Tonight on 12 News at 11 we explored where Barack Obama stands on missile defense programs. There is a pretty heavily viewed YouTube clip that comes from a pre-produced video statement the senator delivered to a group called Caucus 4 Priorities, an activist group that aims to reduce the size of the U.S. defense budget.

In his statement, Obama talks about cutting spending to what he called "unproven" missile defense systems. This has been fodder for conservative bloggers and others who are attempting to show Obama as weak when it comes to national security. I got the chance to talk to Obama about this very topic last week and tonight on "Securing America's Future" night at the DNC, we showed you what he had to say. I also was able to talk one on one with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a McCain supporter, about how he views Obama's stance on missile defense. The video clip of the story is below. You can see the entire interview uncut in the video player on the main page.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7895970977562743962&hl=en]

It is better to be feared than loved

-Machiavelli, The Prince

 The terrorist attacks committed on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon on 11 September, 2001 triggered an immediate response from President George W. Bush in regards to not only National, but Global security.   This resulted in the US and allied forces waging a “preventative war” against terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq as per The National Security Strategy drafted in September 2002.  The idea of preventative war covers three strategies.  First, stopping terrorists before their plans materialize.  Secondly, the overthrowing of tyrannical regimes in rogue states READ: Anti-American states, and lastly, the implementation of liberal western styled democracy.  It was believed by the US Security Council that adhering to these offensive strategies would not only contain terrorist cells and stabilize rogue states but also ensure greater domestic security.  However, this “preventative war” has not only neglected to contain terrorist cells or provide global security but has also created a means of acquiring public approval for otherwise contentious foreign policies through the use of discourse in risk and danger.  These policies prove to be very problematic as they aggressively assert the need for military intervention based upon state created notions of danger from uncertain security threats.  This in turn creates a skewed perception of global security by which the collective (and socially engineered) feelings of danger and insecurity propose the probability of danger and insecurity.     

            Danger is always at the border. Whether it is in the form of pressure on the external boundaries or involves violation of internal boundaries. The September 11^th terrorist attacks confirmed that potential danger was no longer to be fought by defensive measures. Through campaigns of colour coded terrorist alerts, which were never green but always at yellow signaling that a terrorist could attack at any time, and the imminent fear that outsiders could again infiltrate US borders, the Bush administration had successfully engineered a collective emotion of fear among most American citizens.  Upon successfully creating a national feeling of vulnerability paired with political statements reflecting American hubris it was collectively agreed that unless dealt with expediently, the state of the nation was at great risk to radical outside forces that threatened the freedom and values of the United States of America.  To President Bush, solely being on the defensive meant waiting for another terrorist attack.  Further, failure to act offensively immediately would give the terrorists more time to strategize, attain Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and attack America once again.  In short, the impulsive defense policy of the Bush administration meant acting offensively and expediently rather than waiting for terrorists to come to the borders.

            The National Security Strategy highlighted just how the Bush administration planned to rid the world of terrorists and prevent another 11 September from ever happening on US soil again. First, military intervention was necessary to aid in regime change.  US intelligence was completely positive not only that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs but that they knew the exact location of these alleged weapons.   According to this strategy, the only way to secure the nation from the threat of rogue states using WMDs is to overtake the regime all together. With the logic that obliterating their WMDs would not suffice since it would only be a matter of time before they reconstituted their weapons programs, the US used this argument to counter the efficacy of the UN inspections for WMDs and therefore the justification for it to act unilaterally and above international law.  Therefore, in the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had to go. 

            Paired with the overthrowing of the regime, The National Defense Strategy stressed that the main course of terrorism prevention would be the installation of a liberal democracy to take the place of oppressive regimes.  This would both bring stability to the country and freedom to it’s citizens.  This strategy of democratization was especially stressed when the failure to find any actual WMDs affected the US’ public approval of the Iraq intervention. 

            The desire to prevent another major terrorist attack from happening on domestic soil in and of itself is not contentious.  However, one must keep in mind the implications of the US National Security Strategy and the “War on Terror” in general.  First, that the terrorist attacks were the acts of a radical organization-not by a state.  Instead of focusing on these radical clandestine cells the US has engaged in a war to completely restructure a non -western country to a western system of governance.  Although one only needs to refer to the continued, if not escalated conflict in Iraq with no US exit strategy to see that the war for liberation has not been successful, Political Philosopher John Stewart Mill has written almost prophetically about the failure of military intervention in bringing legitimacy to states.  He argues that states should not be intervened upon, especially in regards to their internal legitimacy, noting, “It is usually self-defeating and therefore wrong to intervene in the affairs of another state with a view to accelerating its progress towards representative democracy.” Further, he argues: Where self-determination is not allowed to occur — as when another country intervenes — liberties and free government are likely to fail, resulting either in a return to domestic oppression or in the new oppression of foreign colonialism.

In instituting regime change in Iraq for the purpose of stabilizing the nation and securing the United States of America from another possible act of violent aggression within their borders, The National Security Doctrine supercedes international laws declared in 1681 in the treaty of Westphalia in regards to intervening in sovereign state affairs.  As a result, the US has in no way simply aided the progression to democracy in Iraq but has dominated the process from start to finish making it more of a semi-colonial mission rather than a liberating one.

            Whether this war against terror can be considered justified or not is not the matter at hand, the query I wish to review are the implications of the “act now- act fast” strategy.  Benjamin Barber author of Fear’s Empire: War Terrorism and Democracy notes that the preventive war strategy relies on long term predictions of events that are presumed to happen and are far less certain than those appealed to by the immediate logic of self-defense. The implications of the “shoot now-ask questions later” strategy are crucial as they open the door to fatal miscalculations. 

