National Security

With the presidential election just months away, there has been increased discussion of national security policy among presidential candidates and commentators. It will be many years before the true benefits and consequences of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are known, but there are some principles that I think are important in analyzing them to this point. The Iraq war has been a divisive and contentious issue since its beginning, and even those on the right have sought to distance themselves from it at various points in its execution. When it has seemed to be going poorly, nobody with the exception of President Bush wanted any part of it. I think that a brief reexamination of the decision to go to war, the role of the President, and the nature of our country are in order as we face the upcoming reality of a new administration.

First of all, I believe that every American President has understood the importance of national security and the gravity of risking American lives to buttress it. I find it interesting that while the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war (in practice, this tenet of the Constitution has been very vague and elusive), thereby properly representing the will of the people, the responsibility to prosecute war rests squarely on the shoulders of the President. He alone is the Commander in Chief, ultimately in charge of the disposition of the entirety of America's military forces. His decisions have the potential to affect millions of lives, but he is accountable for every single one. I have difficulty believing that any President has put America's troops in harm's way without first weighing all possible alternatives. I further believe that every President has determined that the cause for which our troops fought and died was, ultimately, worth the price. This isn't to say that the analysis of historians haven't taken a dim view of some of our wars and declared them a waste of blood and treasure (oh, blessed hindsight), but given the imperatives and realities of the present, I'm willing to give every President the benefit of the doubt.

It is my contention that in the face of the events of September 11, 2001 and the best information available, President Bush believed that sending troops into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda was in the best interest of American national security. I personally wonder if anyone in the administration or the intelligence community lamented the fact that the Taliban had been allowed to assume control over Afghanistan in the first place. To me, the actions of Al Qaeda on September 11 serve as a stark reminder that our modern world and its technology demand that we observe and evaluate activities in every corner of the globe. Had I been informed that there was incontrovertible evidence that Al Qaeda, with their allies in the Taliban, had carried out the attacks on 9/11, I certainly would have used military force to eliminate them. However, I would also begin seriously assessing the rest of the world to determine where the next attack might come from. America had been dealt a severe blow that day, and the possibility that additional attacks were imminent was a major concern.

I personally recall the anticipation everyone felt that another attack was just a matter of time. Given the fact that a small, obscure group of religious fanatics in Afghanistan could plan, organize, and execute an attack that cost the lives of 2,974 innocent American civilians, what was the possibility that an openly hostile country like Iraq could be plotting something even worse? An immense amount of analysis on both sides of the intelligence issue have been done, and it's not my intention to determine whether the information we had about Iraq's WMD program was sufficient justification to go to war or not. My point is that had we recognized the danger that Al Qaeda posed, it's possible that we might have taken steps to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan sooner. I think there was sufficient evidence of the Al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11 to justify taking extraordinary measures against them, but the Clinton administration obviously didn't feel military action against Afghanistan was warranted. I assert, however, that had anyone foreseen with certainty the attacks of September 11, no President would have hesitated to act to prevent them.

The Bush Doctrine has been labeled a doctrine of preemptive military action, but who can blame the President for acting to protect America after we had just had our nose bloodied by a tiny band of jihadists in a remote part of the world? How is preemption really any different from prevention? Is having the FBI snatch a terrorist at an airport "preventive," but having a Marine sniper eliminate a Taliban officer in Afghanistan "preemptive?" Is waiting for a terrorist organization to set up shop on American soil and begin actively planning operations before arresting them "preventive" and calling in an airstrike on a terrorist safehouse in Iraq "preemptive?" I don't understand how we justify calling the efforts of domestic law enforcement preventive, but try to distinguish them from military actions by referring to those as preemptive.

If national sovereignty is such a significant issue when discussing the invasion of Iraq, it seems to be less relevant when discussing Afghanistan. Is that because Afghanistan is less industrialized than Iraq, or because its history is so riddled with civil war and strife in comparison to Iraq? Maybe it's because Iraq had stable leadership for so many years that people have chosen to declare that it was a legitimate government. It's frustrating to hear critics of the Iraq war declare us a pariah nation because we preemptively (preventively?) went to war with a country that our leaders deemed an imminent threat to our national security.

