SF Chronicle: Kerry says he'd send 40,000 additional troops overseas

[Timahoe]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/28/DEMOCRATS.TMP&type=printable

Kerry slams Bush on terror
Democrat says he'd send 40,000 additional troops overseas
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Saturday, February 28, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ

URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/28/DEMOCRATS.TMP

Los Angeles -- Charging that President Bush's lack of a "comprehensive strategy for victory" in the war on terror has left the country vulnerable to attack, Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry on Friday called for 40,000 additional troops abroad and beefed-up fire and police services at home, along with improved intelligence and diplomacy efforts which he said would help America "win this war we did not seek.''

The Massachusetts senator, speaking at UCLA, laid out what his staff called a comprehensive program on terrorism, including the hiring of 100,000 new firefighters and 100,000 new police to bolster local communities, expand international cooperation to contain dangerous weapons, and improve diplomatic efforts to calm hot spots.

--snip--

[ringmastery]

1. where would we get all these troops?

the draft?

[Timahoe]

2. Maybe. Kerry doesn't want to be JFK II. He wants to be LBJ II

Kerry says his only complaint with Chimpy's Iraq war is that he fucked it up so badly.

I guess he thinks he'll make it all better when he throws another 40k troops in.

[tameszu]

5. Honestly, though

there should have been more troops. One of Bush's biggest lies was the number of troops it would take.

And if you believe that it would be irresponsible to just pull everyone out (I do), whether or not you agree w/ the war in the first place (I didn't), then you need to be honest and commit to finding more forces.

[tameszu]

3. Saudi Arabia

and Western Europe, I guess.

Also other countries who have not been very happy with the war, but might sign on with a Dem who was sharing power (and rebuilding contracts) w/ the UN and intn'l community (for example, Canada, Germany, Russia, etc.). The countries who are in would also probably be willing to give more troops, if they knew we weren't gonna turn around and knife 'em afterwards.

[arewethereyet]

41. none in Saudi Arabia anymore, they would have to be drafted

or risk American military elsewhere in the war.

Real winner of a candidate there boys and girls. Geez...

[tameszu]

52. Aren't they still being moved around?

also Germany and Western Europe. As long as Putin doesn't go too nuts, standing down there makes sense.

And, yes, the military is being overextended. We would need to do more recruiting, if we couldn't get more outside support. But foreign allies are the real key. There are a lot of Russian troops for whom Iraq would be a break compared to Chechnya, and the Russians want oil money too...

[arewethereyet]

63. I agree that other nations should join this

there is more to the euro pressense of a Russia, they serve an important role there and our allies know it.

If Kerry wants a higher headcount then he should coax it from our friends as he has said should have been done from the start and how he could manage it while Bush could not.

[Dookus]

4. The fact is

he's right.

The military *IS* overextended right now, and some people really really deserve to be rotated out.

40,000 recruits can be had without a draft.

[maxanne]

36. where are they

People are avoiding the service like the plague it is. There's no way to get 40,000 at the drop of a hat without a draft.

There's always the recruitment of poor people and illegals - they make good cannon fodder.

[RetroLounge]

48. Kerry could say we should invade Iran and Syria

and certain supporters here would say "He's Right!"

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[MAlibdem]

56. As long as Israel got the rest of the Golan

I'd be all for invading Syria (kidding on the square, sort of)

[Qanisqineq]

6. Crap

Just when I thought I was starting to like him again -- I "waffle" on Kerry but will vote for him in Nov. no matter what.

draft
-or-
troops with shorter time at home between deployments?

[Kool Kitty]

7. If this is true, why

did he jump all over Dennis Kucinich for saying it last night at the debate? Kerry said that he didn't say that.

[Dookus]

8. because the headline is wrong

the actual quote from the article is:

"Kerry said that to replenish what he called "our overextended military," he would add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, "a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade."


That DOES NOT say 40,000 extra troops will be shipped overseas. It's the same stand he's always had - the 40,000 additional troops will REPLACE overextended troops abroad. There is no net increase in the number of troops stationed abroad.

[Qanisqineq]

9. Ok, that's what I thought I heard last night

*whew*

[Minstrel Boy]

10. This is the corner into which "ABB" backs progressives, because

ultimately ABB is not about the issues which have fueled our deserved hatred of Bush. It distills everything down to a simple matter of personality. There's nothing which can't be sacrificed in order to rid the world of that man. For progressives to hold certain issues non-negotiable is to be deemed naive and obstructionist. Nothing matters but ABB - smirk be gone!

Okay, nevermind the IWR. That's last year's donuts. Do you want to stop the madness anytime soon? The presumptive Democratic nominee wants to send 40,000 more troops abroad to fight the war America "did not seek."

Felt lately like bashing your head against a wall?

[Dookus]

11. You are mistaken

along with the headline of the article.

Kerry does not plan to send 40,000 additional troops abroad. He plans to REPLACE 40,000 troops abroad with new recruits.

On edit: And I agree with him. It's needed. What's the argument AGAINST doing so? And don't use strawmen - it's not about a draft. And don't say it's bad simply because it's military and military = bad.

Why shouldn't our overextended troops get a bit of a break? Why not hire 40,000 volunteers? What's wrong with the plan?

