – violence will not change that.
All must decide – Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds – whether they want to live in one country or not. If they do, we can help. If they do not, then our mission is done. The coming months will tell. It’s now up to them.
Better security and more effective reconstruction are important – much can be said about both. But the essential point is that both must be in support of a comprehensive strategy for Iraqi political progress.
Here at home, all politicians must stop the caricature of our situation as a choice between spineless “cut and run” and mindless “staying the course.”
An approach that is tough and smart would establish benchmarks for success, a timeline for progress, accountability for results, and candor about how we are doing. It is an approach that is long overdue.
The mismanagement of Iraq has harmed American security in ways that go far beyond that country.
After the Cold War, the Army was downsized from 800,000 troops to less than 490,000 troops – a 40 percent decrease. Maybe it made sense at the time, but it doesn’t now. Today, operational deployments have increased 300 percent.
Even though defense spending has gone up dramatically under President Bush, there has been no real attempt to increase the size of the Army.
This failure has consequences for American security and the men and women in uniform.
The military is stretched so thin that the United States is severely limited in our ability to respond to aggression by Iran or North Korea. In 2004, nine of the Army’s ten divisions were either deployed to, preparing to deploy to, or returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Our adversaries can count, and they are emboldened by what they see.
Our military – including the Guard and Reserve – is at risk of being overused, burned out, and according to a new report commissioned by this Administration “our Army is danger of being broken by overuse.” Deployments have increased – many units are on their second and sometimes even their third tour in Iraq and Afghanistan – and training is being curtailed to get troops in the field as soon as possible to meet the need.
Our troops have also not been given the equipment they need to do their jobs as effectively and safely as possible. Hillbilly armor? That’s a disgrace. New body armor because soldiers were needlessly dying? What took so long?
Our soldiers are the bravest and best-skilled in the world, but their leaders – starting with their Commander-in-Chief – have failed them.
Yes, Secretary Rumsfeld, you fight with the army you have, not the one that you want. But you’ve had five years, Congress has given you everything you asked for. Excuses are no longer enough.
A tough and smart approach begins with increasing the size of the military and improving its capabilities. I would start by adding two divisions to the Army - an increase of about 100,000 troops. Increasing the size of the permanent army would relieve the burden on our current troops, improve our ability to respond to multiple crises simultaneously, and provide a boost to retention and recruitment.
The cost would be about $20 billion a year, less than 5 percent of the Department of Defense’s annual budget. During an era of Islamic jihadism, suicidal terror, rogue regimes, and proliferating weapons of mass death, this is an investment we must make.
The U.S. military has always had the best technology, but we cannot rest on our laurels – particularly as our security challenges have changed. That is why we need to invest more in military science and technology. Under this President, the military science and technology funding has remained flat since the 1990’s. We need to be spending at least three percent of our overall defense budget on science and technology. That’s not happening. Now it must.
Finally, we need to make sure that essential production capacity remains in the U.S. That is increasingly not the case. For example, 80 percent of a critical component for our “smart bombs” is made in China. It is not smart to depend on China for our military needs. In a choice between profits and patriotism, our nation’s security must come first.
In this era of global integration, our security cannot be provided by the strength of our arms alone. There has never been a nation that is militarily strong, but financially weak, yet that is the path this President has put us on. How can we deal forcefully with China on Iran, North Korea, trade or anything else when we borrow so much from them? We cannot. Our interests and our leverage are compromised by such weakness.
The same is true of energy. The President talks a lot about the lessons of September 11th . One of those lessons is that we can no longer be so dependent on places like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela for our energy supply. Yet, we are more dependent on foreign oil from hostile countries today than we were on September 11th – making us more vulnerable and putting the United States in the uniquely disturbing position of bankrolling both sides in the War on Terror.
This goes to the heart of our security and our sovereignty. As the world confronts the prospect of a nuclear Iran, our leverage is dramatically limited by the fact that Iran is the world’s second largest exporter of oil.
