New Directions for America- National Defense

The experiment to find out how my ideas for a new direction for America match up with Barack Obama's ideas as expressed on his campaign Web site goes on.

The next topic is National Defense. My ideas are that pre-emptive aggression will never be used against another nation, however any overt, imminent threat in preparation for an attack against American territory or assets will be countered by the full power of our armed forces. American forces will be deployed to attack a foreign land only upon a formal declaration of war by Congress. The national guard will be deployed only when an all-out effort is made to defend the country, when the deployments are for the duration of the conflict. The armed forces will be maintained at a level as necessary to defend the country from foreign attack.

Barack's Web site doesn't directly identify national defense as an issue. Therefore, I was unable to copy his ideas for comparison. Next time, I'll use the topics he lists, rather than invent my own.

It's Still the Oil

Bush, in his Iraqi policy speech to the nation last night, described his intention to keep troops in Iraq for the long term. General Patreaus, in a CNN interview, described a national security objective in Iraq as securing long-term military bases. Bush claimed that "Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America…" Show me the names of the Iraqi leaders who made this request, and I'll show you fresh targets for assassination attempts. In the McClatchy Newspapers report that I read, Bush went on to say, "And we are ready to begin building that relationship, in a way that protects our interests in the region." The only national security interest we have in that "region" is the oil reserves. So, don't give me that crap about building democracy. It's still the oil.

Bases in Iraq

I heard General Petraeus, in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, say that a national security objective of the U.S. was a more-or-less permanent military presence in Iraq. Will someone please explain to me why we need military bases in Iraq once we extricate ourselves from this quagmire of civil war and sectarian violence. Watch out, it sounds like an attack on Iran is part of the Pentagon's plan.

Retired General Abizaid, in an AP interview, said the United States has done a poor job of fighting Islamic extremism. Quoting Abizaid, "I don't blame it on any people. I just blame it on a bureaucratic system that has been unresponsive thus far to the challenges of the 21st century. We need to change that as a matter of national priority."

Bureaucracy can be overcome by citizen initiatives. A national convention should be convened, bringing together our foremost experts on the Middle East, counter-terrorism, religious fundamentalism, colonial transgressions, economic development, and any other pertinent subject. The purpose of these deliberations would be to develop a plan to fight Islamic extremism through economic, educational, political, diplomatic, social, and other means. It's going to be up to the citizens.

Military Response to Terrorism

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an immediate response by the United States was not only expected, it was virtually demanded by a nation that would not allow this criminal act go unpunished. The target of our response was also predictable. Afghanistan harbored Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the attack. The Taliban, a paramilitary force was in control of Afghanistan. Clearly, combat soldiers were the appropriate response. However, a belated attack on Iraq in response to 9/11 was unexpected, at least by me.

With military operations in Aghanistan winding down, but not successfully concluded by the capture of Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and top Taliban leaders, the Bush administration began a publicity campaign to justify a military invasion of Iraq. Basically, Bush's line was that al-Qaida had conspired with Saddam Hussein in planning the 9/11 attack. Bush insisted that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush claimed that, because Saddam hated the USA, these weapons would fall into the hands of al-Qaida, who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us or at least try to do that. I won't quibble with that possibility, but surely there were options besides an armed invasion to prevent it.

The military invasion of Iraq was carried out with shock and awe, resulting in "Mission Accomplished". Saddam's army dissolved into the neighborhoods of Iraq's cities, as our forces advanced. The U.S. military stayed in place to pacify the population, but ended up embroiled in fighting against guerrilla insurgents, including fighters associated with al-Qaida. As Iraqi security spiraled out of control, our troops were caught in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia religious factions. Although the possibility that our armed forces are embroiled in a quagmire is denied by the Bush administration, they have accepted the premise that our military success will be equated to a lack of participation by opposition Iraqi elements. So, we went from fighting terrorists in Afghanistan to fighting Iraqi's in Iraq with some terrorists (who were there because we were) thrown into the mix, without an exit plan. The war has become a open-ended commitment where victory is illusive and will not be determined by our actions, but rather by the inaction of our adversaries.

The problems with continuation of the Bush military response in Iraq to a successful conclusion are manifold. The Iraq War has caused grievous casualties without commensurate gain. It has squandered national resources without a future return on investment. It has divided our society. Persons who were not for a preemptory attack on a sovereign nation are not in favor of continuing the effort, styled now as an effort to bring democracy to a Middle East country. Some who supported the attack on Iraq originally, now oppose it. But, a minority is still steadfastly thirsting for victory, including the architect, George Bush.

I oppose the Iraq invasion, at its inception and now, because I don't think the war on terror is amenable to a military response. The terrorist cells are composed not of soldiers, rather they consist of idealistic malcontents who hate America. Their hatred is a response to several conditions and perceptions of oppression, to religious dogma that has stifled the cultural and economic development of their homeland and other causes, real and imagined.

Terrorism constitutes unconventional war and bedevils conventional military tactics. A new paradigm is needed to counter terrorism. I don't have a magic formula with the answer, but I suspect it involves curing the ills of their society from inside by supporting change, but not initiating it. The less we are directly and overtly involved in the solution, the more likely it is to succeed. Since conventional warfare is not working, I hope our esteemed leaders would apply the best minds available to a new plan of action.