|
Throughout this campaign, many of Dan Debicella's proposals have gone unexamined. He proposes "capping" federal spending as a function of GDP. I've not seen a single journalist ask him if this, one of his core campaign proposals, is constitutional (hint: it isn't). Nor have I seen them ask him where he'd find the massive cuts necessary to implement it (hint: Medicare). Debicella also proposes a temporary cut in the payroll tax, costing at least $350 billion, by repealing the "unspent stimulus." But the unspent stimulus -- which has an actual, quantifiable value -- amounts to $48 billion (and will be very close to $0 by the time any new proposal would take effect). No journalist I've seen has asked Debicella to find the extra $300 - $400 billion in cuts to make his plan deficit-neutral (on top of the $700 billion or so he'd need for that first idea). Of course, with polls opening in 48 hours or so, they won't. Heck of a job, media.
Debicella seems to get a pass on pitching economic ideas that are both extremely costly and impossible to pass or implement. But then, in the foreign policy debate last week, Debicella tossed out a proposal so reckless, that it makes the econ stuff seem like child's play. He proposed acts of war -- attacking Iran.
"You slap strict economic sanctions on [Iran]," Debicella said. "Then we do a naval blockade like we did in Desert Shield. If that fails, you do air strikes to take out nuclear capability. It gives them every chance, with military force as a last resort."
What are the likely results of such a plan? George Friedman, political scientist and national security expert, writing for STRATFOR says...
... destroying Iran's nuclear capability does not involve a one-day raid, nor is Iran without the ability to retaliate. Its nuclear facilities are in a number of places and Iran has had years to harden those facilities. Destroying the facilities might take an extended air campaign and might even require the use of special operations units to verify battle damage and complete the mission. In addition, military action against Iran's naval forces would be needed to protect the oil routes through the Persian Gulf from small boat swarms and mines, anti-ship missile launchers would have to be attacked and Iranian air force and air defenses taken out.
This would not solve the problem of the rest of Iran's conventional forces, which would represent a threat to the region, so these forces would have to be attacked and reduced as well. An attack on Iran would not be an invasion, nor would it be a short war. Like Yugoslavia in 1999, it would be an extended air war lasting an unknown number of months.
There would be American POWs from aircraft that were shot down or suffered mechanical failure over Iranian territory.
There would be many civilian casualties, which the international media would focus on. It would not be an antiseptic campaign, but it would likely (though it is important to reiterate not certainly) destroy Iran's nuclear capability and profoundly weaken its conventional forces... It would strengthen the Iranian regime (as aerial bombing usually does) by rallying the Iranian public to its side against the aggression. If the campaign were successful, the Iranian regime would be stronger politically, at least for a while, but eviscerated militarily.
Debicella throws around acts of war as campaign rhetoric. But if that rhetoric were to become US policy, we can anticipate an Iranian regime strengthened domestically, and rallying support across the Islamic world. American POWs and dead civilians. War for "an unknown number of months," with no guarantee of destroying the capacity of the enemy to produce a nuclear weapon.
"Reckless" doesn't begin to describe what Debicella is proposing. "Radical" doesn't begin to describe this clearly-stated foreign policy objective. "Wrong" doesn't begin to describe Debicella's ideas. We must keep him out of the Congress. There's just too much at stake. |
MLN is powered by