We and our allies are vulnerable to energy blackmail. A few months ago, the Russians decided they weren’t pleased with the Ukrainian elections, so they simply decided to stop exporting natural gas to them – nearly causing an economic crisis in the region. How sure can we be that the radicals and America-haters who control the oil will never do that to us? Because it’s not in their best interests? I don’t think so.
Yet that apparently is what the Bush Administration believes.
On Tuesday night, the President finally acknowledged that energy security must be part of a comprehensive, national security strategy. But, words are not enough. He must act, and bring the same urgency to energy security that he has to the War on Terror Concrete steps are long overdue to promote energy independence. I have introduced legislation with Senators Lieberman, Brownback and others to reduce our dependence on oil by 7 million barrels a day in 20 years. We call for:
• The development and mass marketing of hybrid technologies;
• More pumps for alternative fuels at gas stations;
• Fuel-efficiency standards for trucks; and
• Tax credits for manufacturers to retool facilities for advanced technology and alternative fuel cars and trucks.
The President proposes reducing our imports of Middle East oil by 75 percent over the next 20 years. I propose eliminating them entirely in 10. We already have bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. If the President is serious, he should support our bill.
There is so much more to say:
-Homeland security
-Pandemic preparedness
-Intelligence improvement
- and a host of other things essential to our security
But I will save those for another day.
To my party, I urge that we do not change the subject or attempt to avoid this fight. It is our chance, and responsibility, to show the American people that we are tough enough and smart enough to protect this great country in perilous and uncertain times.
And to Mr. Rove, I say we are ready. Ready to have this debate any time, any place, you’d like to have it. Ready to expose the severe failings of this Administration’s stewardship of America’s security. Ready to show the nation that there is a better way, that we can be tough AND smart.
That is why I pledge that in the coming year, I will take this debate across the country, starting in the coming months. I will take up this debate on the stump with candidates, in union halls and lecture halls, on the floor of the Senate and over the internet – everywhere we can. For this is the right debate for the country and the right debate for the Democratic Party. And for the sake of our nation’s security, it’s a debate we must win.
Thank you.
Address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC
February 2, 2006
Welcome and thank you for joining me.
Two weeks ago, Karl Rove – the President’s deputy chief of staff and the architect of recent Republican election victories – told the Republican National Committee that the 2006 elections should be a referendum on who can best secure the country in the post 9-11 world. Some in my party are afraid of this fight. They urge that we change the subject to domestic issues that work better for Democrats. Others argue that it is wrong to inject “politics” into something as important as National Security.
I strongly disagree.
Educating our children, providing quality health care and securing retirement are all critical challenges – but the American people will not trust us on any of those issues if they don’t first trust us with their lives.
And who can best protect America during these perilous times is of paramount importance. The records, proposals, strengths, and weaknesses of every candidate and party must absolutely be discussed. What else are elections for?
So today, I say to Mr. Rove and his fellow partisan strategists: You have thrown down the gauntlet, and I will pick it up.
As an American, I welcome this debate on national security because in an age of global terror, there is nothing more important than protecting the American people. It is a dangerous world - 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11th. Suicidal terrorists have pledged to attack again - and they have in London, Madrid, Amman, Bali, and across Iraq. North Korea has expanded its nuclear arsenal. Hamas will soon be in charge of the Palestinian Authority. And the radical leader of Iran who is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons – has pledged to destroy Israel and asked his people to imagine a world without the United States.
As a lifelong Democrat I welcome this debate, because it is one we can win. George W. Bush’s saying he wants the 2006 election to be about national security is like Herbert Hoover proudly claiming that the 1930 election should be a referendum on the economy. And if the Democratic Party can get its national security act together, the result should be the same.
Karl Rove has claimed that Democrats were too weak to defend the nation, that President Bush is simply tougher. Tough is good, but six years into the Bush Presidency it is clear that tough is not enough.
We need a foreign policy that is both tough … and smart. The good news? That it is the historic legacy of the Democratic Party. It is a legacy we must now reclaim.
Today’s Democrats stand on the shoulders of a proud tradition of Democrats who have defended this nation.
It was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt who stood up to fascism, and the isolationist forces in the country that said Hitler was Europe’s problem, and who led America’s greatest generation to save the world from tyranny.