            The “War on Terror” is problematic for other reasons as well.  For instance, the title proposes that the US has waged war against something specific or in the very least, a specific group.  But this could not be farther than the truth.  There is nothing specific the US can contain, which makes the “War on terror” something more metaphoric than specific. As the saying goes, one person’s "terrorist" is another person’s "freedom fighter".  In the beginning of this elusive war, “terror” constituted actual terrorist organizations as well as borders that harbour terrorists.  This is where the scope of limitations can be questioned.  Terrorists have been harboured in Afghanistan and other middles eastern countries, but they’ve also been found internally.  Terrorists have been found in New Jersey and Miami as well as other Western countries such as Britain and Spain.  What reasons does the US have for regime change in one area and not the other? 

            So why has something as metaphoric as terrorism garnered such a high priority for state security? Quite simply because the threat of terrorism to state security has been branded as a major issue to the American people; as something that is never far away and can strike at any minute without warning.  Using condensed media images, strategic language and black an white logic about the nature of terrorism and how it should be defeated, the Bush administration has created an effective discourse in order to distract the nation from critically analyzing the actual implications of the “War on Terror” or “Iraqi Liberation” and instead has focused on ways of expediently fixing the problem; completely detached from historical or material context.

            In his hierarchy of human needs, Psychologist Abraham Maslow placed security as the third highest basic need (just under love and self actualization) this shows that the feeling of security is not just something that is favorable, such as lower taxes or increased spending in certain sectors, it is an a priori need.  Additionally, recent psychological research demonstrates that threat-induced anxiety tends to elevate risk perceptions and risk aversion.  For example, studies show that those people living in New York City at the time of the terrorist attacks, especially those in close proximity to the World Trade Towers who personally felt threatened by the terrorist attacks, used more caution in handling their mail (for fear of anthrax), spent more time with their families, delayed or cancelled plans to travel if it involved air-travel, and used public transportation in Manhattan less frequently for several months after the attacks.   This is an example of the cautionary actions that take place, no mater how illogical, when there is an internalized feeling of threat to one’s personal security.  As formerly mentioned, the Bush administration took advantage of these feelings of vulnerability, heightened them through constantly moving, colour- coded threat alerts and used these collective feelings to validate a threat that never actually existed in substantial form.  Not to take sympathy with the tyrannical dictator, but at the time the Security Council had vowed that Saddam Hussein was expanding his military and getting ready to eventually employ his alleged WMDs towards the United States, he was actually focusing on containing internal insurgencies from the north and trying to eliminate rebellions in the south of Iraq.  There is no real evidence that he was planning on an outside attack against the United States at all.

            The feeling of threatened security does not stop at protective and cautionary personal behaviors but also translates into the support for protective government policies.  The elusive risk of terrorist threats not only affected the minds of otherwise politically complacent Americans, in fact, reputable critical thinkers such as Harvard scholar Michael Ignattief, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman ad socialist writer Paul Berman, to name a few, initially supported the implementation of an offensive strategy to obtaining state security. These fears and anxieties birthed The National Security Strategy of the United States of America on September 19, 2002.  The goals of this paper were to establish “freedom, democracy and free enterprise” in selected rogue states in order to establish stability, as if stability could only be realized with the implementation of a western styled model.  The paper additionally reinforces the absolute power of the United States and it’s ability to wage preventive war, with or without international approval or cooperation.    

            It is very problematic to think that the US, by divine right, does not have any limitations to its power. Additionally, the focus placed on eliminating the threat and eliminating it immediately, while superceding the need to affirm that a threat is, in actuality imminent has proven to be a fatal mistake for the Bush Security Council.  Even in the wake of new information, that questioned the possibility of Iraq carrying new technologies for WMDs, the fervrence of military intervention in Iraq continued.         

            The intervention in Iraq was the maiden voyage of the security strategy.  It was not only hoped, but also proclaimed that the establishment of “freedom, democracy, and free enterprise” would come at very little cost and in very little time. Further, it was thought that the example of Iraq would be a beacon showing the might of the United States and their capabilities therefore intimidating other rogue states from pursuing weapons programs that threatened the national security of the United States.  In turn this would bring more credibility to the United States as a coercive power.   Barber notes, the main strategy of The National Security Strategy was to “defeat domestic fear with fearsomeness.”In other words, the Security Council believed that they could obtain greater security by making an example out of Iraq and after its submission; other rogue states would willingly surrender to the US out of fear.

            The rhetoric of “fearsomeness” in the US preventive war strategy against Iraq has in no way been subtle or discreet.  With banner phrases of  “wanted dead or alive!” or “Shock and Awe!” the US asserted itself as a force not to be reckoned with, and a temper that will inflict exponential violence upon the “Axis of Evil”.

            A telling example of this intimidation is the “Shock and Awe” campaign that was launched March 19, 2003, the night of the US declaration of war upon Iraq after Saddam Hussein neglected, or perhaps refused, to meet the demands of the George W. Bush (namely, the dismantling of their WMD capabilities and the willing step down of Hussein from leader of the country).  This bombing campaign, known through selected media, as the “Baghdad Blitz” was quite literally a rain of bombs and tomahawk cruise missiles on the city of Baghdad and other strategic Iraqi targets.  This campaign was not only an example of the US military might against Saddam Hussein but also the US flexing its muscles to other rogue states in a very overt way.  The entire campaign was televised so that western viewers and tyrannical dictators alike could watch the strength of the US military from the comfort of their own homes.

