Reading through Jim Webb’s speech on Iraq, which actually appears to cover all of foreign policy, I can see that he mouths the Democrat talking points of the Iraq war being wrong. He lays out a two step plan for Iraq, but I find those two steps sorely lacking in detail, and can be boiled down to this: 1. Say we don’t plan to occupy forever, and 2. get other nations in the region involved.. I don’t see any concrete ideas on what we need to get out. What are our goals before we leave? What do we want the other nations to be doing? He does appear to have some good ideas concerning foreign policy and the rest of the world.
In terms of the rest of the world, ultimately the entire global community must address the issues of failed states, world regimes, and underdevelopment, which are the breeding grounds of such issues as terrorism. In our own hemisphere, we need to improve our homeland security and to guard against the terrorist threat, at the same time coming up with a sensible, fair, and enforceable policy on immigration. And we need to think about that in the larger context of our relations with Latin America which has been backsliding toward authoritarianism and illiberal economies. We shouldn’t allow the rest of the Americans to become anti-Americans, even as we ourselves become more Latino in our makeup. A true vision for national security must also encompass non-military challenges. We need to wean ourselves off our dependence on foreign oil. It goes without saying that we are too dependant on Middle Eastern regimes today and if we are not careful we may be heading into a clash with China tomorrow over energy resources.
While much of this sounds good, I don’t hear anything other than “we need a good plan”. The candidates need to say what their plan actually is. What is a good immigration policy. How would he address the issue of failed states. How do we improve homeland security. How do we guard against terrorist threats. How should we wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
On Immigration, Webb again cops out with this:
The immigration debate is divided into three separate issues. How can we secure our border? What should we do about the 11 million undocumented workers? And, lastly there is the guest worker question. It is necessary to separate out the 3 issues. The primary concern must be securing the border. Immediate action is needed to stem the flow of illegal border crossings. Approaching the issue using an omnibus bill that attempts to solve all three issues simultaneously creates a political stalemate that delays the border security solution. There is a consensus that our border security must be improved and we should act on that consensus as soon as possible. Once the border is secure we can develop a fair solution to other immigration issues.
Ok, great, we can see 3 issues, what are you going to do about them? How are you going to secure the border. What are you going to do about the current 11 million illegal aliens (and no bolt of lightning struck me when I typed that). What is your plan for the guest worker program. What is your “fair” solution to the other issues?
The rest of his stances on the issues I find to be anathema to me. On “Economic and Social Fairness” he plans to reinstate notions of “fairness”. I can only assume that means soak the rich to redistribute wealth, continuing to punish those who work hard and succeed to get where they are, and reward those who continue to fail. On education he appears strongly in favor of our current public schooling system, along with the worthless NCLB testing. On the health care issue he is for a government run medical program, pushing us into Socialized medicine even as Canada is figuring out that doesn’t work. He blames infrastructure failures in New Orleans and other areas of the country on the federal government, when this is really the responsibility of the states, and he is for bringing home the bacon for transportation costs:
As Virginia’s junior Senator I will work with Gov. Kaine and the legislature to implement their transportation priorities by fighting for greater federal funding.
I cannot see myself ever voting for someone like this, even if he got the War on Terror issue completely correct (whatever that might be)