It was Democrat Harry Truman that drew the first line in the sand against the spread of global communism, rebuilt Europe and Asia after WWII, and ushered in the policy of containment that laid the foundation for victory in the Cold War.
It was Democrat John F. Kennedy who called on us to “bear any burden and pay any price” in defense of liberty and stared down the Kremlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was Democrats who fought tyranny in all of its manifestations. Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Apartheid in South Africa. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Communism in Eastern Europe. It has only been since the Vietnam War that Democrats have been viewed by the American people as congenitally weak – too soft to be entrusted with our national security, as concerned with protecting Americans from our own government as from suicidal terrorists. But that can change, and if we aspire to national leadership, it must.
We must begin by speaking loudly and clearly against the way that this Administration has undermined our nation’s security and bungled the war on terror.
To be blunt, Karl Rove and George W. Bush have been much better at national security politics than national security policy. They may have won some elections, but the American people have lost valuable ground.
As Americans and Democrats, it is important to begin by understanding how badly the President has failed to secure the country in a post-9/11 world – not for the purpose of laying blame, but to lay a foundation for an America that is secure, strong, and free. As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do.
In the coming year, I will give a series of speeches setting out what I believe to be the building blocks of a tough and smart national security strategy. There’s not time for that today, but to begin, I wanted to briefly share with you a few ideas that would make America more secure.
In the era of global terrorism, there is no threat greater to our national security than the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet on this President’s watch, North Korea has acquired many more nuclear weapons than when he took office. Up to two-thirds of Russia's weapons-grade material remains inadequately secured. And, Iran, “the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world,” may be only months away from having the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.
Four years ago this month, the President stood before the nation and famously declared Iran and North Korea as a part of the “Axis of Evil.” That’s tough talk, and I commend him for it.
But did the President really believe that Kim Jong Il and the radical mullahs in Iran would respond to rhetoric alone? That was incredibly naive, foolish, and dangerous to our security.
Instead of the muscular approach John F. Kennedy employed to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Bush dithered. Unable to resolve disagreements between his “neo-cons” and “pragmatists,” he decided not to decide. His approach was neither smart nor tough.
How do we deal with Iran in a tough and smart way?
First, Iran must be made to understand that a nuclear Iran is not negotiable. We will not let a government that calls for the end of the United States or Israel acquire a nuclear weapon. It is that simple.
With that as our non-negotiable position, the administration must immediately go to the United Nations Security Council and call for strong economic, political, and diplomatic sanctions. If its nuclear activities persist, there will be consequences beyond that, including the use of force. We cannot afford to wait. The Iranian government must understand that if its nuclear activity continues, it will be treated as a pariah state.
Second, supplies of refined gasoline to Iran should be cut off. Iran may be one of the world’s largest exporters of oil, but currently imports 40 percent of their refined gasoline. By cutting that supply off, the Iranian economy will be hurt badly. Third, Iran must be isolated diplomatically, financially, and culturally. Their delegations should no longer be welcomed in countries around the world. Iranian assets should be frozen and financial and banking ties severed. Travel to and from Iran should be cut off and international flights should not be allowed to land or originate from the country. Most importantly, Iran should be denied the foreign investment for its energy sector that it so clearly craves.
And last, Iran should be assured that if they do the right thing, they will be welcomed back to the family of nations, with clear benefits including a carefully monitored civilian nuclear power program, membership in the WTO, and investment for a stable, more prosperous Iran.
This will not be easy. Time is not our friend. Bipartisan support for tough, thoughtful action is needed now.
While Iran and North Korea, two of the most radical, anti-American countries on earth, built up their nuclear arsenals, the Bush Administration’s focus was on Iraq. Here, too, they dissipated American strength by being tough but not wise.
Our country is deeply divided on whether going into Iraq was the right thing. History will ultimately judge. But there is absolutely no question the war has been prosecuted with stunning incompetence.
There is no greater responsibility for a President than conducting a war, and on that measure this President has failed. The cardinal rule in any war is that you plan for the worst and hope for the best, but this Administration hoped for the best and the American people have tragically reaped the worst.