              Harlan Ullman dissects the strategy of “Shock and Awe” into its two parts and explains the meaning and significance of each and how this campaign was supposed to influence the behavior of Iraq and ultimately, intimidate other states into recognition of the United State’s power.  “Shock” he notes is the initial reaction, which is supposed to lead to a paralysis and a feeling of helplessness within the enemy. In other words, it means taking over the enemy quickly and is a strategy that is as old as war itself.  “Awe” goes beyond intimidation and paralysis of the enemy.  It is a strategy that is meant to take the initial shock and paralysis and translate it into an enduring quality, as if a pre-existing condition never existed.  Combined, “Shock and Awe” is a tactic that is supposed to throw it’s enemies into submission and surrender to the dominant power quickly with few if any casualties from the bombers side.

            The strategy of fearing rogue states into democracy through militant means is a paradox in and of itself and what Barber calls “Preventive Democracy”.  Authored by the thought of American exceptionalism, the tactics of The National Security Strategy presuppose the right of the United States to determine the conditions of Iraq’s domestic security, and ultimately, the security of the United States.  This includes the implementation of practices that are consistent with America’s own liberal traditions grounded, of course in realism.  It is this implementation of democracy that is supposed to be the long- term defense against anarchy, terrorism and violence.  If the images shown in the media of the state of Iraq and Afghanistan and the very fact that troops are still being deployed in both regions almost five years later are not enough to portray the gaps in the “democratization” logic in bringing security, than history certainly will.  Democracy has never materialized in any country from war, or the muzzle of a gun, rather it is the long process of struggle, civic work and economic development making “preventive war" it’s least likely parent.

For those worried about American fiscal decline - here's a chart that shows the total mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (in billions excluding net interest):

Could this have something to do with the fact that people don't feel as good about the country spending money on national defense as they do on say...social programs?

A first fact to bear in mind is that Russia is not plainly in the wrong. Some of Georgia's territory is inhabited by people who are not ethnic Georgians. They don't want to be in Georgia. Many of them have Russian passports, which is the nearest they can legally get to Russian citizenship as things stand. While it's not clear how exactly the fighting in South Ossetia started last week, it is clear that the fighting would not have started if Georgia weren't trying to maintain its "territorial integrity," which means holding onto these provinces that don't really want to be part of Georgia. Unless people want to secede from a country so that they can, for instance, continue to hold other people as slaves, I usually think that secessionists ought to be allowed to go their way. I don't know why I shouldn't think that about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

On the other hand, Russia is an increasingly autocratic petrocracy. It is not a functioning democracy and it limits speech critical of the regime in power. Georgia is a functioning democracy. It has freedom of speech. It wants to join NATO. (They also seem to like President Bush there, which might indicate a deficiency of good sense. But I expect that they like him because he is the American president and because he is thereby — wrongly — associated with American ideals, rather than because he betrays them.) So it's hard not to side with Georgia. In any event, Georgia contributed troops to the war in Iraq. However idiotic the war was, they've stood by us. So it's doubly hard not to side with Georgia, since it is already an ally.

Thus, the situation is morally ambiguous. There is another consideration. I'm generally an anti-interventionist. I believe that military power is dangerous in every way. It is often wielded unwisely, and even when wielded wisely, it is often counterproductive. (For unambiguous examples, see: First World War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War. For ambiguous examples, see every other American war other than the Revolution.) So it's not plain to me that the United States has any business intervening in the situation at all.

Those two considerations — anti-interventionism, a morally ambiguous situation — present a case against doing anything at all about the Georgian conflict. But I've long thought that I need to temper my anti-interventionism.

It's an important fact about the American Revolution that we won because England was fighting half of Europe at the time, most notably France. Without our French allies, we would very probably have lost. The lesson, I think, is that liberal democracies need to protect liberal democracies. That France wasn't a republic in 1776 is not relevant to this point. The point is that democracies need protection. But, if a democracy is to have any claim on protection, it must be willing to protect others with similar claims. Thus, liberal democracies owe it to other liberal democracies to protect them.

But, on the other hand, we can't just swing into action any time a liberal society is threatened. For consider my example, and pretend that France had been a republic in 1776, coming to the aid of a fellow free society. Note that there was no free society to come to the aid of. The United States didn't de facto exist yet. So my imaginary French liberals were coming to the aid of a merely potential free society. So, if we were to intervene on behalf of every free society, we would have to add in interventions on behalf of potentially free societies. There are a lot of those, and we can hardly fight every tyranny on the planet at the same time.

There is another consideration. There aren't any perfectly free societies. Rather, some societies are basically functioning democracies with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free markets, and the rule of law, and others are not. But many are marginal cases. That holds for potential societies, too: some revolutionary movements that struggle against real tyrannies only aim for marginal freedom as their ultimate goals.

Finally, there is the fact that intervention is dicey. Military action is often worse than useless. Economic coercion usually hits the victims of the tyranny. Diplomacy not backed with threats of military or economic action is futile. So the tools of international politics are themselves unreliable. And most revolutionary movements are going to fail; there's nothing that we could do to help them even if our tools weren't as crude as they really are.

We can't intervene on behalf of every free society, whether real and beleaguered or merely possible. And even if we could, we would routinely fail and often make things worse. (See: Cuba, North Korea, Iran.)

