THIS is what "National Security" should be framed as in the Democratic Party

[Bonobo]

NATIONAL SECURITY is:

-Healthy children, educated to be good, caring people and who can compete in the world

-Healthy citizens who are employed and have strong family bonds across generations

-Strong infrastructure such as bridges, roads, gas lines, trains, energy policy, internet

-Foreign policy that encourages other countries to like us, not inspires them with burning hatred

-Environmental policy that keeps US resources in the US and leads the world in green technology

You can add and add to this list, but to me DEFINING THIS in our own way and TAKING OVER the issue of "what is national security" was one of the most important things in the last several years. ]

We failed. We lost the message war when we adopted the Republican's, when we adopted Bush and Cheney's deceitful and foolish definition of what National Security is.

[JackRiddler]

1. Yes.

[Scootaloo]

2. Doesn't kill enough "damn dirty apes" for the Repugs and fauxgressives

[Summer Hathaway]

3. Lovely sentiments

and worthwhile goals, all of them.

But the people who took down the WTC towers weren't the least bit interested in how healthy our kids are, how strong our bridges are, or how green our technology is.

The concept of national security, and the means by which it is achieved, did not begin with Bush & Cheney. True they wound up making a mockery of it through their actions, especially the Iraq fiasco.

But national security was never solely a Republican concept - it is a national reality. And 'taking it over' means DOING what is necessary to protect the nation - which was DONE when Bin Laden was found and killed by a Democratic administration, not a Republican one.

That is not a message war lost - it is a message war won.

[Bonobo]

4. What were they interested in then.... and why?

They hated America. Why? And what has been done to lessen similar reasons for hatred of America?

Did killing a few people really address the issue?

Do you believe, like Bush, that they hated us for our freedoms?

[Summer Hathaway]

5. Yeah

they hated us for our freedoms.



Come on, you know better than that. Or you should.

But you're changing the subject. Your contention is that 'national security' should be centered around educating our children, a strong infrastructure, green technology, etc.

As I said, all worthy goals, in and of themselves. But how does that stop people who are hell bent on taking American lives? Do you honestly believe that had our citizens been healthier and better educated, the WTC would still be standing?

This country has enemies - always has, always will. Their 'reasons' for wanting to wage war on us in any way possible is beside the point - the point is that they DO, and we have to protect ourselves from their achieving their goals, regardless of the 'why' they seek to do so.

"Calpurnia, get me my gun." When a rabid dog endangers your community, you don't ask him why he's frothing at the mouth. You remove the danger he poses - no questions need be asked.

[Bonobo]

8. I am not saying there is no need for a defense at all. Let me try to rephrase.

There are many ways to describe national security. Many ways to define it.

In the political war over "national security", the democrats have always been at a disadvantage, right?

Basically, the argument I am making, the opinion I am throwing out is that there are two basic ways that this "political" problem can be dealt with.

The first is to adopt the rhetoric of the other side along with stronger foreign policy that shows intervention-type military power projection. Then you can say "See? We aren't weaker on National security", but in the process you have allowed THEIR definition of national security to win the field.

OR, you can use the opportunity to show how short-sighted the idea of using military force to bombard countries into not being a threat. Yes, you can use force to get a few people as you said "to shoot a few dogs", but you cannot get them all and, if in the process of shooting a few, you create a hundred more, it isn't a very good idea.

You redefine, you reframe what REAL security is. When Bush or whoever talked about hearts and minds, he was right. We DO have to win hearts and minds. But that is NOT done with drone strikes. Killing a few by innocents mistake undoes the work of killing a thousand bad guys. Pissing on a few dead people and being caught doing it undoes the work of years of attempts to build.

Strong, happy citizens who are part of the international community will reflect well on the US. Giving a part of what we have to the rest of the world will build fences. Those are not just happy thoughts, but true reality.

Keep a strong defense but USE it for defense. We have not been attacked in 70 years. So why all the fighting? Those are subsidies to the military industry, not real work towards improving the security of Americans and I am trying to say we have failed in not reframing the issue. We have failed in the war of ideas by adopting theirs.

[Summer Hathaway]

10. Whoa ...

Before we go any further ...

"We have not been attacked in 70 years."

By my math, September 11, 2001, was not seventy years ago.

[Bonobo]

11. Yes, you got me there, but I was thinking in terms of countries.

9/11 to me was a crime but not a military action.

So we were not attacked on 9/11 any more than we were attacked in Oklahaoma City.

In other words, a military response such as starting TWO damned wars was not the proper response to a crime.

OBL should never have been elevated to the status of a world player.

[Summer Hathaway]

13. I agree

that starting two damned wars was not the appropriate response.

However, Oklahoma City and 9/11 are apples and oranges. The former was perpetrated by a citizen (a criminal matter, local in origin and dealt with as such). 9/11 was perpetrated by non-citizens living in another country - thus an international matter, to be dealt with on a that level.

Ergo, OBL was dealt with appropriately.

[cstanleytech]

14. Pardon but its "war" not "wars".

The one into Afghanistan was a response to 9/11 allegedly to remove it as a base for Bin Laden and his people and if possible capture and or kill them where as Iraq wasnt started because of 9/11 but largely because Saddam allegedly had WMDs based on intel that was proven to be faulty later of course.
Now were both wars warranted at any time?
Not imo as I believe we had other options to deal with Bin Laden that would have been far less costly in a number of ways and as for Iraq I believe we were deliberately lied to and it could have been avoided if it were not for a number of factors imo such as greed and Bush wanting to show his father that he would take Saddam down.

As for the original post I agree with your response summer and with that I think I shall sign off for a few hours and try and get some sleep as I am exhausted, good night.

[Summer Hathaway]

7. The discussion I am engaged in

is not about the law of physics, or what Condi Rice told someone, etc.

I am not being dismissive of your post, truly - it's just that I am interested in the topic raised by the OP, and wish to focus on that.

[greyl]

9. You might be pleased by this:

There is no doubt that the insecurity situation in the country calls for extra-ordinary measures to combat it. As a result, even if our entire budget were to be dedicated to dealing with the subject, many people may not raise an eyebrow. For us however, our discomfort is in our government’s definition of the term ‘security’ which seems to harp on the narrow dimension of defence and military might.

National security is wider than that. There are other rather basic dimensions like ‘job’ ‘water’ and ‘food’ security; otherwise a national security policy would be of no use to the unemployed and hungry citizens that constitute the majority of the population in a poor country like ours may. At the same time, while it is easy to see external coercion as a major challenge to national security because of its visible impact, there is doubt if it is more critical than the consequences of internal disequilibrium in a nation’s social system.

Thus national security cannot be equated to military might, defence or law enforcement alone. It goes beyond all of that to accommodate far more reaching issues. In short, national security is the ability of a State to overcome any of its challenges no matter what the challenge is.

It was probably on this score, that in 2010, American President; Barack Obama canvassed an all- encompassing world-view in his own definition of America’s national security interests which included “a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity” .
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/12/what-is-national-security/

National Security Strategy, May 2010 pdf

[Bonobo]

12. yes, I like that. nt