“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action
against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman
told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the
border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which
they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they’ll take that as a sign of
weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region
and ultimately right here at home,” Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying
insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there’s any hope of
the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for
instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,”
Lieberman said. “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force,
and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what
they’re doing.”

And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand. We want it to end. This whole business of attacking nations to stop gangs of terrorists really isn’t the best way to go. More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

And to think that if Al Gore had won (I mean been declared the winner) in the 2000 election, America’s Vice-President would still be Dick Cheney, albeit with a different name. If that little realization isn’t a wake-up call to what a complete farce this whole two-party system pretends to be, I don’t know what is. In American politics, there is only one party that rules the roost-the fund-raising party. And whomever gives the most money to help keep the politicians in office (i.e. – power) gets to mold the rules of the game. And make no mistake- the loss of over 3500 US service people is just a part of the game to them. Pieces on the board so to speak. An expected and acceptable cost of imperialism, I mean corporatocracy, I mean exporting democracy, I mean fighting terror.

Hawkish Joe. The People’s Man. The Independent.

It may well be that Iran (or elements within Iran) is training or supplying insurgents who then come across the border into Iraq to fight against American troops there. To pretend though that this is something that the US, nor any ‘civilized’ nation, would undertake to do is ludicrous. In fact, the US is doing just that right now. According to this New York Times article, America is now arming more and more Sunni Arab groups (who also are know to us as insurgents, sectarian rebels, or former Saddam Baathist bastards) to fight against suspected al-Qaeda terror cells in Iraq. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violence in Iraq, aside from the targeting of US troops from both sides of the sectarian clash, is Iraq Sunni fighting Iraq Shia. In that light, the odds of US arms being used against US troops is pretty good. That chance that they will be used by the Sunnis against the Shia (and remember-most of Iran is Shia) may serve to inflame Iranian concerns about this war at their back fence. Hell, by arming the Sunni groups, Iran may well have credible claim that the US ” has a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iran to kill our soldiers.”

Joe has determined that talking just isn’t going to work with the Iranians. After all, “if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” said Joe on CBS. Again, it’s conceivable that others around the world feel the same way about the American government under George W. Bush. Hell, it’s not only conceivable, it’s the fact Jack! Er, Joe. For all this talk about “living according to internation rule of law” give me about a minute and I can pull up hundreds of reminders of America’s own high standards of the past half decade. Do these words ring a bell? Torture. International kidnappings (arrests/detentions/disappearances) by covert US operatives on foreign sovereign land. Here’s a tip Senator. Don’t preach the talk if you can’t (and demonstrably haven’t) walked the walk. Especially you, Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman. Especially from you.

But what’s scarier than hearing former Demcorat-turned faux-Independent Joe Lieberman call for the bombing of Iran? The certainty that Joe’s appearance this Sunday morning was not so much the rantings of a man who longs for face time and relevance but rather a carefully pre-planned event from the bowels of the Bush Administration to start spreading the lubricant for sliding into Iran. After at least a year of denial that the US would seek to engage Iran militarily, despite leaks about prepared war plans and increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, Team Bush may finally be letting the cat out of the bag, via good old Joe Lieberman, a man who (if you are a neo-con or party loyalist republican) you can almost trust since he left the Democrats (who are a bunch of wimps), or (if you are a democrat or anti-war American) a man you most certainly despise for his glad-handing with Bush. In either case, the Bushite’s can simply remain silent on Joe’s performance, leaving the general public to mull over what may come next. And seeing how the American people aren’t too supportive of a military showdown with Iran, even over it’s nuclear activities, perhaps the only way Cheney’s former corporate boardroom buddies can get into Iran is by relying on less spectacular half truths and building inuendo to push war to the next level.

I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East. But those conditions do not include conflating situations already out of hand with those that need not become so.

We may not trust Iran enough to hold face to face talks at high levels. They surely don’t trust us. Neither party has given the other any reason to do so. But trust, and therefore a more amicable (or at least non-confrontational) relationship, isn’t likely to sprout out of a bombing campaign either. />
(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The Shah of Iran was one. Idi Amin was one. Manuel Noriega was one. Ferdinand Marcos was another. So was Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden was one too. These and many others were at one time or another allied with the government of the United States in our battle against Soviet communism. Yet their tyrannical rule of their own people, with the acquiescence of U.S. governments and in total contradiction to our own stated beliefs of the state of man’s rights to freedom, led to tumultuous political upheavals in those countries and fostered an aura of distrust and outright hostility to the United States. We may have saved the world from the monstrosity of Nazism and Japanese totalitarianism, but we weren’t raising the lives of anyone but ourselves. In fact, we were nothing but hypocrites of the worst sort. We espoused ideas for the whole of humanity while embracing them for ourselves only.