What we need is a two-factor calculation. Let L represent a society of the relatively liberal forces that we want to encourage, whether they're a revolutionary potential or an existing free society under threat from without. Let E represent the society under their evil overlords. Assign E and L values on a spectrum from a perfect society — 1 — to absolute oppression — 0. subtract E's place from L's. (Allow that the United States is a .9 — optimistic — and that the Soviet Union is a .1. Then, if we were trying to decide how much better the United States is than the Soviet Union, we would say that it is .8 better.) Note that a society engaging in genocide gets a very, very low score. In fact, we might reserve the bottom half of the scale for genocidal societies, to mark the belief that mass murder is very seriously worse than any other oppression.

Now try to figure out how likely it is that our intervention would bring about the victory of the liberal forces. Multiply that chance by the difference between L and E. (This needs to be complicated by the fact that the liberals already had some chance. So what we want isn't the chance of the liberals winning, nor the chance of us making the liberals win, but some ratio or average of those: how much more likely the liberals are to win with our help than without it. For simplicity's sake, we can assume that no one can do anything without our help, because it makes the math go easier.)

That gives us a range of values depending on how much better the best result is than the worst, and how much more or less likely it is. That determines the benefit of intervention. Then we have to determine the cost. It's important that the cost is the cost to us, or perhaps to our other possible beneficiaries. The cost to the victims of the evil overlords has already been calculated, because it's the difference between E and L.

Of course, intervention isn't binary. There are a range of possible interventions. Some sorts of interventions might change the possible result, but not the odds of achieving it. Some sorts of interventions might change the odds, but not the possible result. Many will change both. A higher level of benefit would routinely require a higher cost. So what we would have is a list of possible interventions and conjunctions of interventions, each one pegged to a certain cost-benefit ratio. We would presumably choose the best ratio.

I'm sure that a bajillion international affairs scholars have already come up with some apparatus like this, only much, much more sophisticated. But it was easier to invent it than to do some research. ("Isn't this whole project morally blind? We're talking about people's lives and freedoms here. You can't quantify that. The benefits always necessarily outweigh the costs, because the benefits are absolute, whereas the costs are merely fungible exchanges." — I'd very much like to think that. It has a pleasant feeling of Kantian moral vigor. Unfortunately, those merely fungible costs are exchanged for the other things that they could have bought us. That includes our lives and freedoms, as well as those of different possible beneficiaries. So translate the costs into lives and freedoms foregone, and you see that I'm not comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing apples with apples, but I have to translate both into oranges to make the comparison. Just as a pound of wheat and a pound of gold can have their values compared, but only in terms of money prices.)

With a tool like that, maybe we can figure out whether, and how, to intervene in situations like the one in Georgia. If it were just a matter of Russia pushing Georgians out of provinces that want to be independent of Georgia anyway, then the slight uptick in Russian power and the weakening of Georgian liberals is probably at least nearly compensated for by the lessening of Georgian authority over secessionists. But Russia didn't stop at the borders, it pushed in quite a way. That signals a serious rise in the power of the Russian petrarchs and a serious decline in the freedom and security of Georgia, and, by implication, other of Russia's neighbors. So that's quite a problem.

But it's not as though we're going to war with Russia. We can't fight another war just at the moment. And, even if we could, the costs at that point are unimaginably high, including some possibility of nuclear catastrophe. We and the Russians are each still perfectly capable of obliterating the Earth. (Besides, where would we fight them? Are we planning on getting Turkey to let us walk across their territory into Georgia, or sail through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea? Unless we expect the rest of NATO to help us, we have no frontage and not nearly enough of a military to take on the Russians on land.)

We haven't got any economic leverage, either. Their big source of national income is natural gas exports to people other than us. We can't blockade them or stop buying.

We can't really diplomatically isolate them, because we need them so much more than they need us. We need them to help us with our attempts to stop WMD proliferation. They don't need us for anything. Their expansionist plans are either territorial and land-based, or else based on natural gas exports. They want to subdue their neighbors, and they want to get rich off of selling natural gas to Western Europe. Subduing their neighbors, as we can see, does not take our cooperation. 

Whatever the conceivable benefits for Georgian liberalism, we can't pay the costs associated with them. So much has been squandered so quickly. The best we can manage is what we've done: stern language. I guess that the Bush administration can still afford to blather.

Surprising and outrages, perhaps -- but even more so is the fact that this is only one over more than 200 such incidents to take place since 1996. Some incidents have not been quite as threatening as this one, while one, which took place in 2002, involved armed Mexican soldiers actually firing on a lone border agent, actually shooting the agent's vehicle with a .50 caliber weapon.

While it is certain that at least some of the 200 incursions by Mexican military onto our soil were accidental (after all, it's not as if there's a border fence...), incidents like the two I've mentioned above are clearly threats to US agents, obvious international incidents, and, if we're to be honest about it, acts of war. These actions may or may not be sanctioned by the Mexican government, but the United States has the right, authority and duty to demand an explanation from Mexico, and extract the promise that these events cease immediately, under threat of severe military consequence.

The fact is, The US Customs and Border Patrol is law enforcement.  They are simply not equipped to deal with a threat to national security -- as armed Mexican soldiers entering US property unprovoked clearly is.  If only we had a group of trained soldiers whose job it was to guard the nation.

It is long past time to get on the backs of our elected officials about this.  It's time to build the damned fence.  It's time to militarize the border.  It's time for the government to do what we elected them to do: protect the United States of America.

“It started innocently enough,” I told Jerald. “At a Christmas party in a Missoula Italian Restaurant, my campaign manager scribbled in crayon upon a paper table cloth: ‘Robert for President.’ The idea stuck. I thought why not. Within days, the website was constructed and our bar was transformed into Campaign Headquarters. It became a community civics lesson. On an occasion or two, the entire bar would be talking about the campaign and what role they would play in it and subsequently the Robert Administration. Of course, as time went by many lost interest but a few hardcore believers held true to the idea. We’re not delusional, we knew from the beginning we didn’t have a chance to get on any ballots, let alone win a state. We have our goals, and if we attain them, we will consider ourselves victorious, a group of hicks from rural Montana making a statement in presidential politics, only in America.

