There are a number of questions I have for the candidates in the NY-26 special election race, and I'm sure you do as well. Rather than sit back and wait for position statements, I thought I would just start asking questions.
I plan to ask about a question per week until election day.
Today's topic: Foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the use of the U.S. military abroad. Each of the candidates were given four days to formulate a reply.
Below is the question (which was a bit longer than I imagine most will be). Because of the length, and the length of answers, the question and answers appear after the jump.
The answers are presented in the order received, Ian Murphy, Kathy Hochul and Jane Corwin. We got no response from the Jack Davis campaign.
The question:
What is your position on our current military operations?
On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?
On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?
On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?
If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …
Ian Murphy's answer:
What is your position on our current military operations?
All of them? It's getting hard to keep track.
Some military operations are good, like aiding in Japanese tsunami relief, but most strike me as the counterproductive actions of a waning empire, which is ruled by a corrupt and wealthy elite (see the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and the drone strikes in Pakistan,Yemen and Somalia).
Our current, aggressive military operations are guided by shortsighted greed. We've known since Eisenhower's “Military Industrial Complex” final address that war would be foisted upon the American people—under various and questionable pretexts—just so the business of war would boom. And it has.
A conservative estimate by former Chief Economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz pegs the total costs of Iraq and Afghanistan at $3 trillion. This is $3 trillion in debt our children will have to repay. This is $3 trillion spent destabilizing the world, making us less safe, and further perpetuating the war economy.
Again and again, we've been rooked into conflict after conflict. Our kids are conned into killing and dying for oil profit, for jet engine profit, for base construction profit, for the profit Halliburton makes selling cases of Coke to the Pentagon for $45 a pop, etc.
So my position on our current military operations is that most of them are a mechanism by which war profiteers rob the American people blind.
On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?
In a conventional military sense, it is not winnable. Battling insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan has been a costly and pointless undertaking, historically. Every day we're there, we breed more enemies. And the more enemies we have, the longer we stay.
But some kind of victory is possible. An Afghanistan lifted out of abject poverty, which breeds religious tyranny, incubates terrorism and fosters rampant misogyny, would be a resounding victory. However, the road to that victory leads our troops back home.
Our obligation to the people of Afghanistan is the same obligation we have to our own people—to maintain a policy of diplomatic pressure, passive exertion of cultural influence, and wise economic support—in conjunction with the international community—to ensure a prosperous and less dangerous Afghanistan.
I should note that maintaining reliable intelligence efforts in the area is smart policy while we work toward the above.
On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?
No. No. Trucks, airplanes & ships.
On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?
Well, the Constitution states that declaring war is the responsibility of Congress alone. But there's also the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives high authority to treaties, so it could be argued that the prevention of genocide in Benghazi falls under our obligations to NATO. However, our international obligations should not usurp the power allotted to Congress in the Constitution—and make no mistake, the actions in Libya are the actions of war.
We should support the rebels with “Support the Rebels” bumper stickers. However, if that ridiculous suggestion is not adequate and our allies are determined to fund a revolution against Qaddafi, we should fulfill our obligations—or reevaluate them. But all efforts should be extremely limited in scope and duration.
Frankly, readers of The Batavian, I'm quite torn on Libya. We're engaged in far too many military operations as it is. On the other hand, if our quick action truly prevented the slaughter of tens of thousands in Benghazi, that seems morally righteous to me. That said, we can't always act as the world's police force.
Well, we've already sent the CIA, funds and weapons. Should we have? No, we should not take the lead on this thing. We should also be very wary of mission creep. We've seen the justification for the Iraq War change from one lie to another. As George Bush put it: “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Our military can be a force for good. I'm hesitantly OK with using our military power to save lives. The hesitance comes from our inability to predict the resulting obligations and commitments of an action.
More fundamentally, our actions in Libya highlight our hypocrisy. We actively support brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia & Yemen. The people in the Middle East and Africa see this and question our motives in Libya. A more prudent strategy would be to encourage democracy, civil liberties, and economic freedom in troubled regions of the world with a preemptive, non-violent approach.
Our interventionist policies have included CIA training of Osama bin Laden, arming Saddam Hussein and, as recently as 2009, sending U.S. Senators to discuss selling Qaddafi military hardware. It's time we used our heads and stopped fighting monsters of our own creation.