Americans in general understood the concept at play, and recognizing Soviet communism to be a direct threat to freedom and democracy, accepted the rules of the game as the government wrote them. After all, American prosperity exploded. So what if the Arabs and Asians and Africans were being beaten and killed and starved around the world. We were too busy enjoying our access to cheap oil and trinkets to care about anyone else. The policy of the lesser of two evils had done us well, so why rock the boat?

Why indeed?

The simple truth is that the lesser of two evils policy is a fallacy. By choosing this method of foreign relations, the U.S. has not endeared itself to the people of the world. Despite the charity of our individual citizens to poor or ravaged countries around the world, the reputation of America is based on the actions of our government. We tout our freedoms and democratic principals everywhere we go, so the people of the world can only assume that we not only approve of what our government does abroad, we dictate that policy ourselves. They may want to come here and share in that power, but that doesn’t mean they like us. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we’ve shown the world that our means justify any ends, especially if the ends means more money and leisure for us. This approach to foreign policy has made us many false allies and real enemies, and the fruition of this approach is coming home to roost in the form of terror attacks and nuclear proliferation. And while the worst tyrants operate abroad, it is we who let them. Who is worse: the man who kicks the puppy or the one who pays to watch?

The lesser of two evils policy has come to haunt us in others ways too, ways equally as threatening to our way of life as the foreign enemies who are rising against us. So indoctrinated are we in this way of thinking, so convinced that there is always a time and a place to sacrifice our ideals to further our own comfort or success, we have adopted the theory to our own daily lives and politics. We accept throw away consumerism in exchange for cheap prices. We ignore illegal immigration for cheap produce. We vote for political hacks instead of people who really want to help their neighbors.

Well, we reap what we sow, both as a government and as a people. Not only do we have vicious enemies who really want to kill us and our way of life, we have a government who is becoming increasingly more like those dictatorships we propped up in the past. We have a government who espouses the use of torture, secret eavesdropping, indefinite detention, and defamation as a means of securing our freedom. We have a government who meets dissent with a sneer and a slur while telling us that our enemy is evil because they don’t let their people speak freely. We have an administration that will stop at nothing to protect us from our enemies, even if that means destroying the freedoms we hold so dear. We see the evidence mounting, and yet we allow it to continue.

Why?

It is because of the lesser of two evils theory, that foul, false policy that does nothing but decrease the total amount of liberty in this world by promoting fear over freedom; profit over people? Our government is telling us that unless we give them the power to do anything, anywhere, and anytime that they see fit, to stop the enemy from attacking us again, then we will surely lose the war on terror and fall victim to a dictatorial theocracy. They want us to believe that by suspending our own liberties to them at home, we will be averting an even greater decimation of our liberty in the long run. They are presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils.

By accepting the doctrine of the lesser of two evils, we may have driven Soviet aggression into the ground. But the price we are paying for our chosen method is an even more unstable world and a more unpredictable array of enemies. Perhaps had we chosen another path of confrontation, we would have won that battle with some real friends in the world. We can’t change the past, but we can learn from it. And we should start our first lesson here.

Our government still pursues the lesser of two evils doctrine abroad, and now they want to use it at home. We are at a crossroads. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we are giving up on the chance of choosing good. We are giving up on the promise of freedom, equality, and peace. We must oppose those who support the tyranny of others for our own prosperity. We must cast out those who would destroy freedom for the sake of false security. We must choose to follow those who will defend freedom for freedoms sake.

American’s understand that the use of military power is an awesome choice to make. As such, the public hesitates to get behind any military action that is not necessary for the defense of the homeland. Unfortunately, the politicians recognize this reluctance all too well, and, along with their corporate conglomerate contributors, connect all military actions to our own national security and paint a picture of imminent doom without the use of force. Sadly, most of the time, these representations are not accurate. Occasionally, these representations are downright dishonest.