Jerald was good at his job. Creating a comfortable environment which I felt at ease to talk about the details of the campaign few outside of Alberton’s inner-circle knew.

Outside of a fundraiser, I am funding this campaign with savings. As I state on the web page, I know how to work with a shoestring budget. I can get mileage from a dollar. Many leaders have forgotten this skill.

“What is the campaign’s goal?” Jerald asked.

“I could say a blond in every fridge, but I won’t. It’s an Alberton secret, one that may be released on November 5^th.

“What’s the big deal; why the secrecy?”

“It’s not a big deal. You will be disappointed by its banality.

“Try me.”

“You’ll find out soon enough.”

Afternoon/Night: I’d parted ways with the freelance writer and worked my way to Boston Common. I took an hour to stand on the corners about the park and waved my sign at the infamous Boston traffic. Afterwards, I avoided Bull and Finch Tavern, aka Cheers and settled into the 21^st Amendment on Bowdoin St. This stop kicked off a tour of local bars that I hadn’t matched since Minneapolis/St. Paul. Around 9:00PM I found myself in Durty Nellyn on Blackstone St. It was here I switched from Tall blondes to 7-up. “Get a load of this clown, the bum thinks he’s running for president!” a twenty-something adolescent cried to his cronies. “You gonna dig the country out of debt by panhandling?”

“There’s an idea,” I retorted before walking away.

“Where you think you’re going?” he called after me.

I turned to him and said, “Leave me alone, Man.”

A few heads turned towards us. “What do you think of National defense?” he said before shoving me.

“I said leave me alone, man!”

“Ma-an,” he mocked. “With a national defense plan like that, the raghead’s will be over us like stink of shit.” He approached me again.

I held my ground and as he was about to shove me again I kneed the knot head in his most vulnerable area. Standing over him as he writhed on the ground, I told him that was a demonstration of my national defense plan. When provoked, we will warn an aggressor before striking a definitive blow.

To rousing applause, I left the bar, hailed a taxi and hitched a ride back to Medford where I holed up in a boxcar and awaited my next stop.

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Louisiana

Maine

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Carolina

Tennessee

Utah

Washington

Unfortunately, Indiana is not on this list.  Now, legally, it’s not necessary for a state to say anything about Real ID, because “disobedience” to such crime as Real ID is the duty of every state.  States own federalism, after all.  They are the only enforcers of it.  

…What, did you think that the Supreme Court can police its own powers?  That’d be akin to a dog holding its own leash.  A very bad dog.

Anyway, a vote for me is a vote for governed government.  I would demand Rule of Law as opposed to Rule of Tyrants.  I’d restore the law, not flout and destroy it.

Isn’t it about time?

"A fast, thought sparking book."—New York Times

July 22, 2008 - In BRAVE NEW WAR: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (Wiley, April 2008, $14.95/Paper, ISBN: 978-0-470-26195-8), author John Robb argues that terrorism has become global, and incredibly complex, because it exists inside a social and economic system. Every new technology for improving the world system is also a tool for undoing it. The question John Robb is most concerned about boils down to is will terrorism, in the end, be able to destroy the current system?

The solution is what Robb refers to in BRAVE NEW WAR is a deep resilience. We need to make our economic and communication systems more decentralized. If we can't stop an attack in advance, we can mitigate it. Right now, we've left ourselves too open to attack, with all our resources too concentrated. A simple, successful attack in Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, or New York could shut down the world's oil, high-tech, or financial markets, costing millions. We have too few energy sources, too few shipping routes, too few companies making the components for all the things we need. Until Americans start seeing the world as John Robb does, we'll spend all our resources preventing the last attack, rather than the next one.

About the Author

JOHN ROBB (Boston, MA) is a former U.S. counterterrorism operation planner and commander who now advises corporations on the future of terrorism, infrastructure, and markets. His writings on war have appeared in the New York Times and Fast Company. He as named, “One of the Best and Brightest” in 2007 by Esquire Magazine.

For more information, contact: Matt Smollon (201) 748 6339 msmollon@wiley.com

Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization By John Robb, James Fallows (Foreword by) Wiley; April2008; $14.95 978-0-470-26195-8; Paperback

SHARE:

Well now.  Here’s something interesting. 

Not only is the Orwellian title attention-grabbing in its own right (and absurd, since experience hath shewn that governments by their nature do the opposite of “save lives.”), but just read this perversity and see if you don’t get cold chills.  Just think about the ramifications - our corrupt, foolish and selfish politicians collecting and owning all DNA data from everybody born in the USA:

• Our politicians’ record with data security (from both hacking and plain old screwups) is just awful.  Mistakes will be made.  Huge ones.  The United Kingdom, our apparent role model, already screwed up with DNA samples, among other things.
• You think “pre-existing condition” exclusions are bad now!
• What little good could come out of such a thing is certainly outweighed by sci-fi mischief and Keystone Cops incompetence.

Oh, but it sounds so well-intended and helpful, doesn’t it?  What’s the history of that as applied to politicians?

Anyway, it’s scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives.  Nearly all reps will vote on this without having read a word of it.  They may tell a 20-something legislative aid to read it for them, but most of those starry-eyed future congresscritters haven’t lived long enough to get through a history book and they’ve never heard about such a thing as constitutional limitation of powers.

