Imagine for a moment a world without national borders. In this world, people would have the ability to travel anywhere without restriction; they would be able to live anywhere without regards to place of birth; they would be able to shop, to learn, and to converse with people of many races and cultures. This kind of world would necessarily be one in which global rules of conduct are universally known and accepted, where goods and services have standard and consistent values, where cultural differences are reasons for celebration rather than for discord. Okay, now open your eyes and take a look at the world we live in. Humanity has yet to reach the stage of development that would make such a world possible, and at the rate we’re going, we never will.
Humanity is still stuck in the stage of development that is illustrated by fierce nationalistic pride, religious-borne conflicts, resource abuse, and tyrannical and/or corrupt governments. A clash of cultures is currently being played out on an ever-growing geopolitical scale, serving to remind us that we may be approaching another turning point in our shared history. At the same time, individuals throughout the world are empowering themselves with thoughts of personal freedoms and a better physical existence. This dichotomy presents societies with a quandary and addresses one of the central tasks assigned to government in today’s world: How does government best protect its citizens, its territory, and its interests in the world? Summed up, these are referred to as National Security.
Because of the state of today’s political and cultural atmosphere, National Security takes on great importance in America. Our government has done a pretty good job the last half-century at raising our standard of living, but often at the expense of other nations. We have secured more privileges and more freedoms for ourselves, but often at the expense of other people. We have created and produced magnificent works, cures, and technologies, but often have kept them from benefiting everyone. We have assisted nations in trouble, and then empowered corrupt regimes to run the show. In short, our government has managed to show the world both the best and the worst of the American culture and creed in the same breath time and time again. We have made plenty of people angry along the way, and lately we have made plenty of threats. America is now being viewed differently both by our “friends” and by our “enemies.” No longer the champion of liberty to all people, our enemies have learned to exploit our duplicity in this area and have gained millions of followers that no longer trust the United States to be the country that fought off the Nazi and Japanese war machines in the name of freedom in World War II. These new enemies are ready to fight us in the streets and to the death. Meanwhile, many of our “friends” have learned that friendship to the United States is a conditional status based on what you have that we want or where your land is located. This kind of friendship naturally gets established as one of convenience, and the sentiment is returned two-fold and with a bitter taste. Feeling exploited, and rightly so, these governments send their problems to us through their refugees and migrants, in effect calling in their chips.
The result is an America that has a greater need to know who and what is coming over our borders; a greater need for international cooperation; a more effective military and intelligence apparatus; and well defined, enforced immigration and weapon laws. A look at the state of our various security measures will show the rational person how irrational our government is when it comes to actually serving the citizenry.
From overlooked reforms to misappropriated funding to politically correct barriers and socially inept policies, our national security is disorganized, irresponsible, and threatened at the same time. The federal government, who is currently wholly responsible for the task of national security, continues to make blunder after blunder when seeking ways to protect Americans. In many cases, Common Sense reasoning has been abandoned in favor of political gamesmanship, corporate profits, political correctness, and irresponsible representation from our elected officials. They spend more and more time protecting and enriching their business benefactors and reinforcing the victim mentality of society than they do protecting their constituents from actual danger. The politicians and our federal government create and implement many programs that have not been thoroughly thought out, wasting billions of tax-payer dollars that could be used to cut deficits or shore up social infrastructure. It is time for citizens to demand policies and actions that will actually solve the problems instead of creating new ones. It is time to stop approaching the world with two faces. It is time to end the confusing regulation and the fraud.
While I recognize that many factors have combined to put us where we are now, we might keep in mind that the goal of government should be to address and satisfy the tasks it has without over-complicating the rest of our lives. Over-complication got us to where we are now and it’s going to take whole new ideas, or a willingness to enforce existing ideas, to get us out of this mess. I also recognize that this mess is so big that to really clean it up will take decades of follow-up work, but the necessity of the task still remains, and so the task should begin. Someday, we might not need to worry about protecting our national borders, but as long as we do, we should have a plan that achieves that goal and fosters mutual trust. So the next several essays will look at the issues facing this country with regards to National Security. I don’t claim to be some kind of expert by any means. I’m just a man with a clear view at Common Sense and a desire to make the world a saner place.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 21st, 2005 at 9:16 pm and is filed under Foreign Relations, Government, national security, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 21st, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Another great post Ken. I can’t belive that I am the first to comment, but I must.