American’s can discern the difference between a war for security, a war for freedom, and a war for profit. We will all fight to protect ourselves. Many will fight for the freedom of others. Few will fight merely for profit. History will show us that the wars America has fought to preserve her own freedom have been more successful than the wars that we’ve fought to supposedly assist others in gaining theirs. World War II, and to a lesser degree, World War I were successful for the U.S. because American’s understood that their very way of life was in danger if they failed to act. America was in full support of those efforts, and the policies of the government and the actions of the people expressed that support. Korea, Vietnam, and many of the other skirmishes from the 60’s to the 90’s were unsuccessful (or at best, less successful) because the American public was not in direct danger, the administrations of the time could not realistically defend their positions to the public, and the public did not rally around their stated cause.

There is little dispute that the United States has the most comprehensive and powerful military in the world. We have the capability to deploy our forces anywhere in the world pretty quickly and we have the might to destroy almost any enemy on the battlefield. We also have an arsenal that guarantees destruction to any organized country that would try to attack us. Our technology is incredibly sophisticated, so much so that other nations are clamoring to get some of it for themselves. And our troops are educated both in running that technology effectively and winning military victories. In short, we carry a very big stick and everybody knows it.

Because we carry such a big stick, we rely on the benefits of that power to further our national security policies. American military policy is an offensive policy, and has been since the end of World War II. In recognizing that our security at home depended on a stable geopolitical atmosphere, the United States placed our military forces in strategic locations across the globe to rebuff any nation from becoming too aggressive and developed terrible weapons to ensure devastation to anyone who would consider attacking the homeland. That America has gone 60 years without being attacked by a foreign aggressor nation is a testament to that policy, and if it had stopped there, we might have been okay. Instead, through the years, successive administrations of both political parties have squandered the reputation of the Benevolent American Military and have given it the reputation of Imperialist American Military. Rather than just sticking to the mission of promoting peace through strength and preventing discord through presence, our leaders also embarked on a course of active intervention to achieve their goals.

The decision of when to use military force can be a complicated issue. Without question, any attack on our homeland can be retaliated against with our military. In this one instance, the choice is pretty clear. We get attacked, we find who attacked us and we attack them back. This is a basic “law of the jungle” situation that is pretty much accepted by most people. The goal of this kind of action may be simple retaliation, or it may go much deeper to include the destruction of an aggressive government to prevent future attacks. Once we move beyond this kind of situation though, the use of the military to achieve foreign relations or national security objectives becomes a bit trickier. Do we attack a country because we just don’t like their government? Do we attack a country because we want easier access to their resources? Do we attack a country in order to establish a democracy for their people? Who we attack, when we attack, and how we attack are vital questions for any military action. Perhaps most vital though, is why we attack.

The U.S. military machine is a formidable part of our national security apparatus. However, it is imperative that we adhere to some set of standard operating procedure whenever we call out the fighting forces. Because we carry the biggest stick, we are always going to be scrutinized and judged when we wield our might. Different people, depending upon which side of the stick the see, will interpret our conduct on the battlefield in different ways, and for that reason, we must be extra cautious in our objectives and our planning. We must have clearly defined reasons for using our power, we must have clearly defined goals for our forces, and we must have clearly established plans for ending any conflict. We must be prepared to be decisive and use all of our means to achieve a quick, clear victory to reduce the costs (both human and financial) of war, and we must attempt to avoid the devastation of civilian infrastructure to reduce the costs of reconstruction. Without these elements, any military action taken by the U.S. will always create argument in the world body and at home.

Our government must also learn to recognize the difference between fighting a war for our own protection and fighting a war on behalf of others. Fighting to support the freedom of others requires a different mindset than fighting a war of self-preservation. I’m not talking so much about the mechanics of the war, but rather the attitudes of the warriors. If we send our military to support a popular uprising against a brutal government, or even if we initiate the uprising for some reason, we must recognize our place as secondary in the conflict, and not demand to drive the battles towards our own goals. We must recognize that other cultures may strive to get out from under the thumbs of despots, but need only our military might to support them. If we decide to help them, we should be upfront regarding what we expect in return for our assistance, namely the establishment of a more secure and democratic government. But we must also remember that any resolution resulting in a freer society leaves us victorious and safer anyhow. Sometimes, it is enough to just be the tool of freedom that another wields, for in the end, we gain an ally and lose a foe in one fell swoop.