It’s up to you to tell your reps what’s what and just who they work for.  Brave New World?  It's still your choice.

Well, it’s not only the Governor’s job to enforce the constitution; it is even more significant that it is nobody else’s job.  And while it’s true that politicians have stolen power that doesn’t belong to them, the Governor has far more legal, appropriate power than you’ve been lead to believe.

A good part of what the Indiana Governor does these days (taking people’s homes, deciding which businesses thrive, and which die) is unconstitutional, of course. Here is an excellent description of the economics of the problem. And I’ve already written about several breaches of the Indiana Constitution (requires free signup; article starts on page 17). But I bet a lot of people would be surprised by what actually is constitutional.  

Indiana Constitution:

ARTICLE 3., Section 12. The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and may call out such forces, to execute the laws, or to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.

ARTICLE 12., Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.

That, fellow citizens, is the law; as amended in 1974 and not changed since. It was amended to include “other military forces of this state,” because there didn’t used to be anything but the militia. And what is the militia? The Indiana National Guard, you may think? No, it is not:

ARTICLE 12., Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

This was amended in 1974 and not changed since. It is the law. The National Guard, or indeed the national standing army, does not exist by any constitutional authority. Our founders were bitterly opposed to standing, professional armies, as they are the root and seed of foreign war and authoritarian rule.

But so badly and far have we departed from the law, that it now seems inconceivable that a state could have so much sovereign power that we now ascribe only to the “federal” (hardly federal; actually, it’s unitary) government. Now it must seem perfectly fine that the President can “federalize” the state militias and deny Governors authority even in state emergencies (e.g., constitutional disasters such as happened in Waco, Texas).  

This was supposed to be a nation that wouldn’t go to war at the drop of a pin. We were to be a defensive fighting force, not a global aggressor. Of course, we were to be a nation of free citizens, not a nation of serfs.

Oh my how times have changed…

Well, it’s up to you.  What do you want?  Do you want failure, or the constitutions that proved to work better than anything else ever tried?

So I was annoyed, but not surprised, when I read the ABC News write-up of the Congressional passage of the FISA Bill.  From the page title ("Spy Bill Passes: Gov't Free to Spy on You") to its faintly veiled commentary ("And so the FISA bill was an 'historial embarrassment' that Specter became complicit in when he chose later to vote for the law."), the piece is rife with the sort of fear-mongering nonsense for which the news media is, sadly, becoming known.  And,  of course, their basic conclusion, that the Government wants to SPY ON YOU, is not only way off-base, but an out-and-out lie on the part of liberals and media goons.

What the bill does do -- what the Homeland Security domestic spying program has always done -- is allow for the wiretapping of known enemies of the state (i.e., terrorists), and those inside our borders who are in contact with them.  How do we know these domestic individuals are in contact?  Simple.  When you call a tapped phone, your call is traced.  The bill also grants cooperating phone companies a level of protection from lawsuits for the act of, you know, aiding in the defense of our country.

So let's review:  The government isn't spying on you.  George Bush doesn't give two flying figs about your date last night, or how hot the neighbor is, or about the crappy book you're reading.  Unless you happen to be chatting up a known Enemy of State, your communication is secure.  We simply don't have the resources to tap every phone in America, and Americans wouldn't stand for it if we did (even Republicans).  Nobody's "rights" are being violated -- unless you consider the ability to privately contact a terrorist a "right."

Just a fair warning, by the way: Anyone who chooses to argue by incorrectly quoting Ben Franklin, and attempting to equate his brilliant remarks on essential liberty and temporary safety to the situation here will simply be labeled an idiot and ignored, unless you can demonstrate how contacting known terrorists falls under "essential liberty."  Good luck with that.

The large nation state still seems to be the best vehicle by which to secure the liberty and prosperity of great numbers of people: protecting the citizens from harm, while still managing to reserve to these same people a reasonable degree of liberty and self-government. But we still have to answer the question as to whether such a polity can successfully protect itself, in a world with both (1) states that have great economic and military power, but do not care so much for liberty; and (2) entities created by the marriage of liberty and technology, that pursue their own interests without reference or care for the strategic interests of free peoples and states. The issue is in doubt.

Mr. Maximo's first sentence re-visits the question of Federalism.  Should power be concentrated in a central agency [read - the Federal Government] or be left to respective units of representation, i.e. the States?  Mr. Maximo's comments are made in the context of the United States' battle with Jihadi Terrorists in the Middle East.  The Federal Government is the proper place for the power of national defense to be located.  

   With regard to Mr. Maximo's two numbered points, 1) A nation-state operating in a system of liberty has and still can defeat nation-states with no regard for the liberty of their citizens, and 2) there a difference between liberty and license.  Our Founding Fathers never advocated, whether in word spoken or written, or deed, that people have the right to do anything they want without bearing the consequences.  Businessmen have the right to implement technology through a business plan anywhere in the global market.  Freedom of business, the citizen, and a free state are not mutually exclusive realities.  Business and individual persons can both thrive in a free state of limited government.

The "New Democrat" is like a younger, more extreme version of the Old Democrat.  Where the Old Democrat favored tighter federal regulation over what was still a largely free-market system, the New Democrat, the Obama Democrat, favors something closer to full-blown socialism.  Where the Old Democrat, though as unwilling to change his stripes as the old Republican, could be approached rationally, the New Democrat relies largely on emotion for policy, and on name-calling for opposition.

The key identifier for the New Democrat is, I think, irrationalism.  Either an unwillingness or inability to see the irony in their positions:

The New Democrat sees an Orwellian "Big Brother" in the government's attempts to keep tabs on known terrorists and associates through wiretaps -- but has no problem with income penalties or wage garnishments for government programs.