A few years back, I was at a meeting held in El Paso, Tx. For those of you have been there, or live there, you realize very quickly what the border means. The river cuts the line flagrently between Tx. and Juarez, Mx. It is an unnatural slice – of what seems to have been one town. Families are divided by chainlink, and toll gates. Mexican students wait, sometimes, for hours to make it to class at UTEP.
It seems like any policy that would tear down the fences, and build more bridges would be best for the situation there. Perhaps someone who lives in El Paso can comment further, but in my view, like there are no fences with Canada, there needs to be a way to replicate that on our southern boarder.
It is difficult becuase, I think it was Einstein who said it, “we cannot solve today’s problems with the same thinking we used to create them.”
February 22nd, 2005 at 12:00 am
I mostly oppose the way we pick and choose who will be valuable and who won’t. Cuban- come on in. Haitian- swim back we’re full. Our value system seems skewed.
Along with immigration reform laws, maybe we should do more to improve the lives of people in other areas. Our threat is not foreigners, it is foreigners with little or no hope and believe America is to blame.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:29 am
I agree… sanity and peace would be a cure all. I could sit in the woods on the bench I built with my own hands. I could listen to the birds sing that sweet little melody that today is going to be better than yesterday. Then, I do that anyway whenever I can. Sadly, the storm of ultra-ideology doth lurk in the thicket. It is a deadly beast.
February 23rd, 2005 at 5:25 am
Ken,
The “world” you describe in your first paragraph sounds like the end of the United States — not a happy thought, at least to me.
We need to make many improvements in our government — make it much smaller, less intrusive in it’s citizen’s lives and far better at doing it’s primary job — defending the US from its enemies.
I don’t believe that loosing our culture is an “improvement” I’d like to see.
February 23rd, 2005 at 7:04 am
(responses)
Windspike- Glad you enjoyed it. It is important to remember that fences and bridges both have a purpose though. We build fences to protect ourselves and our things. We build bridges to let other people see in. One predicates a lack of trust while the other belies an interest in friendship. And when both are found in proximity, it is because trust is beginning but not yet fully formed. This may help understand the difference between our northern and southern borders. We trust Canada not to come to America to take what is ours, but rather to see what we have. They don’t need what we have and vice versa. The situation in Mexico is the opposite. They want and need what we have but have nothing to offer in return, save for the sweat from their brows. (Which only benefits the businesses.)
Also remember that national security necessarily applies to the citizens of a country, not those of neighboring countries. Our Constitution, despite recent contrary court decisions, is a document meant to protect the citizens of the United States. No other country is bound by those rules but us. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, is a document that pronounces certain unalienable rights of mankind, by which we base our Constitution and subsequent laws. Let us not confuse the ideals of the Declaration with the legalities of the Constitution. One should be our guide for working fairly with all countries and people, and the other should regulate and protect our citizens from the abuses of other countries and people.
Scott- I have often said that people would rather live their lives at home and visit abroad than the reverse. If America wants to really help raise the less fortunate of the world, we need to help them in their own countries first.
bushblogger-ultra-ideology can present itself in many forms. a reasoned approach is always the best course to take. And it often allows for more bird-watching time.
thanks for stopping by.
whymrhymer- you must have misunderstood what I meant. not an end to national identity or cultural pride, but rather an atmosphere where people are free to travel and shop and share the benefits of other cultures without fear for their safety. a world where certain universal truths are understood, respected, and applied evenly.
I don’t want to lose our freedoms and our way of life, and I still question some of the “culture” that we wallow in and export. But my not liking some kinds of music or art is irrelevant to this or any discussion regarding the law and the task of government. Suffice it to say that in this great melting pot of America, culture is often confused with freedom. We have many cultures in this country. They are held together and complimented by each other because of the freedoms we have. That is what the world needs to grab a hold of.
The question becomes: Can we keep that which is dear, the principals of freedom, and still secure ourselves from our enemies?
February 24th, 2005 at 12:09 am
I think I’m an isolationist. Not of the purest sort, but I do have this nagging feeling that we are endangering our freedoms by being so open with most other countries… even the likes of Canada.
I see some of the shortcomings of other nations and their failed, or failing, policies and ideologies and I wonder about our place among them. I see the horrible offenses of the UN and ask if we should even consider having dealings with such a corrupt institution.
And, while I see plenty of corruption within the ranks of our own government agencies, I still believe that it’s possible for the citizens here to enact change. So I fear the possibility of “outsiders” being allowed to influence those changes. Especially if those changes were to become more like the socialist EU or UN. I don’t think such changes would be very good, or wise. And certainly not favorable to common sense.