[Minstrel Boy]

12. But 40,000 fresh bodies overseas

is not scaling back Bush's bogus war. It's pledging to fight it better by replenishing the talent pool.

"Why shouldn't our overextended troops get a bit of a break? Why not hire 40,000 volunteers? What's wrong with the plan?"

If this were Rumsfeld's plan, would you say the same? It's Rumsfeld's war. Why cheer Kerry's perpetuating it?

[Dookus]

13. Because the war is a reality

it's there - we can't walk away from it. I was adamantly opposed to it, but just pulling out now would be as bad a crime against Iraq as the war itself. We are now obligated to rebuild a country. It was a dumb idea in the first place, but abandoning it now would be even dumber.

[ringmastery]

14. so

when does it stop?

what if we need 80,000 troops to do the job right in a year or two? When does it end? And where will we get the new bodies? You think people are going to volunteer to go to that hellhole to die?

[Dookus]

15. well

it's always hard to argue against the slippery slope argument. Mainly because it's fallacious.

Yes, I think 40,000 people would volunteer if the enticements were right. It's a very small number compared to the number of people CURRENTLY in the military - every single one a volunteer.

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. When does it stop?

When we boot PNAC shitballs out of the government. And trading Junior for Kerry is NOT going to accomplish that. Kerry IS just as much PNAC as Junior is. One treasonous fascist in the White House is no improvement over another.

[Minstrel Boy]

16. Here's something that isn't real:

The sleight of hand by which a war of aggression becomes a mission of mercy.

America has obligations to Iraq, but its chief obligation is to leave. It's not such a pipedream, is it, to see US troops speedily replaced by a UN force to oversea a speedy transition to self-rule? And genuine self-rule: not subject to US approval.

Painting the war blue rather than red won't make it any more noble.

[Dookus]

17. I don't disagree

and I don't think Kerry disagrees with that either. But he's facing reality, and acknowledging that the damage we've done to our relationship with the UN will take a little time to fix. This is one of my fundamental disagreements with Kucinich - I think it's totally unrealistic to expect a UN force to replace US forces in the near future.

I think it should be our long-term goal, though.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. It's already been a year, and in the meantime

permanant bases are constructed, and elections are pushed ahead into the vague future, when presumably the people's choice won't be an anti-American Islamicist.

If the US were serious about departing, I have no doubt the UN would be there in force in weeks. It's done so in worse places.

But the Bush administration is not serious about departing. And 40,000 fresh troops tells me neither would be Kerry's.

[Dookus]

22. because

nobody beside the Kucinich fringe believes we SHOULD depart ASAP.

Pulling out now will not undo the war. It was a mistake of enormous proportions, precisely BECAUSE it commits us for some time. But commit us it did. I have EVERY doubt that the UN would or could take over the job in a matter of weeks.

Pulling out now with that expectation would be as big a mistake as the war itself.

[brads]

18. US out of Iraq now

I don't see how progressives can argue that since the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation already exists, therefore we have some 'responsibility' to carry it out better than Bush does. It was an illegal war, it's an illegal military occupation, and the US & other int'l troops should withdraw immediately.

[ringmastery]

19. and let

Iraq degenerate into a civil war with potentially tens of thousands dead and a dictator ruler worse than Saddam?

[Dookus]

23. why?

I think the very immorality of the war itself REQUIRES us to leave Iraq better than we found it. Pulling out now will leave Iraq worse off than under Saddam.

The ONLY way to even take half a step toward redemption is to make Iraq a better country than it was. If we walk away, then all the casualties really DID die in vain. We broke it, we bought it.

[revcarol]

30. Golly, gee, wow!! Only the UNITED STATES

can leave it better off than it was before we bombed and invaded????

Oh, and only we can save the world from the tootsie-frootsie fly!!??

We DESTROY their infrastructure, TERRORIZE their people, PRIVATIZE everything in sight, both on the ground and under the ground, and WE'RE supposed to be the ones to fix it?????

--And Kerry says that the Iraqis will let us continue to occupy their land, and we just need to put in troop replacements.

--And all those allies and friends that told us to go fly a kite are going to magically sign up to send people to be put into body bags?

--And all our people are so patriotic about this insane war that recruiting stations won't be able to handle the crowds enlisting?

WE BROKE IT, WE GOTTA FIX IT.(We gotta pay for everything we bombed and ran tanks over, plus reparations for the innocents we killed and the businesses destroyed.)

WE BROKE THE COUNTRY, WE GOTTA GET THE U. N. IN TO TRANSITION THE COUNTRY OVER TO IRAQIS.(We DON'T gotta do it with American troops!!)

AND Kerry has not said ONE thing about contracts.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi brads!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MaggieSwanson]

37. Well put, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[countmyvote4real]

25. And then there's that war on terra...

Believe me. I was always against this war and the resulting occupation. I marched against it in the streets because I knew it was wrong and there would be no return.

“We” broke it and we can’t leave until we “fix” it.

It’s not a matter of pride for me to say that we can’t cut and leave *’s mess for the UN to sort out. It’s a matter of honor and responsibility. * had the US invade and destroy Iraq under false pretenses. Arguments the majority of the world’s nations did not support. It seems really disingenuous for us to bail out under the guise of “oops, my bad.” How can we really expect these nations to come to our rescue without something in return?

