There are almost too many issues on the table for the midterm elections in two weeks. No matter how much people clamor about domestic issues, protecting the country is still the primary concern of the federal government. There is no doubt that national security dominates how we choose our representatives in Washington D.C. The current debate over our government's approach to foreign policy will shape the course of action for the next two years. Those in Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District have two decisions to make that could change the nation's approach to national security: Bob Casey Jr. or Rick Santorum for Senate and Curt Weldon or Joe Sestak for Congress. These races are being watched nationwide because they embody the different perspectives on the United States position in the world.
There are two focal points of the United States' national security policy that currently dominates the news: the war in Iraq and a nuclear North Korea. These two situations pose significant challenges to US security, and they are approached differently by the candidates.
In Iraq we face the task of balancing our commitment to a new Iraq with the loss of American resources (human lives, money, domestic political willpower, and international opinion).On the other end of the spectrum, North Korea stands to Asian regional stability in an unknown way. With China's waxing power combined with our longtime ally, Japan's, waning hegemony, it is difficult for the US to exert its willpower in the Pacific Rim.
| “According to North Korea, they have successfully tested a nuclear device… What do you think?” asks, Bushsupporter . |
Between Bob Casey Jr. and Rick Santorum, one of their biggest differences is their perspective on who the United States is fighting. Many of Casey's accusations of poor wartime leadership are in regards to our actions in Iraq. Santorum counters, in their first debate, that Iraq as just one battle in a larger war against “Islamic fascism.” Here is the first distinction between the November 7th candidates: against whom are we fighting?
The dominant perspective among those who are in power is that we are fighting against extreme interpretations of Islam that are anti-democracy. On NBC's “Meet the Press,” Santorum stated that Iraq is just one part of the multi-front war where “Shia nation-states, like Iran, want to defeat the United States...and Iran, which is the principal stoker of this, this Shia/Sunni sectarian violence, would love nothing more to see than the Iraqi democracy fail.” By framing the war in Iraq as part of a larger war against an idea, Islamic extremism, voters can see the importance of making a long term commitment to staying in Iraq. Santorum iterates this well when he states that “the real tough question is how do you win this war.” For him, and the administration that he supports, it is not about why we got involved in Iraq, it is about standing up against an enemy who simply wants to defeat America.
The challenging perspective is that the United States was carried into Iraq on false pretenses and then prosecuted without a plan for how to win. This perspective lends itself to both a moderate and extreme plan of action. Bob Casey Jr. falls into the moderate end of that spectrum. He first asserts, on “Meet the Press,” that this “was the war that shouldn't have been fought based upon the misleading of this administration.” This belief revolves around the fall 2002 confrontations between the Bush Administration and the United Nations regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There have been frequent allegations that Americans were mislead by the Bush Administration when told that Iraq was and imminent threat because of its weapons of mass destruction stockpile. Much of this stockpile, specifically a budding nuclear program, never materialized.
Casey's view, that the United States is suffering from poor leadership in Iraq, is supported by many Pennsylvanians, as indicated by his double digit lead over Santorum in recent polls. Casey has taken a very moderate approach to developing a new direction in Iraq. He said on “Meet the Press,” “I'm not ready to abandon this mission...we need new leadership.” That is the foundation of the moderate Democratic approach to these midterm elections. New leadership within the Department of Defense and the United States Senate will push the Bush Administration to embark on a new course of action in Iraq.
There are two counters to the assertion that the United States involvement in Iraq lacks foundation. The first was already addressed, and it is that it does not matter why we got involved in Iraq. Santorum said in their second debate on WKPTV in Pittsburgh, “The question is what would have happened had we not going to Iraq. We haven't been attacked in five years. That is not an accident. That happened because we aggressively went after both terrorist organizations and regimes that support them.” He also claimed on “Meet the Press” that US Armed Forces did find many of the weapons that US intelligence did claim would be there, including “old weapons, [chemical] weapons from the Iran/Iraq conflict, and we found over five hundred...”
There is a different battle over the course of Iraq being played out in Congressional contests nationwide. One such race, Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, pits ten term incumbent Curt Weldon against ex-Vice Admiral Joe Sestak. When it comes to Iraq, Weldon has embodied the moderate, leadership change approach, while Sestak is pushing for a more extreme commitment of pulling troops immediately out of harm's way.
In an intriguing move to change the course in Iraq, Curt Weldon drafted a resolution that states, “Military commanders should put in place a system of criteria to assess the capability of Iraqi security forces. Once those criteria are met, the mission in Iraq would be considered complete and the president could begin withdrawing troops.” While there are arguments of this infringing upon the Constitutional mandate for civilian control of the military, it shows a concern over the current prosecution of the war in Iraq. Though this does not endorse an immediate change of course in Iraq, it would lay the groundwork for bringing the troops home.
Challenger Joe Sestak goes further on the issue. His national security platform states, “The war in Iraq is a tragic misadventure because it is a war which was undertaken at exactly the wrong time.” His position is that going into Iraq, instead of relying on diplomatic efforts, has cost the US credibility and power on a worldwide scale. In case voters did not catch on earlier, he ends his statement with, "I firmly believe in a planned end to our military engagement in Iraq within the next year as the primary catalyst for change in Iraq.” It does not get much clearer than that.
So what does all of this political jockeying mean for us, the generation of younger Americans that must eek out our existence in a world shaped by our elders? The most obvious affect is the number of casualties the US has suffered in foreign conflicts. The brunt of this cost is born by younger Americans. 77.9 percent of fatalities are servicemen and women under thirty; 53 percent of fatalities are under twenty-five. Most of the politicians that voted to prosecute a war have not fought in it. This is starting to change with candidates such as Joe Sestak who bring first hand knowledge of the situation to the civilian leadership of United States armed forces.
North Korea forces us to look beyond the personal impact of war. Americans under twenty-five do not remember the nuclear standoff of the cold war. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a new threat to the world that the youth will inherit. This is why it is so imperative that young voters are involved with their government. Every representative in Washington plays a role in shaping world affairs.
Sources:
• RickSantorum.com
• BobCasey.com
• CurtWeldon.org
• SestakforConngress.com
