Thoughts On the National Security and Foreign Policy Visions of Mitt Romney and President Obama…

Less than five months from the 2012 Presidential Election it’s of significant value to begin paying closer attention to the actual details behind both candidates’ respective approaches to the biggest issues facing our nation. Despite not being the most talked about issue of this election cycle, the positions taken by both on foreign policy, national security and defense spending should be highly scrutinized given the vast amounts of life and treasure spent defending and securing the nation since the 2001 launch of the War on Terror.

Eleven years after 9/11, the choice made by Americans at the polls this year will dictate whether there is a neo-conservative revival cloaked in a call for an “American Century”, or whether a complete winding down of the ground wars and a heightened focus on coordinated special intelligence and targeted attacks on terrorist organizations around the world continues to take shape. This critical choice will determine whether our country pursues policies that appear to be adversarial, with a Cold War-era tone, or whether there is a continuing focus on strengthening alliances (such as the NATO effort that saw helped facilitate the overthrow of Gadhafi) through reasoned diplomacy and a common purpose of de-escalating tensions worldwide.

A dissection of the rhetoric and records of both Romney and Obama tells the story of two candidates, one who currently sits in the hot seat, has made the tough calls when the stakes were at their highest (Bin Laden raid), and seen the intelligence reports, while the other has surrounded himself with many of the same actors who drove the policies known as the “Bush Doctrine.” For example, Romney’s website lists as his special advisors the likes of Michael Chertoff, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security under W. Bush, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, and Walid Phares, former Director of the Task Force for Future Terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security again under W. Bush. Bottom line, a vote for Romney appears to be a vote to double down on the neo-conservative policies advocated from 2000-2008.

President Obama’s team offers a stark contrast to Romney’s, as well as a vastly different vision for the role of the United States security apparatus overseas and at home. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Obama’s national security team has taken targeted anti-terrorism to a whole new level. At the time of this article, only one senior Al Qaeda official remains breathing, and his days look numbered. The Iraq War is over, and troops have begun coming home from Afghanistan. The President’s narrative offers goals such as “common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.” There is a focus on promoting peace and security in the Middle East and preserving America’s commitment to the security of Israel.

Romney’s campaign paints a dark portrayal of a world that harps on Cold War fears and a view that Obama seeks to “Hollow” out the United States Military. In reality, no matter what Romney says on his website, it’s simply misleading and disingenuous to say that re-electing the President means “a weak America, an America in decline, an America that retreats from its responsibilities, would usher in an era of uncertainty and danger.” To the contrary, it is likely that terrorist around the world have received the message that Obama will not hesitate to send a drone their way to eradicate the world from threats to our nation and our allies. An honest analysis of Romney’s national defense strategy reveals that he would really do nothing different than W. Bush, and that fear of a straw man version of Obama drives much of the rhetoric spouted by him and his campaign.

Lines such as “President Obama has repeatedly sought to slash funds for our fighting men and women” are simply misrepresentations that make our country less safe and do not reflect the reality of how powerful the United States Military truly is. Frankly, given the bloated defense budget (seven times that of China, and more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined), the argument that our military has weakened over the past three years is simply ludacris. (Defense budget was $530.1 billion in 2010, $549.1 billion in 2011, and estimated to be $553.0 billion for 2012). We should all agree that there are intelligent ways to maintain the greatest fighting force on earth while getting rid of excess spending that further exasperates concerns over the federal debt and balancing our budgets.

In addition, there is simply no need to expand the size of the military unless we plan on engaging in yet another ground war like we saw in Iraq. Any new war mongering at this point should be received with great skepticism and a dose of real concern for the sustainability of our troops both mentally and physically. Does anyone truly have the appetite for war with multiple nations in the name of ending an Iranian nuclear program that has no chance of succeeding to build bombs while under the intense scrutiny and surveillance of the United States and its allies? The GOP seems to have that very vision in mind, in fact Romney’s national security platform reads like a Tom Clancy novel that should concern even the biggest supporters of our military and intelligence endeavors. Do we really want to return to pre-emptive war and isolationism? Do we want to continue building alliances or return to bullying our way through disputes while giving our enemies more mental ammunition to build anti-American terror networks?