If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …
Drastically decrease. We spend double what the next top ten nations spend combined on defense, and that money should go toward rebuilding America.
George Washington warned against funding and deploying standing armies around the world. He realized a long time ago that the business of military empire is a) very expensive and b) largely counterproductive. We have a war economy and ethos. It's unsustainable. Just as it was in Rome. An empire is like a balloon. If it gets too big, it will pop.
The more we spend on maintaining our empire, the less we have to invest in our own country—on our own people, our bridges roads and schools. War creates great suffering at home and abroad, for the profit of the very few. We need to reevaluate our priorities, and decide on a smarter, more ethical and democratic future.
Kathy Hochul's answer:
Q: On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan.
A: After nearly one decade at war, it is time for the U.S. to draw up a clear exit plan. While we cannot simply disregard all the work that has been done over the last 10 years, the financial costs of our mission in Afghanistan has been far too high – costing the United States nearly $350 billion. We must begin the transfer of full operational control to the people of Afghanistan.
Q: On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?
A: I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Last year, I supported the end of combat operations in the nation and I currently support the plan to end all military operations by the end of 2011.
Q: On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?
A: The situation in Libya poses a grave threat to human life. I stated early on that Moammar Ghadafi should be removed from power, but not by U.S. military force. We cannot afford to lead another war, which is why I supported the transfer of operational control to NATO and believe that we must continue to develop a plan that works as part of a much larger coalition.
Q: If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …
A: We must continue to protect the United States against all threats against us. While I do support cuts to unnecessary programs like the new F-35 fighter jet engine under Pentagon recommendations, we must provide the military with the resources necessary to protect the American people.
Jane Corwin's answer:
What is your position on our current military operations?
As the daughter of a former Air Force Reservist, I have a deep respect and appreciation for all our men and women in uniform, and if honored to be WNY’s next representative in Congress would do everything I can to support those who proudly serve our nation. I recently attended a deployment ceremony for about 70 troops in Amherst and it was one of the most humbling experiences I’ve ever been a part of. I would take my responsibility as a federal official very seriously and would vote to bring our troops home as soon as the generals on the ground say it is possible.
On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?
Yes, it is a winnable war. We need to listen to our generals on the ground to determine when our mission is complete and we have secured freedom and liberty for the Afghan people and ensured that Afghanistan will not return to a safe haven for terrorists.
On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?
I did support the decision to invade Iraq. Our men and women serving overseas deserve our support and the resources they need to be safe and successfully do their job. As with Afghanistan, I believe that we must listen to our generals on the ground as to when our servicemembers can come home.
On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?
I was deeply disappointed that the president did not consult with Congress before issuing orders for military action against Libya. The president needed to define the purpose of our mission beforehand and the threat posed to our national security. There were no public hearings or discussions and thus taxpayers and servicemembers – not to mention many Members of Congress – did not know what the president’s objective was until military action had already been taken. Now we are deeply involved in another conflict overseas and there is not an end in sight. The president and his Administration must clearly outline what their plan is for sending more troops, arming the rebels (or anyone else), etc. If Congress was consulted before military action was taken, we would not be in the situation we are now.
If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …
We need to find efficiencies and savings wherever we can to address the long term spending pressures our nation faces. However, the fundamental priority of any government is to protect its citizens and I will fight to make sure our military remains the best-trained, and best-equipped in the world.
UPDATE Wednesday, 9:34 a.m.: Adding response from Jack Davis:
What is your position on our current military operations?
On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?
As a former Marine and officer in the U.S. Coast Guard, I say it is time to find a way out of Afghanistan. Our soldiers and Marines are being killed and maimed in an endless conflict.
On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?
The invasion of Iraq was based on false premises and I did not support it at the time. It is time to bring our troops home.
On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels.
The Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to declare war, not the president. By dropping bombs on Libya, President Obama has declared war. We should not be expending our airmen’s blood or our treasure in Libya without Congressional approval.
If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations?
We need to end our foreign entanglements and bring our troops home from around the world. We are spending billions to station troops in places that haven’t seen hostilities in over 60 years. We no longer fear Soviet tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap, but we still have troops stationed in Germany to stop them. We can no longer afford to foot the bill as the policeman of the world when Washington is planning to cut health care for our seniors and Americans’ needs are ignored.
