National Security and Veterans

MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . assuring that we have a military capable of deterring aggression and defending our nation from attack . . . caring for those who have served.

POSITION SUMMARY:

We are not the world’s policeman. It is not our place or responsibility to protect other countries that are unable to protect themselves – especially those who are unwilling to commit their own resources to their own defense.

We must maintain our military superiority in a fiscally responsible manner. We must provide our military with the equipment it needs, not what some Congressman wants. Appropriations that benefit a Congressman's district but are not necessary for military purposes do not represent responsible government.

We must maintain the ability to collect all the intelligence needed to prevent aggression against our country and our citizens – but not at the expense of our own freedom and privacy rights.

We must pay the men and women in our military an appropriate wage and we must provide our injured veterans with every necessary medical service.

[Related issues are discussed in separate sections on Foreign Relations]

DISCUSSION:  

Few people dispute the proposition that national security is the first responsibility of the federal government.  By definition, national security means the protection of American citizens, and American interests, from those forces that threaten our personal safety, well-being and way of life.  While we must always be able to repel an attack with force, the cost of war, in lives and dollars, is far too high to make military action our first response to a threat.

Our first line of defense against any foreign threat must always be diplomacy.

This does not mean that we should reduce our preparedness to fight a war if we have to.  A strong military is the greatest deterrent to aggression.  But in today’s world, a strong military is not enough.

As we have learned through painful experience, terrorists do not fight a classic war.  Terrorists do not fight by the “rules.”  Terrorists do not comply with the Geneva Convention.  This means that we must be able to fight a different kind of war.

National Security and the Armed Services:

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the federal government the power “To declare war…” and to “Raise and support Armies…” and “To provide and maintain a Navy.”  This provision of the Constitution does not expressly limit the government’s use of its armed services.  However, the preamble to the enumerated powers does state that the powers granted to the federal government are intended to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare . . ."

The word “defense,” as commonly used, does even imply authority to initiate preemptive military action—even in the face of an impending threat.  However, even assuming that there is some authority for such action, there is no clear authority to maintain armed forces in another country after overt hostilities have ceased—especially when the only direct benefits accrue to the citizens of the occupied country.

The United States is not the policeman for the world.  It is not our place to subdue any potential enemy just because we can.  The fact that turmoil in another part of the world may have economic consequences for us is not justification for interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign country. Our military should act only to protect life and liberty.--including innocent civilians who may be subject to genocide and starvation in countries where civil conflict exists.  

We have a duty, by Treaty as well as self-interest—to come to the aid of our “friends” when they are the subject of external aggression.   But that duty does not extend to defending one faction within a country against aggression by another faction within that country.   It is not our role, right or responsibility to support, with military action, a government that the people of a country do not want.

Much of the conflict that exists in the world today exists precisely because we have, historically, used our military, directly (and indirectly, through foreign military aid) to support governments that were friendly to our economic interests but are not wanted by their own people.  The terrorism directed at the United States by factions in the Middle East is not as much the result of what we did to the people of those countries as it is the product of what their own government did to the people with our assistance or for our benefit.

Our armed services are Constitutionally subject to civilian political authority.  But politics should not control military operations.  If we are going to fight a war, we should fight to win.  More importantlu, we must know what "winning" means before we start.  Appropriate civilian authorities should establish specific military objectives, but should tell the military what it must, or cannot, do to achieve those objectives.  If civilian authorities cannot establish specific military objectives, they should not be using military force. 

Military Preparedness.

Military preparedness has many dimensions.  In addition to the obvious need to have a well-trained, well-equipped military, it means that we must have the capacity to maintain our fighting capacity in times of conflict.  This need has two consequences that extend beyond the status of the armed services themselves. 

FIRST, we must have the capacity to produce the material needed to wage war.  To ensure that America has this capacity, we must have a domestic manufacturing capacity to produce the tools of war.

SECOND, the American military is increasingly dependent on technology, and the men and women in our armed services require far greater skills than ever before.  The demands for a skilled military force can only be met if we have an educational system that prepares students with the skills needed to master the needs of the modern military. We cannot continue to impose on the military the need to train solders who lack basic skills in reading and mathematics or who have never had an opportunity to learn the technical skills required by the military.

THIRD:  Advanced technology has made the American military the best in the world.  But our armed services are not the only ones who benefit from advances in military research and technology.  Many of our consumer products represent applications of technology initially developed by the military.  Even many advances in medicine and other sciences are the result of research by the armed services.  Our national security, both in the military and economic sense, requires that we commit ourselves to the continued research and development of technologies for the military.

FOURTH:  We must maintain our leadership in the development of advanced weapons systems.  But this does not mean that we have to deploy everything at the cost of billions of dollars that could be better spent on other needed federal programs.

FIFTH:  Allocations for the military should be spent based on the priority needs of the military as determined by the military--not on where Congressmen want the money to go.

I detest war, but I support those who fight when they are required to do so.  We cannot do enough for the men and women who have sacrificed for our country. Our failure to adequately care for our veterans is a national disgrace.

Those who have served our country are entitled to every advantage the government can give them.  Educational benefits.  Home loans.  Business start-up loans and assistance.  Whatever.

Those who have been injured in service to the country are entitled to the finest medical care available

 National Security, Intelligence  and Personal Freedom:

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and  counter threats to domestic security. But this requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. 

Government exists to protect us.  But we are increasingly faced with the need for protection from our Government.  We can never be completely free as a nation if we are not free as individuals.  We cannot allow our concern for national security to preempt our rights as individuals.

America’s greatest virtue, the thing that most set us apart from most of the rest of the world, is the virtually unrestrained freedom of its citizens.  As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our government has vastly curtailed those rights.   We can no longer enter government buildings or airports without passing armed guards and security checkpoints.  We can no longer cross our own borders without extensive documentation or close scrutiny. 

The Bill of Rights does not contain any exceptions for a time of war. The PATRIOT Act was originally enacted, in great haste,  following the attacks of September 11.  The fact that major provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been held to be unconstitutional is alone proof that Congress was acting in response to public demands rather than in a reasoned way.  I have no doubt that few of the provisions of the Act would have passed Congress if it had been proposed under any other circumstances.  

Agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to significant Congressional oversight.  I do not dispute the need to maintain the secrecy of much of the information collected by our intelligence agencies or the armed services.  However, I oppose the government's use of secret classifications that prevent discovery of information which shows that the government itself has violated the law.

Border Security:

“Border security” has become such a catch-all term that it is difficult easily discuss.  Is it an “anti-terrorism” effort?  Is it a “drug interdiction” effort?  Is it a “trade control” effort?  Is an “immigration control” effort?  Yes.  Yes.  Yes. Yes. And a few extra “yeses.”  In short, the term has come to mean whatever a politician wants it to mean. 

It is easy for politicians to support “border security,” because everyone agrees with some aspect of the term, even though they may not agree with other aspects of the term.  However, as a catchall term, it has been used to justify an extraordinary range  of actions by agencies throughout the government.  The fact that state and local law enforcement agencies also have interests in “border security” only complicates the issue. 

Not surprisingly, the activities of the many agencies having an interest in “border security” remain largely un-coordinated.  Different agencies have different primary missions and priorities.  The manpower of the various agencies having interests in “border security” all report through different chains of command and the exchange of information between agencies is far from optimal.

To comment on this issue in the Issues Forum, click here

No Very

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below