Thus, much is at stake this November in addition to jobs and recovering from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The foreign policy visions of the candidates tell the story of two different futures for America’s military, and before voting, it is advisable that each one of us educate ourselves and those around us so that we as a nation can understand the ramifications of our collective choice for President. We should each take a hard look at the promises made by the President in 2008, and take a look at the Romney’s plans to revert back to pre-Obama policies. We should look at the tone of the rhetoric from both sides, and compare that rhetoric to the actual facts, look at the defense budget, and also look at how large and capable our military already is. The time has come for us all to look deeper than the pundits on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC and to begin vetting the candidates without the media filter and based on the real effects of the candidates’ respective positions. National security is a good place as any to begin this important process.

Thoughts on individuals who fake their military service and the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act…

Today, prospective Senator, and current Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal became the latest example of shameful military misrepresentation. As the New York Times first reported, on more than one occasion, Blumenthal has claimed to have served in Vietnam while enlisted in the Marine Corps. While speaking to the families of veterans, he falsely referred to occasions and interactions while at war that he claimed helped to shape his identity. The problem is that he was actually in the Marine Corps Reserves, and never actually set foot in Vietnam. He used his false story for political gain, and in turn disrespected the veterans and families of the brave Marines who fought during the Vietnam War, and other wars throughout our nation’s history. The incredible sacrifice undertaken by the Marine Corps makes the story of another fake soldier one that brings great embarrassment on the guilty party and those associated with the lie. Despite his truthful enlistment in the Marine Corps Reserves, in taking his story to a level where he gained monetarily and politically from his misrepresentation, Blumenthal has added yet another vital piece of evidence to the case in favor of a federal law against public military misrepresentation. In fact, Blumenthal took five different deferments to avoid serving in the very war he states in his false stories of service. Therefore, especially in cases where congressionally administered awards are falsified, there needs to be a federal law on the books that makes illegal such a disregard for the honorable service and sacrifice of others.

H.R. 666, or the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act, which was introduced to the House Committee on Armed Services Representative by John Salazar back in January of 2009, seeks to set up a federal database of military award winners to act as a way of red flagging rogue individuals who seek to use fake military service for personal gain. By expanding the current system from a branch by branch approach to a national database approach, the argument can be made that it will be much easier to nail down individuals who are faking their service, regardless of the claim, and without regard for their location. Suspicious reporters and individuals could then look up the public database of real award winners on the internet, thus creating a deterrent for those who might consider lying about their military service. Families can then rest assured that their brave sons and daughters who have sacrificed it all for their country will not be taken advantage of by individuals such as Blumenthal and others. This long overdue bill can thank it’s origins to Doug Sterner, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and the man who has led the fight against the falsification of military service records and decorations. He has advocated for the families of veterans by helping them locate lost records and helping to bring down those who have stolen the valor of others. In 2005 he became notorious for his work on the Stolen Valor Act, which made a federal misdemeanor the unauthorized wearing, manufacture, sale or claim (either written or oral) of any military decorations and medals.

Now may be the perfect time for Congress to push this important legislation through, and in addition make the provisions of the Stolen Valor Act more specific in order to counter recent court challenges to its constitutionality on the grounds that the law is too broad. With elections coming up, and our soldiers returning home in the next few years, it is up to lawmakers to take the steps necessary to eliminating the practice of stolen valor and the prospering from false tales of glory. Politicians such as Blumenthal should be held to even a higher standard than ordinary citizens who use false stories for social gain. Given their public status, and their request for public and corporate funding for their campaigns, this kind of lying by politicians could easily qualify as a con artist. It is important to realize that these kinds of people, who are willing to pretend to be heroes despite the memories and families of the heroes themselves, must be held accountable by being banned from running for public office if found guilty of such an offense.

The Stolen Valor act, in addition to its current provisions, should address the sad yet preventable prospect of prospective and tenured politicians using false military service and heroism for their own selfish gain. As a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, the Attorney General of Connecticut, and a registered Democrat seeking a Senate seat this fall, Blumenthal should have known better than to think his lies about Vietnam would go unnoticed. His misrepresentations act as disturbing evidence that action must be taken to prevent this kind of trend from increasing in the coming years. Only by taking action preemptively to curb the faking of military service can we handle what should become an imminent problem upon return of hundreds of thousands of active duty and discharged troops to the US mainland. Though it seems unlikely, today’s story is sure to inspire those who feel passionately about protecting the memories, and honor of those who have served to take action and encourage Congress to proceed with the passing of the Military Valor Roll of Honor Act.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h666/text
http://www.reportstolenvalor.org/

