Tried and Tested Points of View
I wrote this piece in 2004, as requested, for the Democratic Party in Paducah Kentucky. I generally vote for Democrats but I "belong" to no political party. I am voting Green and Democrat this cycle. Because I am a "free" citizen I fear not disclosing my politics. Why should any American fear disclosing one's politics? One answer is "Employers." Employers have become a proxy police force of sorts for the powers that be. Friends, if you fear voicing your politics because your employer might fire you or otherwise penalize you for having politics inconsistent with the company owners' politics something is seriously wrong! This is not freedom when the individual must cower to his or her boss, especially if the boss is some non-human corporate entity. More on this topic later.
Below is an example of voicing one's politics publicly. I had my say and on behalf of the Democratic Party
in Western Kentucky and former CIA Operations Officer, LTC R. Michael Paul, USAR (RET), had his say on behalf of the Republican Party.
My, then, very unpopular position on the Iraq War and Homeland Security is, now, not so unpopular. In fact, the Iraq fiasco has turned out to be what this Joe Q Public sort of fellow said it would... an illegal and colossal failure of foreign policy and one that actually creates more terrorists than it eliminates.
The former CIA Operative seems to have been as misguided as were so many back in Bush's lead up to his invasion of Iraq. Why, I must ask, could a regular guy like me discern fact from fiction when trained CIA Operatives could not? I suggest ideology is the real culprit. Ideology is not inherently bad but for ideology to obscure reality is not only bad... it is a deadly mistake. To date over 3000 U.S. soldiers and as many as 655,000 Iraqi citizens are dead... and for what?
I invite you to read the following takes on Homeland Security. Even hindsight is not truly 20/20 but indsight is the best sight we have. I still stand by words written for public consumption back in 2004. I wonder if the former CIA Operative still stands on his? Ideology is a powerful force... powerful enough to render kings and presidents incapable of admitting their mistakes. Isn't this exactly our nation's dilemma today? Can George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and all their supporters admit their mistakes? So far, that answer is an emphatic NO.
Duane
Local Political Voices on the Topic of Homeland Security
Published by the Paducah Sun Newspaper: Special Section "Over Forty"
November 5, 2004
Democratic Party
Submitted by Duane Short, Metropolis, Ill. (now residing in Belleville, Illinois)
Achieving "homeland security" in these United States of America requires us to examine philosophies behind approaches presented to us for consideration.
Three basic philosophies exist.
1. A conservative, typically Republican, philosophy embraces the notion that the United States must be maintained as, first and foremost, a military superpower. "Might makes right" is the unspoken assumption.
Architects, of this notion, are not elected officials. Hidden from public view as if to avoid the same criticism Republicans heap upon so-called liberal ivy league Democrats, a think tank of neo-conservatives have modeled a policy presumed to best serve up "homeland security." This model is embodied in Project of the New American Century (PNAC). PNAC suggests expanding global military and intelligence dominance of earth, cyberspace, and space itself, arguably a mission more ambitious than "homeland security." In a section titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (RAD), this neo-conservative ideology and blueprint guiding the Bush administrations' foreign policy and preemptive actions, to date, is discovered. RAD concludes tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions (abbreviated below):
• Global missile defences [p.s. - notice the British spelling of "defences"]. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies, and forward-deployed forces must be constructed.
• Control of space and cyberspace. "Control of the new international commons must be a key to world power in the future."
• Pursuing the two-strategy of transforming conventional forces. In exploring the "revolution in military affairs," the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. If these missions do not disturb one's sense of a benevolent United States of America, read page 51 in RAD.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new pearl harbor."
PNAC signatories include V.P. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense, Jeb Bush - Governor of Florida, former V.P. Dan Quayle, and 20 other close-knit figures.
While conservative pundits decry intellect, ivy league minds shape policy presented by President Bush to an unwitting public. Conservatives are not loyal to "good ol' boy" common sense. Instead, Republicans have capitalized on a remarkable ability to market a "man on the street" image. Conservatives are not your typical "man on the street."
Everyone must read and study PNAC's eerie, prophetic messages. Ask, "how is our homeland security improved when our foreign policy embraces a doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a baseless belief that the U.S. is predestined to
rule the world."
2. Another basic philosophy behind securing the U.S. is based on altruistic benevolence and turning the other cheek. This philosophy is the ultimate philosophy of peace, one that if followed by all, offers only one logical outcome: world peace. In a perfect world, this would be our key to U.S. "homeland" security.