We never had enough troops to secure that country. It’s obvious they had no plan for winning the peace. When I was in Baghdad last year, our top intelligence official told me things would be 100 percent better in Iraq if we’d only not sent the Iraqi army home.
Another U.S. official in Iraq recently told me that the Administration’s policy of complete De- Baathification was “insane.” The author of that policy was given our nation’s highest civilian medal.
Plenty tough. Not very smart.
I recently had the opportunity to visit some of our troops serving in Iraq. No matter how you feel about this war, they would make you so proud to be an American. They are young, brave and idealistic. These heroes deserve our wholehearted support and leadership worthy of their valor.
They deserve better than the false bravado of “bring ‘em on.” They deserve better than the illusion of “mission accomplished.” They deserve better than the flippancy of “you go to war with the army that you’ve got.” They deserve better than those things.
What happened in Iraq was they did come on. The mission is far from accomplished, and we went to the war with the army that we had but we didn’t give our troops the equipment that they needed. And that is tragic.
There are consequences to prosecuting a war on toughness alone. Iraq was not a haven for foreign terrorists before March 2003, but it is now. Iraq did not face the prospect of full-scale civil war, before March 2003, but it does now. Iraq was not susceptible to Iranian influence before March 2003, but it is now.
Tragically, because of naiveté, ideological illusions, and garden-variety incompetence, we are left with no easy answers in Iraq. There is no “transforming” approach at this juncture. With better leadership at the beginning, perhaps there could have been. Our troops could be on their way home with success in hand. Not now. We are where we are and must make the best of a very difficult situation.
While in Baghdad last month, one of our top generals told me “there is no military solution in Iraq – only a political solution.” He was right.
We must let all of the Iraqi factions know that they must make the difficult compromises necessary, or they will cease to have our support. Our presence cannot be used to avoid hard choices. Nor will we be sucked into an Iraqi civil war that a political stalemate could produce.
Shia must include Sunnis in the government in a meaningful way. And in the Army. And in the police. Complete de-Baathification must stop.
Sunnis must embrace majority rule and reconcile themselves with the new Iraq. There is no going back – violence will not change that.
All must decide – Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds – whether they want to live in one country or not. If they do, we can help. If they do not, then our mission is done. The coming months will tell. It’s now up to them.
Better security and more effective reconstruction are important – much can be said about both. But the essential point is that both must be in support of a comprehensive strategy for Iraqi political progress.
Here at home, all politicians must stop the caricature of our situation as a choice between spineless “cut and run” and mindless “staying the course.”
An approach that is tough and smart would establish benchmarks for success, a timeline for progress, accountability for results, and candor about how we are doing. It is an approach that is long overdue.
The mismanagement of Iraq has harmed American security in ways that go far beyond that country.
After the Cold War, the Army was downsized from 800,000 troops to less than 490,000 troops – a 40 percent decrease. Maybe it made sense at the time, but it doesn’t now. Today, operational deployments have increased 300 percent.
Even though defense spending has gone up dramatically under President Bush, there has been no real attempt to increase the size of the Army.
This failure has consequences for American security and the men and women in uniform.
The military is stretched so thin that the United States is severely limited in our ability to respond to aggression by Iran or North Korea. In 2004, nine of the Army’s ten divisions were either deployed to, preparing to deploy to, or returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Our adversaries can count, and they are emboldened by what they see.
Our military – including the Guard and Reserve – is at risk of being overused, burned out, and according to a new report commissioned by this Administration “our Army is danger of being broken by overuse.” Deployments have increased – many units are on their second and sometimes even their third tour in Iraq and Afghanistan – and training is being curtailed to get troops in the field as soon as possible to meet the need.
Our troops have also not been given the equipment they need to do their jobs as effectively and safely as possible. Hillbilly armor? That’s a disgrace. New body armor because soldiers were needlessly dying? What took so long?
Our soldiers are the bravest and best-skilled in the world, but their leaders – starting with their Commander-in-Chief – have failed them.
Yes, Secretary Rumsfeld, you fight with the army you have, not the one that you want. But you’ve had five years, Congress has given you everything you asked for. Excuses are no longer enough.