Thoughts on American ingenuity, the current economic environment, and leading by example…

Today’s brief statement revolves around the thought that we are at an important crossroads when it comes to returning to our prior role as the world’s leader in both innovation and inspiration. Many Americans seem poised to join the ranks of their progressive European peers, creating 21st Century models in areas such as transportation, energy, and the environment. Our decade long focus on fighting terrorism at home and abroad, while necessary, has drained both our coffers and our economic leverage. The economic leverage we had coming out of the Clinton Administration, with a balanced budget aimed at paying down the national debt, was intended for use in areas such as science and math, college grants for research, and improved everyday services. However, as a result of 9/11, the Iraq War, and our continued response to terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, the majority of our national energy has been spent on fending off threats at the expense of the well-being of the homeland.

As we near the official trillion dollar point with regards to our 21st Century war spending, the impending transition to a more focused counter terrorism effort will open previously tied off money lines for national priorities which can positively empower all Americans going forward. We need to begin catching up with nations like China when it comes to developing and implementing green technology, and we need to invest in high speed transit systems to assist in our transition from oil to other legitimate sources of energy. In addition, increased investment in our colleges and universities to promote research and development, and a commitment to making higher education the norm in America, will be of the utmost importance if we are to emerge as the leader in future technologies going forward. Our private sector requires increasingly skilled workers, which with the proper levels of funding and motivation can become once again populated with American graduates of institutions of higher learning.

Our next generation will be in a better place if we are mindful of our priorities upon the conclusion of the large scale wars we are waging. We must pay down our debts while ensuring that our economic system is playing by rules which are set up to help all American’s succeed, not just those with enough money to gamble on the livelihoods of their fellow citizens. Wall Street must make the best of the flood of money which will head its way during the next American economic boom. Our willpower has been tested over the past decade, and the overwhelming sense is that America is due for a great comeback. With an emerging collection of new deal style policies in place that are aimed at making the rules of the game fair for American citizens of all economic backgrounds, it is my hope that we will take the initiative and reinvest in our intelligence and harness our traditional ability to bounce back from the most difficult of times. In doing so, I believe that we can become an extraordinary example of perseverance, functionality, and ingenuity for all emerging and existing democracies, in the 21st Century and beyond.

Thoughts on Whether the United States Military Should Intervene in Mexico’s Cartel War

For the past nine years, we have been knee deep in Middle East conflict. Following 9/11, our forces were deployed to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then stretched further with the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq in 2003. These ongoing conflicts have been both costly and burdensome on our Military and our pocketbooks. With brewing conflicts in other regions such as Yemen and Nigeria, and natural disasters becoming an increasing matter of global security, it may be time for us to consider what our military priorities should be going forward.

This will mean making difficult decisions about our long term motives in the Middle East, and those involved have to realize that we must always be ready and willing to use our military power to protect our neighbors, even if it is outside of the scope of our current terror based war. This may be the case with our closest neighbor to the south, Mexico. As our eye has been on the ball with our two current wars overseas, drug cartels have slowly taken over Mexico.

Violence has spread from the border towns into tourist resorts like Acapulco on the Pacific Coast, causing serious security concerns for Americans traveling on vacation, family visits, and business. Maintaining control of our borders has become increasingly difficult as cartels continue to acquire more lethal assault weapons, effectively leaving police in Mexican towns and our Border Patrol defenseless in head to head fights. The situation is steadily declining, and before too long this problem will be more than a travel issue, it will be a matter of life and death for those living on our borders, and for our business partners in Mexico.

Until the cartels see that there is a force more powerful looking to root them out, there will be no end to the current trend towards cartel rule. Though we currently assist with intelligence, is it time to send in the FBI and Special Forces to assist the doomed Mexican security forces? If we wait, do we risk letting the situation get so out of control that it would become necessary to bring the UN and UK into the mix, thus risking turning this into a true international war instead of a mission between the US and Mexico?

These questions surround the larger issue of our military priorities. When does the plight of the citizens of Mexico become as important as that of Iraq or Afghanistan? The cartels have shown that they will not back down to, and are in many cases more powerful than the Mexican Military. Given this fact, are we the only ones that can counter the cartels because of our intelligence community and weaponry systems? There are many questions that need answers. But, as cities in the US become infiltrated by cartel cells, it has become apparent that if we don’t act quickly, we will have a brand new type of war on our hands.