The New Democrat believes abortion should be legal because "It's a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body" -- but thinks seatbelt laws, smoking bans and federally mandated healthcare are A-Okay.

The New Democrat thinks people who do nothing all day are entitled to tax-payer money, but believes people who invest time, money, risk and effort into a successful product ought to be forced to bear the burden for those who don't.

The New Democrat defines "Racist" as somebody who opposes giving preferential status to a job or college applicant based on race or gender -- rather than on the "content of their character."

The New Democrat believes the Government should be kept out of the Bedroom -- but not out of the Board Room.

In short, if it increases Government, the New Democrat is all for it.  If it increases individual freedom, initiative and responsibility, it is anathema to the New -- the Obama -- Democrat. 

This is brilliant on multiple levels. First, we are already using anthropology teams in Afghanistan. If you have never read on Afghanistan, it is a true tribal culture with a strong distrust of cental government. They make Grover Norquist look like a socialist. As an example, when you visit an Afghan village, they will often send out a fake team of elders/tribal leaders to negotiate. This is one way they have of protecting their real leaders. It is difficult for our soldiers to communicate with such an insular people. Hence, anthropologists to help us understand the culture. Gates wants to add to our capability in this arena. We face a number of future potential problem areas. It makes good sense to have a cultural handle on these areas.

Next, what better way to make bridges to academia than to include them? Many/most social scientists have a left wing bent, with a natural antipathy towards the government, especially the Defense Department of a right wing executive branch. How to co-opt such a group? "Hey guys. You are really smart and we need your help." What Professor could resist? Let us not forget the influence of research money either. Petraeus went to Princeton. When it came time to write the new Army/Marine Field Manual on Counterinsurgency, he recruited Sewall from Harvard. Gates is now reaching out. For fifty million dollars, a pittance in our defense budget, Gates has started building a bridge to a group that has been underutilized and sometimes harmful in our defense efforts.

Steve

After a “federal” judge ruled against Oklahoma’s tough new immigration laws, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 1089 (with a vote of 92-3!). 

It’s one of the very, very few acts of legislation anywhere these days that I’d approve – and I do so heartily.  So here’s the whole thing:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)

HOUSE JOINT

RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key

AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

51-2-9466 SD 12/31/07

I’ll be doggoned.  There are people who, at least when their own power is usurped, get it.  They actually want to govern government.  At least in the writing of this resolution, they’re pushing back against the central government and reasserting federalism.  They're asking the feds to get outta their face and back onto their side of the fence.

Bravo.

Let's do that here.

Immediate Help for American Families

Eligibility: Holders of a non-conventional mortgage taken after 2005 who live in their home (primary residence only); can prove creditworthiness at the time of the original loan; are either delinquent, in arrears on payments, facing a reset or otherwise demonstrate that they will be unable to continue to meet their mortgage obligations; and can meet the terms of a new 30-year fixed-rate mortgage on the existing home.

How It Works: An individual picks up a form at any Post Office and apply for a HOME loan. The FHA HOME Office certifies that the individual is qualified and contacts the individual's mortgage servicer. The mortgage servicer writes down and retires the existing loan, which is replaced by an FHA guaranteed HOME loan from a lender.

John McCain Calls For The Immediate Formation Of A Justice Department Mortgage Abuse Task Force. The Task Force will aggressively investigate potential criminal wrongdoing in the mortgage industry and bring to justice any who violated the law. The DOJ Task Force will offer assistance to State Attorneys General who are investigating abusive lending practices.

Keeping The Credit Crunch From Hurting College Students:

John McCain Is Proposing A Student Loan Continuity Plan. Students face the possibility that the credit crunch will disrupt loans for the fall semester. John McCain calls on the federal government and the 50 governors to anticipate loan problems and expand the lender-of-last resort capabilities for each state's guarantee agency.

Pro Growth, Pro-Jobs Tax Agenda

Cutting Taxes For The Middle Class:

Health Care

Americans Are Worried About Health Care Costs. The problems with health care are well known: it is too expensive and 47 million people living in the United States lack health insurance.

John McCain's Vision for Health Care Reform

John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care.

Making Health Insurance Innovative, Portable and Affordable

John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

John McCain Proposes Making Insurance More Portable. Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. They want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the kids.

John McCain Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families. When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for.

A Specific Plan of Action: Ensuring Care for Higher Risk Patients

John McCain's Plan Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable. John McCain understands that those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need.

John McCain Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.

John McCain Will Promote Proper Incentives. John McCain will work with Congress, the governors, and industry to make sure this approach is funded adequately and has the right incentives to reduce costs such as disease management, individual case management, and health and wellness programs.

A Specific Plan of Action: Lowering Health Care Costs

John McCain Proposes A Number Of Initiatives That Can Lower Health Care Costs. If we act today, we can lower health care costs for families through common-sense initiatives. Within a decade, health spending will comprise twenty percent of our economy. This is taking an increasing toll on America's families and small businesses. Even Senators Clinton and Obama recognize the pressure skyrocketing health costs place on small business when they exempt small businesses from their employer mandate plans.

CHEAPER DRUGS: Lowering Drug Prices. John McCain will look to bring greater competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs.

CHRONIC DISEASE: Providing Quality, Cheaper Care For Chronic Disease. Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can reduce health care costs. We should dedicate more federal research to caring and curing chronic disease.

COORDINATED CARE: Promoting Coordinated Care. Coordinated care - with providers collaborating to produce the best health care - offers better outcomes at lower cost. We should pay a single bill for high-quality disease care which will make every single provider accountable and responsive to the patients' needs.

