Jackson Jambalaya

As we are now in the middle of electing a new Congressman from the 3rd District, it is time to examine the positions of the candidates in terms of national security and terrorism. There is no doubt they are all good men and are probably very similar in their stands on most issues. As soldiers are currently in harm's way, one must consider how much thought they have given to fighting terrorism. Are they just going to march lockstep with Bush, regardless of the policy? Will they follow McCain's lead and support the overall policy but then have the courage to offer specific criticism of the Administration when needed? Will they buck the administration when it might be in our interests for them to do so? If they are going to vote on sending our friends and children to battle as well as making decisions to protect us from terrorists, then we need to ignore their statements about loving the flag, protecting our guns, going to church, and how much they love their families. What exactly do they have to say?

Greg Harper published the following statement about fighting terrorism on his website:
"The War on Terror is not a choice or political slogan, it is a reality and is necessary for the security of our country. To avoid another 911 catastrophe, we must:
·Fight terrorists abroad before they bring the fight to us.
·Make our country safe by continuing to address homeland security issues and supporting a missile defense program.
·Provide for the men and women of our military, giving them the tools they need to do their job! They are the guardians of our freedom." http://www.greggharperforcongress.com/

It sounds nice and patriotic but is also pretty generic as a serious Democratic opponent will probably have something similar on his website. One can probably safely assume that the other candidates, regardless of party, make similar claims in their campaigns.

It is also unwise to state we are fighting terrorists overseas so they can't fight us here. This is a war and the enemy will retaliate here as Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations have sleeper cells already placed in this country. Several plots such as the one involving Fort Dix have been prevented. Saying that we are fighting the terrorists over in Iraq and Afghanistan so we don't have to fight them in America ignores the predictions of most terrorism experts. What we need is straight talk from our leaders, not sloganeering that has little thought behind it.

How exactly Mr. Harper will fight terrorism in Congress? Does he think the President should have the authority to intercept phone calls from terrorists overseas to America without a warrant? What does he think our strategy for Iraq should be? Should we expand the U.S. military or keep relying on the model that makes heavy use of the reserves? How should we deal with an Iran that is controlling Hezbollah, killing our troops in Iraq, threatening to wipe Israel out, and enriching uranium and improving its missiles? Has he actually read the National Intelligence Estimates? Before we invaded Iraq, less than ten Senators bothered to read the NIE that was used to justify the war in Iraq. Hopefully the candidates will ignore that tradition.

Although there are flaws in Mr. Harper's website and positions, they are an improvement over David Landrum's website, which says nothing about this issue, http://www.davidlandrum.com/. Yes, Mr. Landrum is a family man, a church-goer, and is a self-made businessman who has "our" values. However, there are troops in the field in a shooting war. We face a high risks of terrorist attacks in this country (see the current Newsmax on possible targets and scenarios. Scary stuff. and likely.) Al Qaida is not going to go away any time soon. After going through the website, one must ask HOW much he has thought about this issue. I know he supports the troops and is for national security, but once we get past the obvious cliches, what exactly are his positions? The same can be said for Charlie Ross, which somewhat surprises me, given his military background. Don't worry, the American flag is prominently displayed on his website so I guess I should feel reassured on this issue. http://www.charlieross.com/ (full disclosure: I voted for Charlie Ross for Lt. Governor.)

What do the candidates think about Bennie Thompson's opposition to giving immunity to anonymous civilians for tips involving terrorists? What do they think about instituting background checks for convicted felons working on the docks in sensitive positions as Bennie Thompson led the fight against such reasonable measures. I am not beating up on the candidates just to score points or for some cheap political theatre as I consider these to be very serious issues and want to know exactly where they stand. Are they going to go to Congress as backbenchers who merely cast votes or are they going to go to Congress seeking to openly oppose views held by Mr. Thompson and his allies? See http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-bennie-thompsons-approach-to.html

John Rounsaville is more specific on his website, http://johnrounsaville.com/news/newsitem.php?section=ACM&id=5540&showcat=3&seq=4, although it is still pretty weak:"We have learned that fighting Al-Quaida and other terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and turbulent regions around the globe means that we will not have to fight them on the streets of our own cities. America also learned that by spreading freedom and democracy to these regions, we give their citizens hope for tomorrow and a stake in their own peaceful and prosperous future......The struggle in Iraq has been difficult, but it is important that we put aside political differences and unite around the common goal of seeing our military defeat the terrorist insurgency and prevent chaos from spreading to an already volatile Middle East. This situation is too important to become further embroiled in partisan politics.We should also agree that under no circumstances should we allow Iran to build or posses nuclear weapons. The Iranian government has made clear their intention to inflict serious damage upon the United States and our allies, so we must act decisively to deny them this capability."

Hopefully as the campaign continues, the candidates will give us more details on how they plan to fight terrorism and improve national security if elected. It is clear that the Jackson media will not ask such questions of the candidates. Don't think one congressman can't make a difference. Right now, the head of the Committee on Homeland Security is Bennie Thompson. One congressman from Mississippi has led the fight against stopping terrorists. Since one congressman can matter, I would rather grill them now and elect the right man, then grill them the day after a catastrophe because I fell for the mom, hot dogs, and apple pie routine.

IF any of the candidates do read this and need source material, here are some links from my blog:
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/07/counter-insurgency-for-beginners.html (there is a link to a short Rand study. The author wrote the doctrine that is the basis for General Petraeus's current strategy in Iraq that is working. The general thoroughly studied Galula's work.)
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ (best reporting from the field in Iraq)http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu.x698ZGICwB1w9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5Mjc4YzlrBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1BSMDA0XzgzBGwDV1Mx/SIG=134lpmo4s/EXP=1187531002/**http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/dcpi/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf, NYPD report on home-grown terrorism.
http://www.zionist.org/archives/000017.shtml, (Bernard Lewis essays. Leading Middle East Scholar)
http://counterterrorismblog.org/ Counter-terrorism blog
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/12/read-nie-ffor-yourself.html, National Intelligence Estimate and commentary
http://www.walidphares.com/, Website of Walid Phares, terrorism expert

Feel free to add any useful links in the comments section.