On the other hand, if the country and the rest of the world want to define it as “*’s bad” and prosecute him along with his PNAC cronies in The Hague for war crimes, then I’m all for it. By all means, let’s get out of there. That seems like a fair trade for a transfer of resources.

In the unlikely event that would ever happen, it doesn’t replace the continued loss of our troops, the thousands of Iraqi lives lost or the resulting power struggles unleashed by this invasion. However, it might diminish the anger and resentment towards the US and *’s corporate imperialism.

Obviously, nothing was learned from Afghanistan. And I don’t mean post 9/11. Fundamental (insert faith) is fundamental (insert cause) is fundamental (insert agenda). Yikes. I thought that I was describing the Taliban, but it seems too close to home.

To leave now is to acknowledge that it can’t be fixed.
I guess that’s what disturbs me most.

[sandnsea]

21. This is not what he said

Good lord. I do not know what purpose it serves to just blatantly lie. He explained this carefully at the debate and if Carla Marinucci didn't watch it, she ought to be fired. 40,000 troops to replace troops abroad, not in addition to what's already there. And yes it would be difficult to get additional troops, but it doesn't mean a draft. If we get a sensible person in charge of the military, kids will be likely to join again.

"And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade."

[NNN0LHI]

24. Why not just look at the actual words from the transcript?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/26/se.01.html

<snip>KUCINICH: Or are we looking at a draft? Because you've said you want to send 40,000 more troops there.

KERRY: No, I haven't said that.

KUCINICH: Senator...

KERRY: I have never said that.

KUCINICH: You never said you wanted to bring 40,000 more troops ever?

KERRY: No, I said what we need, because our troops are over- extended in the United States, and we've turned the Guard and the Reserve into almost active duty, we're hurting families all across the nation who are paid less in the military than they were in the private sector.

And our military is so overextended that what I said is, on a temporary basis, we need two additional divisions in the overall standing Army of the United States, because when we rotate the divisions back this spring, we will only have two divisions active that are able to be deployed.

KUCINICH: See, I've seen nothing that suggests that you would bring our troops home. If you're saying it now...

[RichM]

27. Kerry's own words: the 40,000 are a"temporary" increase for prob. 6 yrs

From the article in the lead post:

Kerry said that to replenish what he called "our overextended military," he would add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, "a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade."

The "remainder of the decade" would be, say, 6 years.

Kerry thus appears to be playing a word game. He is calling the 40,000 increase "temporary" (and this was why he claimed Kucinich's remark in the debate was wrong). But it's "temporary" for quite a long time, and obviously, things can change between now & the end of the decade, so this "temporary" might last even longer.

[sangha]

29. The troops aren't for Iraq

and nowehere does it say so.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. Does Anyone Else Note A Difference Between "Need" And "Draft"?

Is this just obvious to me?

[revcarol]

31. We noticed.

And we noticed the reality. Our Guard and Reserve is worn out.I guess Kerry noticed that too, to his credit.But the reality is that there is only a NEED if you want to continue the OCCUPATION WAR.

Re-enlistments are down. New enlistments are slow, even with terrible unemployment among young people. So, you tell me, (Kerry avoids the question,) how are we going to get the 40,000 we "NEED" if they aren't drafted?

Just because there is a vet "D" in the WH, are enlistments going to dramatically improve? Where's that bridge when you need it?

If we follow Kucinich's plan, then there is no "NEED." So there will not need to be a draft.I guess that escapes Kerry.

[Dookus]

32. But Kucinich's plan

relies on the false hope that the UN can or will take over in a short period of time.

I think that won't happen.

[Kanary]

40. It *WILL* happen if the US drops it's "conditions",

which is what DK would do.

I realize that you don't like him, but there's no point to keep giving such short shrift to everything positive that is said about Dennis, dookus. We got the point you don't like him. We got it.

Nevertheless, it's now clear he's about the only one really talking about peace.

That's worth a lot to some of us.

Happy draft to the rest of you.....

Kanary

[Dookus]

43. You are mistaken

in assuming I dislike Kucinich. I like him very much. But I disagree with him very strongly on a few key issues, and this is one of them.

It's quite possible for me to disagree with his policies but still respect and like him. I haven't ever disparaged him personally - I'm discussing the issue, not Kucinich.

That being said, I see no indication that the UN has the capability or the desire to take over this mess, and in fact, I don't blame them. Furthermore, I don't think it's ethical for us to fuck up a country, then leave the rest of the world to deal with the aftermath.

Why should Belgian, or Canadian, or Chilean troops die because of our fuck up?

I don't know how many ways there are to say this - I opposed the war vehemently. It was monumentally stupid. But we now have an obligation to clean up our mess. Foisting it on an unwilling UN is not a solution.

[dd123]

33. Sounds like a draft to me.

FTW’s Newest Feature Story

February 27, 2004

2/27/04
THE DRAFT – A Special Two-Part Series by Stan Goff and Michael C. Ruppert on the coming reinstitution of the draft as US military force readiness evaporates
Part I – "Will the US Reopen the Draft?" - by Stan Goff
-- Retired US Army Special Forces Master Sergeant and former West Point Instructor Stan Goff probes the political documents, pending legislation and engages in a detailed analysis of US force readiness. There is only one conclusion and it will be obvious as soon as next spring. The draft is coming.
Subscribers Read Full Story Here

http://www.fromthewilderness.com

--honestly, who would WANT to volunteer to go to Iraq and be in that hellhole.