But what we are told and what really happens are often two different things. A brief look at this nations foreign policy illustrates a constantly changing attitude regarding the proper role of America among the world’s countries. Running the gamut from isolationism to pro-active aggression, American foreign policy has had as many facelifts as an aging beauty queen. In some aspects, this is probably as it should be, especially when comparing the goals of a fledgling country to that of a world superpower. But at the heart of American foreign policy has always been the belief that America’s interests were best reflected and represented by the promotion of personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth.

The trick then becomes how to promote those ideals around the world. America has experimented with many ways to achieve these means, from the Monroe Doctrine and its protectionist attitude towards the western hemisphere to Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of direct intervention as a regional policeman to Wilson’s 14 Points of Light which led eventually to the United Nations. Each of these, and many other policies, sought to impress American ideals onto other cultures for our benefit, without looking at the cost or benefit for the nations we purported to help. In many cases, our might became our right, and once our objectives were achieved, we either picked up and went home or sucked the land and the people dry. In either case, our stated ideals of promoting personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth fell short of the mark and the people took notice.

World War II solidified America’s place in the world order and our foreign policies reflected our newfound status. Having saved the world from the Nazi’s and the Japanese, we figured that the world owed us and it was time to get our due. Sure, we would still advance our concept of freedom in our rhetoric, but from a practical standpoint, it was time for the world to pay up or be put out. Communist expansion allowed for a new common threat to freedom, and in our fight to stem its tide, we began to apply new methods to our foreign policy. Adopting a “containment” theory allowed the U.S. to install military bases around the world, and our “roll-back” actions provided support for any would-be government that opposed the code of communism, regardless of their commitment to the ideals of freedom.

Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have stood up to the Soviet Union and it’s perverted adaptation of a communistic idea. Communism, as it has been practiced, is the exact opposite of our system of government and our core of ideals. But our single-minded goal of stopping Communist expansion blinded us to all other aspects of what a good foreign relations policy should entail. And instead of making real friends in the world community, we ended up creating relationships that were based on the weakest of bonds and the basest of values. We adopted the theory of “the lesser of two evils” and so turned a blind eye to what our “allies” were doing at home while we publicly denounced these same actions by the “enemy.” This hypocrisy was not lost on the citizens of the world and has led us to the point where we are today.

So then how do we go forward from the mess we are in? As the worlds last remaining military superpower, we have the might to force our way on many issues. But this attitude only further increases enmity from the people we would hope to embrace. America is not always looked at as a bringer of hope. To many, we are viewed as a pillager of prosperity and a culture of greed. If we ever hope to increase our security through the promotion of freedom, we have to find ways to advance these ideals through means beyond the bomb. We can’t continue to do one thing while saying the other and we have to recognize that to have good friends, one needs to be a good friend.

To begin with, we should have a real heart to heart talk with our “allies.” We need to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that our goal is to help create a world that guarantees people the rights of freedom, the rights to have a representative government of their making, and a chance at prosperity as they define it. We, along with our other allies, should offer them all the technical, practical, educational, and financial assistance to help bring them up to developed standards. We should listen to their methods and ideas regarding “social growth” and incorporate them when practical. We need to be willing to share life-changing advances with other governments and ensure that they use this knowledge for their people. In exchange, we need to make clear what we expect from them in return: a quick transition towards a stable, elected representative government that provides for its people’s needs as defined by the people and an atmosphere of personal freedom and responsibility. And then, perhaps most importantly, we must lead by example. We must show our sincerity by including these countries and their people in the changes rather than just throwing money to American companies with a mandate to “fix the place.” We must clean up our act here at home and we must embrace actions that show the world that we are committed to world peace above capitalist profit.

By changing the way we deal with our friends, our foes would have less political ammunition to use against us and their people would see the advantages of being our friend had actual results. And instead of creating temporary alliances for only our benefit, we would forge friendships that improved the lives of our fellow man and increased our own security by reducing the economic disparities that breed resentment.

Our world today is unstable and our military will still play a great role in foreign relations for some time. But military actions should be options of last resort. Diplomacy with a willingness to give, honoring our agreements, and demanding that our allies honor theirs should always get the first crack. But strength has its place too, and my next essay will talk about that. As with any relationship, consistency is the key. I know not every nation has raw materials we need or sits at an advantageous geographical position for us, but in creating world stability, these things should not be the primary litmus test for determining whom we reach out to. Our ideals of personal freedom are not conditional for us; they belong to all people of the world. This is what we believe. This is what we profess. This is what we should offer. The question to ask isn’t “Why should we?” The question is, “Why aren’t we?”