3. Among endless combinations of philosophies behind our quest for the best approach to achieving homeland security is a form of foreign policy presented by Democrats like Senator John Kerry. Maintaining "protective" military might is important in an imperfect world of aggressors. More important is to refrain from using aggressive, preemptive military might to achieve PNAC authors' goals to dominate the planet. Again, read their plans. A moderate and sensible approach to achieving real and not a forced and forever strained sense of "homeland" security is to embrace progressive Democratic policies that seek to move the USA and others toward altruistic benevolence while maintaining military readiness to defend our borders and homeland... not to expand our borders and "homeland" range endlessly, creating conflict... endlessly. Δ
Republican Party
Submitted by LTC R. Michael Paul, USAR (RET)
Former CIA Operations Officer
While there are those Americans that would argue the the War on Terrorism is not being successfully waged and that grievous mistakes have been made by the current administration, I suggest that their thinking is distorted and unrealistic.
President Bush has in fact taken the war into the enemy's camp and clearly shown the terrorist and those rouge regimes that would support them that any attack upon the U.S. and its citizens will result in swift and devastating action being taken against them. Indeed, the President has implemented a long overdue, proactive stance in dealing with terrorism - "The U.S. will strike at terrorists before they are able to attack U.S. interests."
What can be said in regards [to] the War on Terrorism and homeland security is rather obvious.
1. Terrorists actions directed against the U.S. are not criminal acts and should not be treated as such. The long-arm of U.S. law enforcement does not extend into the palaces and bunkers of the leaders of radical regimes who support terrorism. Terrorism is a war, which must be fought as such. The enemy must be eliminated, not arrested, and his ability to mount terrorist operations against our citizenry must be destroyed.
2. Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy. While terrorism may take on any number of guises, those that would destroy our way of life and who have so ruthlessly attacked our country are religious fanatics. A theology that professes that is is not only acceptable, but also blessed, to kill and mutilate innocent civilians, including children, just because we refuse to believe as they do is unacceptable and pagan. We must stop attempting to analyze their theology and take it literally - they do.
3. The Middle East is a land in a time warp. It is the land of the blood feud. The land of an "eye for an eye ." To not respond to an attack on one's clan, tribe, or family is considered to be a sign of weakness, making the victim weak in the eyes of the attacker and worthy of further outrage. America had been viewed as a weak and decadent land by the Islamic terrorists who attacked our country. America continues to be hated, but now at least it is feared. The message to the terrorists is clear, "threaten the lives of our citizens and we will come for you." America is on the right track in the War on Terrorism. Strength and resolve are called for. Displaying weakness in the face of the enemy will only lead to worse atrocities being perpetrated against us. May God continue to bless and keep America.
Δ End
Below is an example of voicing one's politics publicly. I had my say and on behalf of the Democratic Party
in Western Kentucky and former CIA Operations Officer, LTC R. Michael Paul, USAR (RET), had his say on behalf of the Republican Party.
My, then, very unpopular position on the Iraq War and Homeland Security is, now, not so unpopular. In fact, the Iraq fiasco has turned out to be what this Joe Q Public sort of fellow said it would... an illegal and colossal failure of foreign policy and one that actually creates more terrorists than it eliminates.
The former CIA Operative seems to have been as misguided as were so many back in Bush's lead up to his invasion of Iraq. Why, I must ask, could a regular guy like me discern fact from fiction when trained CIA Operatives could not? I suggest ideology is the real culprit. Ideology is not inherently bad but for ideology to obscure reality is not only bad... it is a deadly mistake. To date over 3000 U.S. soldiers and as many as 655,000 Iraqi citizens are dead... and for what?
I invite you to read the following takes on Homeland Security. Even hindsight is not truly 20/20 but indsight is the best sight we have. I still stand by words written for public consumption back in 2004. I wonder if the former CIA Operative still stands on his? Ideology is a powerful force... powerful enough to render kings and presidents incapable of admitting their mistakes. Isn't this exactly our nation's dilemma today? Can George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and all their supporters admit their mistakes? So far, that answer is an emphatic NO.
Duane
Local Political Voices on the Topic of Homeland Security
Published by the Paducah Sun Newspaper: Special Section "Over Forty"
November 5, 2004
Democratic Party
Submitted by Duane Short, Metropolis, Ill. (now residing in Belleville, Illinois)
Achieving "homeland security" in these United States of America requires us to examine philosophies behind approaches presented to us for consideration.
Three basic philosophies exist.
1. A conservative, typically Republican, philosophy embraces the notion that the United States must be maintained as, first and foremost, a military superpower. "Might makes right" is the unspoken assumption.