[bigtree]

34. The title is a gross misrepresentation of his actual view on the 40,000

By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 9/1/2003
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/01/kerry_says_army_should_grow_by_40000

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he favors expanding the Army by roughly 40,000 soldiers to relieve troop strain, and would spend whatever it takes to stop the guerrilla warfare in Iraq. But Kerry said he would not send more US soldiers into the country, preferring international troops that include a corps from Muslim nations.

A division is roughly 18,000 people. Under Kerry's plan, one would be dedicated to combat, the other to civil functions such as policing. He estimated that the additional troops would cost at least $5 billion, which he said he would pay for by reallocating money within the Defense Department budget.

"Personnel is the most important thing we should do," he said, explaining that the existing 480,000-strong Army is strained by multiple deployments.

While calling for an overall expansion of the nation's 1.4 million armed forces, Kerry was careful to say that he would not send more soldiers to Iraq, where the current force of nearly 150,000 troops is subject to frequent attacks. He called for a multinational expansion, saying, "the best way to protect the troops is to get Arab-speaking Muslim troops on the ground in Iraq."
_____________________________________________________________________

The Union Leader and ABC News Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate - Part 1
Location: Manchester, NH
Date: 01/22/2004
January 22, 2004 Thursday
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027534&keywo...

MR. GRIFFITH: Senator Kerry, in a speech at Drake University, you said in your first 100 days you would move to increase our armed forces by as much as 40,000 troops. You said there was a dire need for two full divisions. I'm the parent of two teenage sons. I-we're patriots, and people are wondering right now about voluntary versus draft. And, as president, how do you hope to lure and attract quality people into the military? And, as a follow-up, where do you stand on the issue of the draft?

SEN. KERRY: We don't need a draft now, and I wouldn't be in favor of it under the current circumstances. But, look, the first place you start to attract people into the military is to have a president who can prove to America that that president will be responsible about how that president deploys the military.

All across this country there are families right now-all of us have talked to them-who are suffering greatly, because the Guards and Reserves have been called up. They're overextended. The troops of the United States of America are overextended. Their deployments are too long. The families are hurting at home because they lose money from the private sector when they're called up, and they get paid less in the military, and nobody makes it up to them.

The fact is if we are going to maintain this level of commitment on a global basis-for the moment we have to, because of what's happened-we need an additional two divisions. One is a combat division, and one is a support division.

And that's the responsible thing to do. I've also said, responsibly, that's temporary, because I intend to be a president who goes back to the United Nations, rejoins the community of nations, brings other boots on the ground to help us in the world, and reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe-and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world where we can begin to set up a new architecture of participation of other countries.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027534&keywo ...

[Mairead]

35. Kerry's playing word games, as far as I can tell.

So let's say he magically conjures up 40K fresh bodies (Goddess knows where, if not via a draft!).

Now he brings back the ones who've been in Iraq too long already. They immediately say Bugger That I Am Not Being Sent Back There! and refuse all offers of bonuses and promotions in their haste to escape to civvy street.

Now what?

Or does he keep them from bailing by continuing the indenturement? And thus making worse the existing gigantic morale problem.

If he lets them out, are we not back to square zero, with an again-overextended-and-soon-to-be-worn-out Army, which will require yet another 40K infuse-release-repeat?

[bigtree]

38. The ones who are playing word games are the ones bashing him with this

The troops are to effect the rotating out of those who have had their commitments overextended. He has spoken over and over about the illogic and unfairness of using the Guard and Reserve as Bush has. We still have committments, including Afganistan, that will not bear an immediate withdrawl of forces. The 40,000 is to realistically effect those rotations. He has spoken over and over again about going back to the U.N. and garnering more international help, particularily Muslim forces, to effect the lessening of our committments abroad.

Kerry's policy statements are fair game but you are not entitled to replace his words with your own cynical view.

Here are some of his stated views:
____________________________________________________________________

“Foreign Policy in a Post-Saddam World: Rebuilding Our Alliances and Iraq”
Remarks by John Kerry at Drake University
December 16, 2003
http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

As we internationalize the work in Iraq, we need to add 40,000 troops – the equivalent of two divisions – to the American military in order to meet our responsibilities elsewhere – especially in the urgent global war on terror. In my first 100 days as President, I will move to increase the size of our Armed Forces. Some may not like that. But today, in the face of grave challenges, our armed forces are spread too thin. Our troops in Iraq are paying the price for this everyday. There’s not enough troops in the ranks of our overall armed forces to bring home those troops that have been in Iraq for more than a year.

President Bush’s policies have overextended our military – and turned reserves into fulltime soldiers. Iowa, with a population of less than three million people, is in the Top 10 states in the proportion of National Guard troops on active duty; more than 2,600 of Iowa's 9,500 Army and Air Guard soldiers have been activated. George Bush and Don Rumsfeld say we have enough troops. I think they’re putting politics and pride ahead of what is right for our soldiers, our reserves, and our security.

http://johnkerry.com
____________________________________________________________________

John Kerry believes that we must obtain a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding of Iraq and the development of its new Constitution and government.