And yet for a variety of reasons, but primarily for safety and peace of mind, America needs to seriously reform our own border security. It is easy, when talking about border security, to involve the matter of immigration, both legal and illegal. In reality, while the two do have obvious connections with each other, lumping them together as a single issue serves no purpose but to dilute the importance of both. Immigration is really a fiscal and social security matter, so I am not going to do that. In fact, I will go so far as to say that without a precise and practical border policy in place, the issue of immigration becomes a moot point. Border security, as I see it, must focus on creating barriers that it can defend, not on preventing the attacks themselves. It is from this standpoint that I submit this essay.

When we talk about our national border, many of us see an overhead map projection of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. We imagine the lines on the page to be like lines in the sand we used to draw on the beach. In fact, in many cases, a line would be better than what is there now, which is nothing. This begs the question, “What border?” Except for the ports of entry, established along major and minor highways, our land borders to the north and south are mostly non-existent, save for some latitude and longitude readings on some very old treaties. In effect, our borders existence is based mostly on arbitrarily agreed upon lines in the sand. This system has worked over the years because of the mutual trust between our neighboring countries to preserve the social and political sovereignty of each other. Due to the military advantage of America, security was never a real concern, at least not security of the life and death variety.

All that has changed. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in New York, America has a new enemy to deal with. This is not an enemy who will muster their forces and meet you on the battlefield. This is not an enemy with a single geographical base. This is not a foreign government with expansionist or resource driven policies. This enemy is an idea borne from anger turned into a weapon whose aim is to destroy. And while it is easily arguable that we not only created this weapon, but we helped feed its anger and continue to do so, we must still seek protection from its wrath where we can’t meet it head on. So, America must build its walls for protection.

In a society based on personal freedom such as ours, when does the publics right to safety outweigh the inconvenience to individuals? Because our newest enemy operates outside the boundaries of so-called “civilized warfare,” border security becomes increasingly complex. Defendable land borders still have relevance, but become just a small piece of the pie. You now have to consider coastal port security, airport and airspace security, and possible biological or radiological attacks coming from overseas in packages or suitcases or letters. You have to consider all of these “ports of entry” and devise effective security methods for them all or you are not protected at all. Our current security regime consists mostly of some land border checkpoints (mostly to interdict drug trafficking), airport security screening (yeah, right!), and unenforceable agreements with other nations. How does this protect the public? I’m not sure, but I’ve heard that it costs a whole lot of money. And I’ve heard that people can still pretty much slip in and out undetected at will, if they really have the desire.

Protecting our nation in the age of technology should be easier than we make it out to be. Surely our scientists could be better employed creating practical defense barriers instead of studying things like condom elasticity or pheromone production of the mole rat. We should have as a goal the creation of a land border barrier that utilizes sound frequency technology or a similar non-lethal incapacitating agent that would render all trespassers incapable of crossing. Of course, it would have to affect only humans and not birds or other animals whose natural migration knows no borders, but we’ve got some pretty sharp scientists. They’ve managed to exponentially increase our computing power in such a short time; they ought to be able to handle this too. For our ocean ports, which are vulnerable due to the amount of goods shipped into the country each day, we should utilize our satellite technology and create a system that could scan a ship for radiological material while still at sea and a decontamination/sterilization station just out of harbor. Further x-ray scans could be made as cargo is offloaded and all passengers could funnel through an inspection process to verify luggage, identity, and general health. Airport security should also utilize more non-invasive scanning technology. We have the capability to detect most metals, chemicals, nuclear, and explosive materials. We just don’t use them. We could end the cries of racial profiling and improper screening just by implementing the technology we have and creating better systems.

Some of these ideas might be expensive to get going, but others could probably begin at once. As a matter of national necessity, we should all chip in where we can, with business supplying the material, and education supplying the scientists, and government supplying the flexibility, and the rest of us supplying the support and the taxes. The drawback for most of us would be a decrease in the pace of travel and shipping, but is that really such a terrible thing compared to another terrible attack? Our society is moving so fast now anyway, slowing things down a little might just be good for us.

Border security really has nothing to do with racial attitudes or personal peculiarities. Border security is about protecting the integrity of the border. Period. If the system is to work, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be evenly applied every time, and it must be invisible yet strong. Without real border security, all conversations about immigration, terrorist invasions, and foreign relations become simply academic.

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.