| National Security Should Get Top Priority in Presidential Debate |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by 2Editor | |||||||||
| Sunday, 18 May 2008 20:45 | |||||||||
|
It took a former soldier - columnist Jack Kelly - to catch something characteristically ignored by most of the media. But just after his victory in the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama defended his oft-declared intent to negotiate freely with our adversaries by invoking the examples of Roosevelt and Truman, sacred names in the Democrat pantheon. Kelly suggested a "breathtaking ignorance of history" to skewer reporters who ignored the obvious: that Roosevelt prosecuted World War II under a policy of unconditional surrender, not profligate negotiations. Truman dropped two atomic bombs to reinforce the point and later backed up his policy of containment by sending U.S. troops to fight the Korean War. History and historians are the richest of all hunting grounds for debate. But when you start invoking ghosts as Obama did, you open yourself up for some hard follow-up questions - not softballs about his wife, his minister or the deeper meaning of "change." Had the attending media been even remotely interested in doing their jobs, the follow-ups should have included: "Senator, what are the risks of communicating weakness by offering to negotiate with enemies who have sworn to wipe us off the face of the earth?" Or even better: "Mr. Obama, if negotiation is the answer to every problem, how would you deter enemies - whether states or terrorist groups - who show every inclination to procure nuclear, chemical, biological and even 21st Century cyber weapons?" Now compared to health care, global warming and the always fascinating race for super-delegates, these might seem like might seem like small and insignificant questions. But with the presidential campaign dwindling down to three candidates - maybe even two by the time you read this - isn't it high time we had a decent conversation about national security? With growing challenges to our economy and even our existence, shouldn't we be defining the major threats and what, if anything, we are prepared to do about them?In 2004 we simply punted. We gave Bush a free pass on Iraq, acting as if everything was cool and Swift boats were more important than replenishing the nation's badly over-stretched ground forces. In 2006, we reversed ourselves, deciding once and for all that Iraq was a bad idea. We then looked on in oafish surprise as Gen. David Petraeus reversed the reversal, even creating some legitimate prospects for success. In spite of all that, what happens now if we declare victory and leave? Wouldn't either a man from Mars or any future enemy reach one unmistakable conclusion: "No sweat, those guys are easy." That cold-blooded appraisal already seems to have been made by Iran, which has seen its proxies triumph in Gaza, is now making another play for Lebanon and seems determined to surround Israel from every quarter. Iranian support for its Shi'ite surrogates in Iraq violates every canon of counter-insurgency warfare while costing the lives of American soldiers. With growing cries for cross-border strikes into Iran, a proxy conflict slides ever closer to open hostilities. Should that happen, would Iran respond solely by sending its speedboats to attack American warships in the Gulf? Given the brilliance and perversity of the Iranian secret services, such a conspicuous lack of imagination is doubtful. As I suggested here last summer, an Iranian cyberwar against the U.S. might actually be their best strategic option. While that scenario might sound like scary science fiction, the frighteningly real precedent was set in Estonia last spring. A slight against their Russian neighbors resulted in the total shut-down of the Estonian cell-phone network by botnets, the 21st Century equivalent of a naval blockade. The fact is that we are the most vulnerable nation on earth to an electronic Pearl Harbor. Password protection has been obsolete for ten years; we routinely make bank transactions over unsecured wireless networks and disregard the threat of compromise to vast sectors of our information infrastructure. Ignoring security is one thing but we also act as if no one else has noticed. Democrat or Republican, perhaps the next Congress might consider changing our national symbol from the eagle to the ostrich. Editor's note: For more on this looming threat to American security, see Col. Allard's previously published two-part series on cyber war. Part One is here; part two is here.
Bookmark with:
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.21
3.21 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."
|
yep they are such nice people God Bl...
And no one saw this coming? Yeah Right!
Wotta Lotta Krappa
Why are you advising people to take a...
sick bastard