He would:

Transfer Responsibility to the UN for Governance. Kerry will go to the UN with a proposal to transfer responsibility to the UN for governance and the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. The UN would succeed the Coalition Provisional Authority and the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General would become the overall international leader in Iraq. The UN would work with the Iraqis on the substance and process of the Iraqi government and the electoral process to give it legitimacy and to organize the writing of the constitution. Kerry cautioned that this cannot happen overnight and that the CPA will have a key role in ensuring a smooth turnover.
Build an International Coalition. Kerry will reach out to the European nations to build a coalition in support of operations in Iraq. He will eliminate Bush’s discriminatory contracting procedures and offer a genuine partnership of responsibility in return for a genuine partnership of burden sharing – troops and money.

Internationalize the Troops in Iraq

John Kerry will work to expand participation and share responsibility with other countries in the military operations in Iraq. Kerry will also increase the size of the U.S. Army in order to meet the needs of a new century and the new global war on terror. The Bush Administration is overstretching the American military, and in particular the U.S. Army. There is a critical shortage of combat troops facing the country. General Keane, then acting Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last summer that the Army is undermanned by about 40,000 personnel. This shortage is placing an unfair burden on soldiers and their families and is undermining our efforts around the world.

http://johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/
_____________________________________________________________________

Win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. John Kerry will bring real security in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent terrorists from reemerging in Afghanistan or establishing a base in Iraq.

Broaden the Coalition in Iraq, Include the UN and Create Real Iraqi Security Forces for Stability. Kerry will do the tough diplomacy and hard bargaining to get more international boots and dollars and get the target off the backs of American troops. Kerry will rally the UN to help forge a transition to Iraqi sovereignty based on the need to build a stable democracy in Iraq. Kerry will be upfront about the costs, and he will make sure we meet our obligations fairly by rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest and getting real international contributions.

Restore Security in Afghanistan and Undertake the Promised Marshall Plan. Kerry would expand the ISAF force and extend its reach into the provinces; and increase the trainees in the Afghan National Army (ANA). Kerry would pressure donor nations to meet the aid commitments they made at the Bonn Conference. He would double our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai government and make available a team of American counter-narcotics experts to provide technical assistance.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html

[Mairead]

55. (edit) Sounds like he's nicked DK's plan, doesn't it

He's going to generate (somehow) 40K new warm bodies.

Then he's going to get the UN to take over.

Sounds like DK's plan, to me. Unless there are things he's not telling us.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. He sends out a stop-loss order.

For starters.

[youngred]

42. Wait

Didn't he just slam Kucinich saying he wasn't doing this....nice job JK

[Dookus]

44. Kucinich made the same false claim

that the headline writer of this article made.

The 40,000 are NOT additional troops to be sent overseas. They are to replace overextended troops that are currently overseas.

And it's the right thing to do.

It's less than a 3% increase in the current active forces. It can be accomplished without a draft.

[RichM]

45. Talk about silly word games. What's the difference between 40,000 new

troops to be sent overseas, and 40,000 new troops sent overseas "to replace overextended troops that are currently overseas"?

Answer: there's only a difference if the new 40,000 sent overseas are "cancelled" by pulling out 40,000 who are already there. However, there's no solid guarantee this will happen; or that things would stay that way even if it did happen. Kerry is clearly talking about INCREASING the size of the armed forces "until the end of the decade." Where he stations the new troops can change overnight.

What is certain, is that Kerry is calling for a buildup, and he is talking about "winning the War on Terror." This is the kind of politician-speak that always precedes deeper & deeper military commitments. Kerry is merely trying to take the unpleasant edge off of how it sounds, by hiding behind words like "temporary" troop increase, and an increase only to "replace overextended troops."

The simple bottom line is, he intends a troop buildup, and he intends to "win" the War on Terror. Anyone who thinks that sounds like a recipe for LESS military activity -- I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

[Dookus]

46. There's a very simple

and obvious difference.

One situation has 40,000 extra troops stationed overseas.

The other doesn't.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[RichM]

54. Yeah, it's "simple" if you ignore what it means. It's a military buildup.

The rest is just a shell game about how many troops are stationed where, at a given time. This can change at a moment's notice.

What CANNOT change so easily is the fact that it's a buildup, combined with an announced intent to "win." That is precisely the type of language that preceded escalations in Vietnam.

[sangha]

58. RichM is twisting words

It's not "40,000 troops to be sent overseas" *AND IT'S NOT "40,000 new troops sent overseas to replace overextended troops that are currently overseas"

It 40,000 troops that WILL NOT be sent overseas.

I'm sorry RichM, but that's just to simple to twist. 40,000 troops for the US.

[bigtree]

47. I hope he 'wins' the war on terror. Beats losing.

Here's his recipe:

John Kerry: Winning the War on Terror
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html

I. An Integrated Strategy to Destroy Terrorists Groups

Terror is the principle threat we face. John Kerry will deny terrorists sanctuary in every cave and with every tool, by:

1. Direct Military Action. John Kerry will always be prepared to use military force when necessary to neutralize terrorists and drain the swamps where they breed.