A tough and smart approach begins with increasing the size of the military and improving its capabilities. I would start by adding two divisions to the Army - an increase of about 100,000 troops. Increasing the size of the permanent army would relieve the burden on our current troops, improve our ability to respond to multiple crises simultaneously, and provide a boost to retention and recruitment.
The cost would be about $20 billion a year, less than 5 percent of the Department of Defense’s annual budget. During an era of Islamic jihadism, suicidal terror, rogue regimes, and proliferating weapons of mass death, this is an investment we must make.
The U.S. military has always had the best technology, but we cannot rest on our laurels – particularly as our security challenges have changed. That is why we need to invest more in military science and technology. Under this President, the military science and technology funding has remained flat since the 1990’s. We need to be spending at least three percent of our overall defense budget on science and technology. That’s not happening. Now it must.
Finally, we need to make sure that essential production capacity remains in the U.S. That is increasingly not the case. For example, 80 percent of a critical component for our “smart bombs” is made in China. It is not smart to depend on China for our military needs. In a choice between profits and patriotism, our nation’s security must come first.
In this era of global integration, our security cannot be provided by the strength of our arms alone. There has never been a nation that is militarily strong, but financially weak, yet that is the path this President has put us on. How can we deal forcefully with China on Iran, North Korea, trade or anything else when we borrow so much from them? We cannot. Our interests and our leverage are compromised by such weakness.
The same is true of energy. The President talks a lot about the lessons of September 11th . One of those lessons is that we can no longer be so dependent on places like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela for our energy supply. Yet, we are more dependent on foreign oil from hostile countries today than we were on September 11th – making us more vulnerable and putting the United States in the uniquely disturbing position of bankrolling both sides in the War on Terror.
This goes to the heart of our security and our sovereignty. As the world confronts the prospect of a nuclear Iran, our leverage is dramatically limited by the fact that Iran is the world’s second largest exporter of oil.
We and our allies are vulnerable to energy blackmail. A few months ago, the Russians decided they weren’t pleased with the Ukrainian elections, so they simply decided to stop exporting natural gas to them – nearly causing an economic crisis in the region. How sure can we be that the radicals and America-haters who control the oil will never do that to us? Because it’s not in their best interests? I don’t think so.
Yet that apparently is what the Bush Administration believes.
On Tuesday night, the President finally acknowledged that energy security must be part of a comprehensive, national security strategy. But, words are not enough. He must act, and bring the same urgency to energy security that he has to the War on Terror Concrete steps are long overdue to promote energy independence. I have introduced legislation with Senators Lieberman, Brownback and others to reduce our dependence on oil by 7 million barrels a day in 20 years. We call for:
• The development and mass marketing of hybrid technologies;
• More pumps for alternative fuels at gas stations;
• Fuel-efficiency standards for trucks; and
• Tax credits for manufacturers to retool facilities for advanced technology and alternative fuel cars and trucks.
The President proposes reducing our imports of Middle East oil by 75 percent over the next 20 years. I propose eliminating them entirely in 10. We already have bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. If the President is serious, he should support our bill.
There is so much more to say:
-Homeland security
-Pandemic preparedness
-Intelligence improvement
- and a host of other things essential to our security
But I will save those for another day.
To my party, I urge that we do not change the subject or attempt to avoid this fight. It is our chance, and responsibility, to show the American people that we are tough enough and smart enough to protect this great country in perilous and uncertain times.
And to Mr. Rove, I say we are ready. Ready to have this debate any time, any place, you’d like to have it. Ready to expose the severe failings of this Administration’s stewardship of America’s security. Ready to show the nation that there is a better way, that we can be tough AND smart.
That is why I pledge that in the coming year, I will take this debate across the country, starting in the coming months. I will take up this debate on the stump with candidates, in union halls and lecture halls, on the floor of the Senate and over the internet – everywhere we can. For this is the right debate for the country and the right debate for the Democratic Party. And for the sake of our nation’s security, it’s a debate we must win.
Thank you.
Advertisement
Advertisement
