Where's the logic?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Where's the logic?
14
Sun, 08-08-2004 - 7:29pm
I have never followed the logic of "taking the war to them" makes us safer, and have expressed my skepticism. Finally, Stephen Flynn presents the facts in a most compelling article. Please read the following portion of a much longer article before you decide you're safe, and believe Bush is doing all possible to protect the US from attack.


The Neglected Home Front

Stephen E. Flynn

From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2004

Washington has demonstrated an extraordinary degree of hardheadedness when it comes to acknowledging the limits of its military and intelligence capabilities to combat the terrorist threat. The premise behind the Bush administration's strategy of preemptive use of force is that as long as the United States is willing to show sufficient grit, it can successfully hold its enemies at bay. Vice President Dick Cheney made this case recently in an address to a class of newly commissioned Coast Guard officers. He asserted, "Wars are not won on the defensive. To fully and finally remove this danger , we have only one option -- and that's to take the fight to the enemy." On July 4, 2004, President George W. Bush made the point this way: "We will engage these enemies in these countries and around the world so we do not have to face them here at home."

Targeting terrorism at its source is an appealing notion. Unfortunately, the enemy is not cooperating. There is no central front on which al Qaeda and its radical jihadist imitators can be cornered and destroyed. The commuter train bombings in Madrid in March illustrate that terrorists are living and operating within jurisdictions of U.S. allies and do not need to receive aid and comfort from rogue states. According to the U.S. Department of State's latest revised global terrorism report, the number of terrorist incidents went up in 2003, despite the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. And, according to a July statement by Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, al Qaeda remains at large inside the United States, busily planning its next attack on U.S. soil, perhaps before the November elections.


THE PHONY WAR

The reluctance of the White House and the national security community to adapt to the shifting nature of the terrorist threat bears a disturbing resemblance to the opening chapter of World War II. In September 1939, the German army rolled eastward into Poland and unleashed a new form of combat known as "blitzkrieg." When Poland became a victim of the Third Reich, London and Paris finally abandoned their policies of appeasement and declared war. The British and French high commands then began to execute war plans that relied on assumptions drawn from their experiences in World War I. They activated their reserves and reinforced the Maginot Line, defenses of mounted cannons stretching for 250 miles along the Franco-German border. Then they waited for Hitler's next move.

The eight-month period before the fall of Paris came to be known as "the phony war." During this relatively quiet time, France and the United Kingdom were convinced they were deterring the Germans by mobilizing their more plentiful military assets in an updated version of trench warfare. But they did not alter their tactics to respond to the new offensive warfare that the Germans had executed with such lethal results in eastern Europe. In May 1940, they paid a heavy price for their complacency: Panzer units raced into the lowlands, circumvented the Maginot Line, and conquered France shortly thereafter. The British expeditionary forces narrowly escaped by fleeing across the English Channel aboard a makeshift armada, leaving much of their armament behind on the beaches of Dunkirk.

Similarly today, the United States is fighting the war it prepared for in the twentieth century, rather than the one that is being waged upon it by al Qaeda. Instead of a Maginot Line, the Pentagon is executing its long-standing forward defense strategy, which involves leapfrogging ahead of U.S. borders and waging combat on the turf of U.S. enemies or allies. Meanwhile, protecting the rear -- the American nation itself -- remains largely outside the scope of national security even though the September 11 attacks were launched from the United States on targets within the United States.



The degree to which the Bush administration is willing to invest in conventional national security spending relative to basic domestic security measures is considerable. Although the CIA has concluded that the most likely way weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would enter the United States is by sea, the federal government is spending more every three days to finance the war in Iraq than it has provided over the past three years to prop up the security of all 361 U.S. commercial seaports. This myopic focus on conventional military forces at the expense of domestic security even extends to making the physical security at U.S. military bases a higher budget priority than protecting the nation's most critical infrastructure. In fiscal year 2005, Congress will give the Pentagon $7.6 billion to improve security at military bases. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security will receive just $2.6 billion to protect all the vital systems throughout the country that sustain a modern society.

Much of the nation's critical infrastructure is in densely populated areas, so if the country is attacked, average U.S. citizens, not uniformed military personnel, will be the most likely casualties. Yet the federal effort to promote civil defense has gone quiet after a rocky start that generated a run on plastic sheeting and duct tape and provided fodder for the late-night comedy shows. Police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians will be the first on the scene of any attack; they will have to operate largely on their own for at least the first 12 to 24 hours. Yet on average, U.S. fire departments have only enough radios to equip half their firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatus for only a third. Police departments in cities across the country do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following a WMD attack. And most emergency medical technicians lack the tools to determine which chemical or biological agent may have been used.

The deadly weapons that local emergency responders are so poorly equipped to cope with do not need to be imported. But although the Bush administration has made a top priority of preventing the spread of WMD overseas, it has slashed funds to dispose of commercially held radioactive materials (such as cesium-137, cobalt-60, and americium), which could be used in constructing dirty bombs, within the United States. The release of a biological agent on U.S. soil would be even deadlier, yet there is no federal program to provide ongoing oversight of how lethal pathogens are handled. Many university research labs around the country hold highly contagious specimens, and post-September 11 inspections have documented significant lapses in control over access to the labs and the securing of dangerous materials. Meanwhile, half of the federal scientific and medical personnel that the nation would turn to in the event of a bioterrorism attack will be eligible to retire within five years, and there is no comprehensive plan to address this looming personnel crisis.