Deploy the Best-Equipped Forces Backed by the Most Accurate Intelligence. Kerry will increase the size of the special operations forces; and, increase training for peace-keeping missions so that failed states can be secured and terrorist sanctuaries denied. He will ensure that America’s fighting men and women always have the best equipment and information.

Tailor Forces to be Better Prepared for Post-conflict and Stability Operations. Kerry will add more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams to the military to ensure combat forces are not drawn away to fill roles that stability forces should fill -- and that a security vacuum does not threaten hard-won victories.

Increase Active Duty End Strength. To better meet the needs of the War on Terror and America's global obligations, John Kerry has called for a temporary increase of about 40,000 active-duty Army troops: 20,000 in such specialties as military police and civil affairs, and 20,000 combat.

2. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement.

John Kerry will lead our nation in building strong international cooperation to ensure that America has the best information available and works effectively to cut financing for terrorist organizations.

Strengthen Communication Networks Between Intelligence Agencies. Kerry will ensure that our intelligence agencies receive the most accurate and timely information through established channels with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in other countries.

Build Cooperative Capacity with International Law Enforcement Agencies. Kerry will ensure that we are able to impart the latest and most effective techniques in battling terror to law enforcement agencies abroad as appropriate.

Increase the Number of Linguists Trained in Critical Languages. A Kerry Administration will increase funding and training for linguists competent in critical languages like Arabic so that American intelligence agencies have the best, most timely and translated information about terrorist planning and staging.

Create a Real Director of National Intelligence with Budget and Personnel Power. John Kerry will make the Director of the CIA the true Director of National Intelligence with real control of national intelligence personnel and budgets. John Kerry will also undertake and complete a national intelligence review immediately.

3. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds

Impose financial sanctions against nations or banks that fail to cooperate in the effort to control money laundering. This is an urgent step to ensure that rhetoric is backed by the tough action required to cut the stream of terrorist financing.

Launch a "name and shame" campaign against individuals, banks and foreign governments that are financing terror. Those who fail to respond will be shut out of the U.S. financial system. There will be no sacred cows as we take the steps that are necessary to protect America.

4. Control the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Appoint A High Level Envoy to Lead the Effort.

John Kerry will ensure that the urgent and critical challenge of controlling the spread of WMD does not fall prey to inter-agency differences, and that a single individual is empowered to rally other nations to join an American-led effort to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear materials around the world.

Keep WMD from terrorists by aggressively refocusing and expanding efforts to secure stockpiles of loose WMD materials. Kerry will lead in this effort, and create a new international protocol to track and account for existing nuclear weapons and deter the development of chemical and biological arsenals.

Create a U.S.-Russian Commitment to Secure Russia’s Nuclear Weapons. Kerry will ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are effectively secured within four years. He will significantly increase funding for Comprehensive Threat Reduction programs.

5. Win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John Kerry will bring real security in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent terrorists from reemerging in Afghanistan or establishing a base in Iraq.

Broaden the Coalition in Iraq, Include the UN and Create Real Iraqi Security Forces for Stability. Kerry will do the tough diplomacy and hard bargaining to get more international boots and dollars and get the target off the backs of American troops. Kerry will rally the UN to help forge a transition to Iraqi sovereignty based on the need to build a stable democracy in Iraq.

Kerry will be upfront about the costs, and he will make sure we meet our obligations fairly by rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest and getting real international contributions.

Restore Security in Afghanistan and Undertake the Promised Marshall Plan. Kerry would expand the ISAF force and extend its reach into the provinces; and increase the trainees in the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Kerry would pressure donor nations to meet the aid commitments they made at the Bonn Conference. He would double our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai government and make available a team of American counter-narcotics experts to provide technical assistance.

II. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Younge Generation

John Kerry’s plan for building bridges to the Arab and Islamic world recognizes the key challenge posed by burgeoning youth cohorts. America’s security demands that young people have a future of promise and opportunity that is a clear alternative to terror and extremism.

Build Networks to Improve Education and Fight Brain Drain. Kerry will build closer integration between business communities and educational institutions so that curricula are developed and tailored to impart marketable skills to students. The project should build an infrastructure of knowledge and excellence that has suffered from brain drain and a dearth of important materials – from textbooks to news programming.

Assist Civil Society Through Human Rights Groups, Independent Media, and Labor Unions. Kerry will ensure that the U.S. government works with the private sector and international institutions to help civil society groups and governments aid democracy, public participation, free expression, transparency and efficient economic management.
Back to Top

III. Secure America's Homeland

Recent reports have revealed alarming gaps in security procedures at our nation’s most critical facilities. John Kerry will secure out nuclear weapons storage sites, nuclear power plants and chemical facilities. Kerry will ensure our first defenders are equipped, that we can respond to biological attacks, and air transportation security is made safer.

1. A New First Defenders Initiative to Ensure Local Responders are Equipped and Ready. John Kerry will ensure that first defenders have the gear to do their jobs safely and effectively. John Kerry has proposed creating a new fund for fire fighters – named after a September 11th hero, Father Mychal Judge, the chaplain of the New York City Fire Department who died delivering last rites.