GREATER ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE: Expanding Access To Health Care. Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Greater Use Of Information Technology To Reduce Costs. We should promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology that allows doctors to practice across state lines.

MEDICAID AND MEDICARE: Reforming The Payment System To Cut Costs. We must reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement.

SMOKING: Promoting The Availability Of Smoking Cessation Programs. Most smokers would love to quit but find it hard to do so. Working with business and insurance companies to promote availability, we can improve lives and reduce chronic disease through smoking cessation programs.

STATE FLEXIBILITY: Encouraging States To Lower Costs. States should have the flexibility to experiment with alternative forms of access, coordinated payments per episode covered under Medicaid, use of private insurance in Medicaid, alternative insurance policies and different licensing schemes for providers.

TORT REFORM: Passing Medical Liability Reform. We must pass medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits.

TRANSPARENCY: Bringing Transparency To Health Care Costs. We must make public more information on treatment options and doctor records, and require transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and recording treatments and outcomes.

Confronting the Long-Term Challenge

John McCain Will Develop A Strategy For Meeting The Challenge Of A Population Needing Greater Long-Term Care. There have been a variety of state-based experiments such as Cash and Counseling or The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) that are pioneering approaches for delivering care to people in a home setting. Seniors are given a monthly stipend which they can use to hire workers and purchase care-related services and goods. They can get help managing their care by designating representatives, such as relatives or friends, to help make decisions. It also offers counseling and bookkeeping services to assist consumers in handling their programmatic responsibilities.

Setting the Record Straight: Covering Those With Pre-Existing Conditions

MYTH: Some Claim That Under John McCain's Plan, Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Would Be Denied Insurance.

FACT: John McCain Supported The Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act In 1996 That Took The Important Step Of Providing Some Protection Against Exclusion Of Pre-Existing Conditions.

FACT: Nothing In John McCain's Plan Changes The Fact That If You Are Employed And Insured You Will Build Protection Against The Cost Of Any Pre-Existing Condition.

FACT: As President, John McCain Would Work With Governors To Find The Solutions Necessary To Ensure Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Are Able To Easily Access Care.

Combating Autism in America

John McCain is very concerned about the rising incidence of autism among America's children and has continually supported research into its causes and treatment. Click here to learn more.

National Security

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth - and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values - and to keep the peace - America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.

John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

Effective Missile Defense

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

Increasing the Size of the American Military

The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops.

Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.

John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.

John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm's way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation's values and interests absolutely demand it.

Modernizing the Armed Services

Modernizing American armed forces involves procuring advanced weapons systems that will help rapidly and decisively defeat any adversary and protect American lives. It also requires addressing force protection needs to make sure that America's combat personnel have the best safety and survivability equipment available.

Modernizing the armed forces also means adapting our doctrine, training, and tactics for the kind of conflicts we are most likely to face. Today, American forces are engaged in dangerous operations throughout the world. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and the Philippines, American forces are fighting the battles of the 21st century against terrorists and insurgents. These asymmetric conflicts require a very different force structure than the one we used to fight and win the Cold War.

The missions of the 21st century will not center on traditional territorial defense or mass armor engagements. Instead, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will be engaged in, among other things, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, missile defense, counter proliferation and information warfare. This calls not just for a larger and more capable military, but for a new mix of military forces, including civil affairs, special operations, and highly mobile forces capable of fighting and prevailing in the conflicts America faces.

Smarter Defense Spending

John McCain has worked aggressively to reform the defense budgeting process to ensure that America enjoys the best military at the best cost. This includes reforming defense procurement to ensure the faithful and efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars that are made available for defense acquisition. Too often, parochial interests - rather than the national interest - have guided our spending decisions. John McCain supports significant reform in our defense acquisition process to ensure that dollars spent actually contribute to U.S. security.

John McCain also feels strongly that our nation's military spending, except in time of genuine emergency, must be funded by the regular appropriations process, not by "emergency" supplementals that allow defense to be funded outside the normal budget cycle. This process gives Congressional committees less ability to closely scrutinize defense budget requests to ensure military funding is being budgeted wisely. It makes possible Congressional pork-barrel spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial home-state interests. And it allows the administration to add spending above that set by budget caps, bloating the federal deficit. Budgeting annually through emergency supplemental appropriation bills encourages pork barrel spending. The American taxpayer has a right to expect us to get the most out of each and every defense dollar, especially at a time when those dollars are so critical. Throughout his career, John McCain has fought pork-barrel defense spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial, home-state projects rather than addressing the needs of service personnel. He believes that unauthorized earmarks drain our precious defense resources and adversely affect our national security. John McCain will continue to fight pork-barrel spending to ensure that military funds are spent where they are needed most - in support of our military personnel and our national defense.

Taking Care of Our Military Personnel and their Families

Our military personnel and their families deserve the nation's unfailing gratitude, respect, and support. As a former naval officer with a distinguished record of military service, John McCain understands the profound sacrifices made by our men and women who serve in the uniform of our country and their families.

He believes one of America's most solemn obligations is to treat our military personnel with the same sense of devotion and duty as they demonstrate in rendering their service to the nation. John McCain has fought for improved military pay and benefits, and an improved quality of life for military families.

America's deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan rely heavily on Reserve and National Guard forces. John McCain has worked hard to ensure that benefits for deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen are brought in line with our active-duty military forces.

As president, he will make sure that just as we are always proud of our military personnel for what they do for the country, the country can be proud of what we do for them.