Finally, even though the most tempting targets for terrorists are those that can produce widespread economic and social disruption, the White House has declared that safeguarding the nation's critical infrastructure is not a federal responsibility. According to President Bush's 2002 National Homeland Security Strategy, "The government should only address those activities that the market does not adequately provide-for example, national defense or border security. ... For other aspects of homeland security, sufficient incentives exist in the private market to supply protection." Unfortunately, this expression of faith has not been borne out. According to a survey commissioned by the Washington-based Council on Competitiveness just one year after September 11, 92 percent of executives did not believe that terrorists would target their companies, and only 53 percent of the respondents indicated that their companies had increased security spending between 2001 and 2002. With the passing of each week without a new attack, the reluctance of companies to invest in security has only grown.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83504/stephen-e-flynn/the-neglected-home-front.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 3:09pm

Lou Dobbs is 'doing' a series this week titled.......


'The Best Government Money Can Buy' (8-9-2004)


>"DOBBS: Coming up next: who's really running things in Washington? Money talks. Powerful special-interest groups spending hundreds of millions of dollars not only talking, they're shouting, and they're being heard. Tonight we begin a week-long series of special reports: The Best Government Money Can Buy.

And in the race for the White House, an American public sharply divided. We'll be talking about the key issues likely to sway voters in this election. I'll be joined by Ron Brownstein, National Political Correspondent of the "Los Angeles Times," next.

Break
DOBBS: The presidential election is now less than three months away. Special-interest groups are spending hundreds of millions in contributions to the Democratic and Republican Party campaigns.

Legally, donations can't buy a favorable vote on a particular issue, but lobbyists find ways to make certain their issue becomes a priority. Tonight we begin a special report that we call: The Best Government Money Can Buy. We'll be covering that issue all week. Lisa Sylvester reports now from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The sugar industry is a lot like the lobbying industry, you reap what you sow. Flo-Sun, known as Florida Crystals, is the largest U.S. raw sugar producer. Two brothers own the company, Alfonso and Jose Fanjul. The Fanjul family and the company's executives have given nearly $3 million in political contributions to both Democrats and Republicans since 1992.

Their chief lobbyist, Wayne Berman raised nearly $100,000 for President Bush in 2000 and gave another $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney inauguration. While there is no evidence of direct quid pro quo, the brothers and the rest of the sugar industry got a sweet deal when President Bush signed the 2002 Farm Bill; $400 million in taxpayer benefits.

CHELLIE PINGREE, COMMON CAUSE: Clearly to a lot of big organizations, they get the word, and they're told, "Make your contribution and you'll be remembered after Election Day."

SYLVESTER: But campaign contributions and lobbying by agricultural interests pale in comparison to other industries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent the most lobbying Congress in 2003: $40 million. The industry received a number of business-friendly tax breaks.

The pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America spent $23 million, one result: an industry-favorable Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Home lender Freddie Mac spent nearly $22 million fighting tougher regulation. This is in addition to the nearly $8 million the three groups gave in direct campaign contributions in 2002.

CHARLES LEWIS, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: The folks who get heard, the folks who get meetings, the folks who help write policy are the ones who give the money. And anyone who thinks for a moment there's no connection is living on Neptune or something.

SYLVESTER: Hundreds of the top firms are located on K Street in Washington. In 1996, there were only 10,000 lobbyists registered with the secretary of the Senate. Today there are nearly 25,000 lobbyists.

LARRY NOBLE, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: If what you're seeing is a contribution given in return for a vote, there's a pretty simple answer: that's bribery. People go to jail for that. So it's a much more subtle process.

SYLVESTER: It's about access. That's why you often see a revolving door. Lobbying firms offering lucrative jobs to former and current members of Congress; at the same time lobbyists are seeking appointments to government positions. There are 232 former members of Congress who are currently lobbyists.

ALEX KNOTT, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: There are people that can walk onto the House and the Senate floors during a House vote and basically say, "Hey, John, I don't want you to vote for that bill." And that is extremely influential.

SYLVESTER: Last month, Congressman Jim Greenwood, who chairs the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, announced he's retiring to take a job lobbying for biotechnology.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: A Florida Crystal spokesperson said the company's philosophy is to support politicians who support agriculture, not necessarily just sugar. And in the interest of full disclosure, we should point out that Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is also a major political donor. Lou?

DOBBS: Absolutely. Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much. And, tomorrow in our special series of reports this week, The Best Government Money Can Buy, we show you how the game is played in Washington, D.C.: the many different ways in which special-interest groups funnel big money into Washington. "<


Quote from...... http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/09/ldt.00.html

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 3:47pm
<>

I prefer to say "money is power". Power is getting others to do what you want. I watched the program yesterday, but I wasn't impressed; perhaps I already knew this from being somewhat involved in state-wide politics. While I was in Hawaii, and WDC, I assume politics is politics. As I said somewhere on this board this will continue until people realize what's going on and start voting for the candidate who spends the least rather than the candidate who spends the most. Until the expense stops paying off, buying the government will continue.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 3:56pm

I think it's quite telling that the amount of lobbyists has increased from 10K to 25K in the past eight years.


"Until the expense stops paying off, buying the government will continue."

LOL Not under Bush it wont!


That's one reason I liked Dr. Dean, he spoke-out

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 4:14pm
<>

Sure you have to play in the game to have a say in the government. Use special interest money to get elected, then when you have your fill--retire with a good pention and medical benefits then join a lobbying firm or a CEO of a friendly industry. Serving in the Congress is now a way up the industrial ladder or way to wealth. Perhaps we need to reconsider term limits--although voting the rascals out is a better idea.

Pages