The Father Judge Fund would be similar to the COPS program and will hire up to 100,000 new firefighters and to provide the equipment necessary to assure firefighters are prepared. Kerry also believes we must restore funding to COPS to realize its initial mission of 100,000 new police officers. This initiative would also develop appropriate standards for preparedness in our cities and provide resources so communities can meet these goals.

2.A National Homeland Health Initiative.

America’s public health system has risen to important challenges before, but it lacks the advances necessary to detect or contain a major outbreak. John Kerry believes we must connect the nation’s public health systems with a real time detection system to pool patient data across the country.

This initiative would also provide training in developing plans for a surge in patients. We also need to increase research – and bring together the best of the public and private sectors to develop broad-spectrum designer antidotes so that our first responders and our population can be protected and treated from the widest possible range of attacks.

3. Increase Port Security and Accelerate Border Security.

Currently, 95% of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. John Kerry believes improvements in port security must be made, while recognizing that global prosperity and America’s economic power depends on an efficient system. Kerry’s plan would develop standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards.

To improve security in commerce, John Kerry believes we should accelerate the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico “smart border” accords as well as implement security measures for cross-border bridges. Finally John Kerry will pursue modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security.

4. Secure Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Weapons Facilities and Chemical Facilities.

John Kerry will appoint an Energy Secretary who takes nuclear plant security seriously and ensures meticulous follow-up to any security violations. He would also order an immediate review of engagement orders and weaponry for plant guards, and ensure attack simulation drills be as realistic as possible.

A Kerry Administration would ensure that security of our nuclear weapons facilities is a U.S. government responsibility – not cede it to private contractors as the Bush Administration considered doing. A Kerry Administration will tighten security at chemical facilities across the nation that produce or store chemicals, focusing first on facilities in major urban areas where millions of Americans live within the circle of vulnerability.

5. Tighten Aviation Security and Combat Threats to Civilian Aircraft. John Kerry will close loopholes in existing regulations on cargo carried by passenger flights and increase the reliability of new screening procedures. Kerry will increase perimeter inspections of U.S. airports and work with international aviation authorities to make sure the same standards are in place at all international airports. He will work with our allies to crackdown on the sale of shoulder-fired missiles that could be used in an attack on civilian aircraft, and are sold on the black market.


John Kerry outlined a seven-point comprehensive plan to fight the war against terror:

I. Use Direct Military Action: Kerry will use military force when necessary to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. He will also increase active duty end strength and tailor forces to be better prepared for post-conflict and stability operation.


II. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Kerry will strengthen communication networks between intelligence agencies, build cooperative capacity with international law enforcement agencies, increase the number of linguists trained in critical languages and create a real Director of National Intelligence with budget and personnel power.


III. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds: Kerry will impose tough financial sanction against banks or nations that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it and will launch a “name and shame’ campaign against those that finance terror.


IV. Control the Spread of Weapons on Mass Destruction: Kerry will appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to lead the effort and expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy stockpiles of loose WMD materials.


V. Win the Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan: Kerry will bring real security in Iraq by broadening the coalition, including the United Nations, and creating a real Iraqi security force that can take care of itself and the people it is supposed to protect. In Afghanistan, Kerry would put forward a major increase in security and fund the promised a Marshall Plan for reconstruction.


VI. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Young Generation: Kerry will build bridges to the Arab and Islamic world by supporting and assisting human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture.


VII. Secure America's Homeland: Kerry will restore funding for the COPS program, add 100,000 firefighters to our streets, secure and protect our nuclear and chemical facilities, bolster port and aviation security.

[Scott Lee]

60. You DON'T win a war on terror. Ever.

Saying that you can or will eradicate terror is like saying you'll eradicate murder and death. Sheer fantasy.

But as he's proven, John Kerrytox is all about fantasy if it advances his agenda. Tell the voters what they want to hear, no matter how stupid or false.

[sangha]

61. Yeah, so let's give up right now

Talk about fantasies!

[Scott Lee]

70. Right from the mouth of Bush

I'll bet even he knows, deep down in his black heart, that you can't erase terrorism. The question is: do YOU know it?

[Scott Lee]

71. by the way, sangho - where are all the WMD?

I mean since you're on a Bush praise streak right now...I thought you could field that question as you were so certain they existed lo these months ago.

[dpbrown]

49. "How do you ask someone to be the last one to die for oil?"

Unfortunately, this isn't the 1971 John we're dealing with anymore, is it.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[bigtree]

50. Fallacious argument

DK isn't the man that he was in 1971 either.

[snoochie]

53. Am I getting this right?

Kerry wants 40,000 troops 'abroad', but not for Iraq.

What's his plan to get more help? Has NATO not been approached yet? Why aren't the other candidates talking about the contracts? That's obviously one of the most obvious points of contention, isn't it?

If that's not it, what is the Kerry's or Edwards' plan for getting help? I like that they seem to plan on adding troops from international participation but what I am missing is how they plan on getting it. What do they plan to do in order to to get the help bush isn't getting now?

[Mairead]

57. According to the passages Bigtree has quoted, Snoochie

it sounds remarkably like DK's plan: turn over control to the UN, thus causing an influx of UN forces to take over from the US ones. Then bring home the Guardies and Reservists and let them go, replacing them on the strength with 40K regulars he's somehow going to conjure up, presumably by showing both carrot and stick.

