National Security The U.S. military and intelligence services should remain the strongest in the world to protect us from our enemies and terrorists, but for only those reasons. National defense should exist solely for defense. One of the primary roles of the federal government is to protect U.S. citizens. A bumper sticker reads: “Were making enemies faster than we can kill them.” I think that it’s sad but true. Terrorism should be fought primarily through espionage. Espionage necessitates information. We need to kill every terrorist that we can, while minimizing loss of innocent lives. Contrary to what Vice-President Cheney and many Republicans would like for us to believe, invading Iraq was not part of this equation. A March 3, 2008 article in U.S. News & World Report titled The Burden of Duty provides the following:
I absolutely support our troops. I simply don't want them stationed all around the world. Our goals should be to maximize our knowledge of foreign affairs while minimizing our foreign military presence. History teaches us that empires don’t last. The Roman Empire vanished. The British Empire no longer exists, but Britain exists because it retracted. History will not be kind to our country if we continue down the quasi-imperialistic path. Consider the pros and cons of our vast military and its tremendous number of bases and establishments worldwide (i.e. approximately 700 bases in more than 130 countries), especially since we don’t absorb the natural resources of the countries in which we have bases. A majority of our foreign military bases should be closed. Doing so will reduce cost while simultaneously reducing enemies. Let’s keep one base in the Middle East – in Kuwait. The returning troops could be placed on the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration. As I said in 2004 (a direct quote from my 2004 website): “I believe that the Bush Administration misled the country and Congress regarding the threat posed by Iraq. To me, that action is inexcusable.” (One of the main reasons that I got involved in politics in 2003 was due to this deception.) Given our country’s long-term financial problems, I think that the war in Iraq was one step forward, and two or more steps backward in the “war” on terrorism. (Terrorism will very likely be with us for many decades to come.) In this regard, in 2007, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost as much as $2.4 Trillion over the next decade. (That's about a full current year's budget.) On February 29, 2008, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that the Iraq war will cost American taxpayers between $3 trillion and $5 trillion -- that's approximately $25,000 to $41,000 per full time worker. The war in Iraq has furthered interests of members and former members of the Bush Administration. We must take actions that will cause other nations to share in the burden of fighting terrorism, instead of taking actions that make the U.S. the main target and the fight almost exclusively ours. In contrast, in conjunction with forces from other counties, I believe that utilization of a small number of our troops in Darfur could accomplish a lot of good things. Richard Clarke, counterterrorism chief in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, said the following about Iraq and terrorism: “Nothing America could have done would have provided al-Qaeda and its new generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich country. Nothing else could have so well negated all our other positive acts and so closed Muslim eyes and ears to our subsequent calls for reform in their region.” Mr. Clarke also said that he thought that the war in Iraq extended the war on terrorism for a generation. Michael F. Scheuer, the founding head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, said in a May 1, 2007 article (published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) concerning George Tenet’s book and the infamous “slam dunk” quote: “But the only real, knowable pre-war slam dunk was that Iraq was going to turn out to be a nightmare . . . the CIA warned Tenet of the inevitable disaster an Iraq war would cause – spreading bin Ladenism, spurring a bloody Sunni-Shiite war and lethally destabilizing the region.” According to the 9/11 Report: “Support for the United States has plummeted. Polls taken in Islamic countries after 9/11 suggested that many or most people thought the United States was doing the right thing in its fight against terrorism; few people saw popular support for al-Qaeda; half of those surveyed said that ordinary people had a favorable view of the United States. By 2003, polls showed that the ‘The bottom has fallen out of the support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread . . . since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria.’” Espionage requires information. In short, the war in Iraq has made dealing with terrorism much more difficult. Given the tremendous financial problems of our country, invading Iraq was clearly an imprudent act. Accountability must exist with respect to the deceptions that transpired. Let’s work with the Iraqis to establish a withdrawal plan (as requested by them) and then stick to it. War is a horrific thing. Necessary wars, like World War II, must be fought. Discretionary wars, like the war in Iraq, should be avoided. In the future, there may be situations in which a preemptive strike or even a preemptive war is necessary. I would support such an undertaking if the circumstances showed that taking such an act was the most prudent course of action. Aid from other countries should be sought with respect to any such endeavor. The costs thereof should be paid currently. Our nation's terrorism problems may last indefinitely. According to the July 26 - August 1, 2008 edition of The Economist magazine, "Waging a war on terror was always going to be like pinning jelly to a wall. As for Guantanamo Bay, it is the most profoundly un-American place on the planet: rejoice when it is shut." I agree with the analysis of The Economist. Our terrorism problems must mainly be addressed through intelligence activities and not through military activities. An article in the July 19-25, 2008 edition of The Economist magazine titled "How to Win the War Within Islam" provides the following under the heading "Six excellent ideas." "In an internet video in September 2007 Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent Al-qaeda leader, mockingly gave the West six tips to wage idealogical warfare: Highlight the views of jihadists who renounce violence; publicise stories about jihadist atrocities against Muslims; enlist Muslim religious leaders to denounce jihadists as heretics; back Islamic movements that emphasise politics over Jihad; discredit and neutralise jihadist ideologues; and play-up personal or doctrinal disputes among Jihadists. These would indeed be good starting-points." Agreed. In the struggle between individual liberties and spying to prevent terrorism, the Bush Administration has overreached to expand the power of the Executive Branch and the federal government. Warrant-less spying is illegal and it must be stopped. A proper balance that protects civil liberties while allowing for the issuance on warrants on a timely basis can be struck. See: Bob Barr's take on surveillance laws, with which I fully agree. (PDF) See: Letter to AJC Editor. (PDF) For various reasons, I am opposed to a draft. Out-sourcing of military functions needs to be stopped. |