Architects, of this notion, are not elected officials. Hidden from public view as if to avoid the same criticism Republicans heap upon so-called liberal ivy league Democrats, a think tank of neo-conservatives have modeled a policy presumed to best serve up "homeland security." This model is embodied in Project of the New American Century (PNAC). PNAC suggests expanding global military and intelligence dominance of earth, cyberspace, and space itself, arguably a mission more ambitious than "homeland security." In a section titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (RAD), this neo-conservative ideology and blueprint guiding the Bush administrations' foreign policy and preemptive actions, to date, is discovered. RAD concludes tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions (abbreviated below):
• Global missile defences [p.s. - notice the British spelling of "defences"]. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies, and forward-deployed forces must be constructed.
• Control of space and cyberspace. "Control of the new international commons must be a key to world power in the future."
• Pursuing the two-strategy of transforming conventional forces. In exploring the "revolution in military affairs," the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. If these missions do not disturb one's sense of a benevolent United States of America, read page 51 in RAD.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new pearl harbor."
PNAC signatories include V.P. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense, Jeb Bush - Governor of Florida, former V.P. Dan Quayle, and 20 other close-knit figures.
While conservative pundits decry intellect, ivy league minds shape policy presented by President Bush to an unwitting public. Conservatives are not loyal to "good ol' boy" common sense. Instead, Republicans have capitalized on a remarkable ability to market a "man on the street" image. Conservatives are not your typical "man on the street."
Everyone must read and study PNAC's eerie, prophetic messages. Ask, "how is our homeland security improved when our foreign policy embraces a doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a baseless belief that the U.S. is predestined to
rule the world."
2. Another basic philosophy behind securing the U.S. is based on altruistic benevolence and turning the other cheek. This philosophy is the ultimate philosophy of peace, one that if followed by all, offers only one logical outcome: world peace. In a perfect world, this would be our key to U.S. "homeland" security.
3. Among endless combinations of philosophies behind our quest for the best approach to achieving homeland security is a form of foreign policy presented by Democrats like Senator John Kerry. Maintaining "protective" military might is important in an imperfect world of aggressors. More important is to refrain from using aggressive, preemptive military might to achieve PNAC authors' goals to dominate the planet. Again, read their plans. A moderate and sensible approach to achieving real and not a forced and forever strained sense of "homeland" security is to embrace progressive Democratic policies that seek to move the USA and others toward altruistic benevolence while maintaining military readiness to defend our borders and homeland... not to expand our borders and "homeland" range endlessly, creating conflict... endlessly. Δ
Republican Party
Submitted by LTC R. Michael Paul, USAR (RET)
Former CIA Operations Officer
While there are those Americans that would argue the the War on Terrorism is not being successfully waged and that grievous mistakes have been made by the current administration, I suggest that their thinking is distorted and unrealistic.
President Bush has in fact taken the war into the enemy's camp and clearly shown the terrorist and those rouge regimes that would support them that any attack upon the U.S. and its citizens will result in swift and devastating action being taken against them. Indeed, the President has implemented a long overdue, proactive stance in dealing with terrorism - "The U.S. will strike at terrorists before they are able to attack U.S. interests."
What can be said in regards [to] the War on Terrorism and homeland security is rather obvious.
1. Terrorists actions directed against the U.S. are not criminal acts and should not be treated as such. The long-arm of U.S. law enforcement does not extend into the palaces and bunkers of the leaders of radical regimes who support terrorism. Terrorism is a war, which must be fought as such. The enemy must be eliminated, not arrested, and his ability to mount terrorist operations against our citizenry must be destroyed.
2. Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy. While terrorism may take on any number of guises, those that would destroy our way of life and who have so ruthlessly attacked our country are religious fanatics. A theology that professes that is is not only acceptable, but also blessed, to kill and mutilate innocent civilians, including children, just because we refuse to believe as they do is unacceptable and pagan. We must stop attempting to analyze their theology and take it literally - they do.
3. The Middle East is a land in a time warp. It is the land of the blood feud. The land of an "eye for an eye ." To not respond to an attack on one's clan, tribe, or family is considered to be a sign of weakness, making the victim weak in the eyes of the attacker and worthy of further outrage. America had been viewed as a weak and decadent land by the Islamic terrorists who attacked our country. America continues to be hated, but now at least it is feared. The message to the terrorists is clear, "threaten the lives of our citizens and we will come for you." America is on the right track in the War on Terrorism. Strength and resolve are called for. Displaying weakness in the face of the enemy will only lead to worse atrocities being perpetrated against us. May God continue to bless and keep America.
Δ End
posted by Duane Short | 10/19/2006 11:47:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home