See whether you read it the same way.

[bigtree]

62. Rep. Kucinich has a credible and responsible plan for Iraq.

It has a strong military component that stresses multilateralism and an active involvement in world affairs. I do think thathis proposal for the 'U.N. In and the U.S. Out' will not completely satisfy the participating nations in the U.N. They won't want us to just leave the mess we've made and put it all on their backs. No sharing of spoils of the invasion will convince the international community to let us off of the hook there.

Also, a lot of these countries have an interest in keeping us tied down there. 6.8 trillion in total debt is owed by the U.S. government. The interest on the national debt is $305 billion. Presently, $50 to $70 billion of our national debt is foreign-owned. Foreign owned debt always increases when we borrow to fund our wars.

[sangha]

59. No, not right

He wan't 40,000 troops in the US, to replace 40,000 of the troops that have been sent overseas. Now, when we send 40,000 troops overseas, there's 40,000 less troops here in the US. Kerry wants the 40,000 to replace those troops here at home.

[Dhalgren]

64. Kerry wants to extend the "war on terror"?

He wants to do "more" because Bush hasn't done "enough"? I just realized that I cannot vote for Kerry. Not now, not in November - and I have always planned on doing just that. I am not going to vote for war and the coporate status quo just because a Democrat pushes them. And if you come back at me with all this ABB shit and four more years of Bush crap, all I'll say is that if Bush and Kerry are identical except that Bush is inept and Kerry just better at it, I'll take the bumbler, thanks.

[bigtree]

65. The only ones wanting to extend the war on terror are the terrorists

The corporatists are not aligned with Kerry. Check the news. They and the Bush cabal want to crush him on their way to crushing you.

edit: (myself) try to be nice. sorry

[Scott Lee]

72. And the PNAC Dominionists like Bush and Kerry

[bigtree]

73. PNAC is the other party

But you knew that. You would come on a Democratic board and label our candidate as akin to republicans. Everybody follow Scott Lee down! C'mon y'all. Climb aboard. Bush is no longer important. All roads to glory lead through our candidate.

Funny, the Bush attack is that he's a liberal. Go figure.

Dominionist:

"Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capitalism is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870–1924), Russian revolutionary leader. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, ch. 7 (1916).


"Reactionaries feed off of the weak and promise independence from the establishment, but can't effect any of their ideals because their philosophy eschews any position of actual responsibility save the preservation their own self-promoted and appointed leadership, and because of their need for constant agitation to fuel their discontented following. They feed on ignorance and in return produces endless platitudes of cynicism to keep a hold of their hapless minority of supporters, never actually producing anything of value."

Bigtree (1960-), Computer hack

[Scott Lee]

74. Vy nye ponimayetye, Tovarishch!

Translated, that roughly means you got your definitions of "dominionist" mixed up. In current parlance a Dominionist is one who believes in the Judeo-Christian supremacy of America and that it has a role to play in the Last Days, and in that capacity it must protect Israel at all costs no matter what wrong Israel does. Please try to keep up.

Kerry is very much in the PNAC fold because he intends to perpetuate the US wars against the peoples of other nations, all in the name of some nebulous "terrorism" the natures of which us poor lowly citizens are never allowed to see. Voting for Kerry will be like voting for Bush, except the innaugural music might be different.

[paulk]

66. The "war on Terror" is an unfortunate term coined

by the Bush Administration. Call it what you will - there are terrorist organizations whose stated goal is the destruction of the United States. I doubt they could accomplish this, but 9/11 DID happen, killing over 3,000 people and causing great harm to our economy. The Clinton administration was well aware of the terrorist threat, thwarting several serious attempts. Be assured that terrorist actions on the scale of 9/11 will be attempted in the future.

Big Tree has posted an excellent summation of Kerry's terrorism policy up thread (#47). Kerry has clearly stated that he believes a "war on terror" is better fought through espionage and police work rather than outright military intervention.

You have as much stated that you will support Bush this November - I hope you only said this in the heat of the moment.

[Killarney]

67. I think

That the people that are over in Iraq now for longer than they were told they would be...

That the Guardsmen and Reserves whose families are at home having a hard time putting food on the table because they lost their private sector salaries...

That the women and children yearning and hoping each day that their husbands and fathers and wives and sons and daughters can come home because they have been there too long...

I think they would all disagree with you that this is a bad idea.

The troops are overextended.
The Guards and Reserves have been taken advantage of.
Families are hurting.

The war will go on until it is done, no matter what.

We need this so that our troops can rotate and come home. If not, the stop loss will continue and that is just wrong.

[atre]

68. If Kerry runs on a "bring back the draft" platform...

I will actively campaign against him. My little brother will not be going overseas to fight these silly little wars.

Not that this is what is meant by this statement, just that I will not support any candidate who supports a draft.

[bigtree]

69. Try reading the thread

Include the parts that don't agree with your view. Somewhere up there is an article that quotes Kerry discounting the need for a draft. You gotta read everything! Not just the dirt. Not just the attacks. Try to find out if Kerry has an answer to the charges.

http://johnkerry.com has a good search engine that produces articles and campaign positions. Their press room has up to date articles. The issues section is large and comprehensive.

edit: (my grousing)