To hear the anti-war crowd discuss the issue, it seems that they would have preferred that we use our law enforcement resources to arrest anyone associate with the 9/11 attacks. Most of them were dead already, but hey, it's not really the job of law enforcement to prevent crime but to investigate them, right? The best use of our military at that point, I suppose would have been to have troops secure every point of entry (remember when the National Guard was stationed at airports?), have fighters fly CAP over populated areas, and recall our navy to patrol our coasts. Al Qaeda isn't a government, so we can't really declare war on them, which means it's a law enforcement issue, isn't it? It's a foreign paramilitary terrorist organization that has been harbored and sponsored by nation-states. That makes it fair game for something a little more powerful than an arrest warrant and handcuffs.

Speaking of the anti-war crowd, I believe the issue that gives them the most difficulty is that they don't want to believe that diplomacy, dialog, and appeasement can fail. Perhaps they truly believe that we, as a race, should have moved beyond armed conflict by now. I would submit that most soldiers wish that were true. I believe everyone wishes that were true. It's a noble goal, but one that is not likely to ever be achieved. It's disappointing and disheartening when two parties can't resolve their disputes through peaceful negotiations. Whether the parties concerned are a parent and child, spouses, employer and employee, or two nation-states, it would always be preferable if an agreement could be reached in a spirit of understanding and mutual concern. However, we see those relationships strained and broken on a daily basis, sometimes devolving to the point of violence. When one party resorts to violence, it is usually because they believe, rationally or not, that they have run out of options and that violence is their last resort. Is it ever justified? I think the consensus among civilized people is that it's not unless it is in self-defense or if the other party explicitly expresses a threat of violence. If someone brandishes a weapon in a threatening manner, it is considered a weapons crime in most places, and I believe a person is justified in defending themselves against someone who takes such an action. You shouldn't have to wait to be shot or stabbed before you defend yourself.

I understand that there are limits to comparing national security policy to personal self-defense, and that's really beyond the scope of my discussion. I am simply trying to point out the naivety of those who believe we can solve all of the world's problems without force and at least the threat of violence. It's simply a willful ignorance of human nature to assume human beings will act in a considerate manner if there are no consequences for not doing so. You may personally decide to never, under any circumstances, inflict harm on another human being, but I would advise you not to advertise that fact if you wish to avoid becoming the victim of a criminal who doesn't share your compunction to avoid violence. The world is a dangerous place, and appeasing evil men won't make it any less so.

We elect Presidents to protect the country and have given them the greatest military and law enforcement resources in the world to accomplish that goal. They have access to more intelligence information and analysis than we, as private citizens, could ever dream. It's not always 100% accurate, but we have been generally willing to trust that the decisions our leaders make are right and based in a solid understanding of the facts. When Democrats are in office, we're expected to defer to their judgment on military matters but it seems President Bush has not been extended the same courtesy in regards to Iraq. I think the media has had a large influence on this, but I also believe that the Left has simply been using the Iraq war as a straw man to express their disdain for the results of the 2000 election.

It's discouraging to me to see the hate and venom from that event carried so far that some wish to see us defeated in Iraq simply so they can declare it a defeat for Bush. Every drop in approval that Bush experiences is viewed as some kind of vindication for the election of 2000. The amount of hatred some on the Left have for this man is stunning and dangerous. The declarations they make about Bush being a war criminal or a fascist are just vapid and irrational. Is this the pattern for the future? If you don't win an election by a sufficient enough margin, you're demonized and vilified for the duration of your presidency? So much for civil discourse and loyal opposition.

How fast can you type?

80 words

Speedtest

I found this typing speed test during lunch today. I take my typing speed for granted most times, but have learned that I type faster when I know what I want to type, such as when I'm composing an email or a story. Typing a list of random words is slower unless you read ahead as you're typing. My first couple of tries at the speed test were less than stellar, but after I started reading the upcoming words as my fingers were finishing the current word, my performance improved by 8-10%. I often joke that I can type 80 words per minute but can't read my own handwriting. Sad but true.

January 2008 playlist

Here is the Zune playlist I spent the most time listening to in January. By the way, I would love to find an easy way to export the contents of a Zune playlist. Not the song files themselves, just the listing:

- Danko Jones -
Don't Fall In Love
Time Heals Nothing
Sleep Is The Enemy
Forget My Name
Lovercall
Sound Of Love
We Sweat Blood
Code Of The Road

- Evans Blue -
A Cross And A Girl Named Blessed
Stop And Say You Love Me
Over
Possession
Dark That Follows
The Promise And The Threat
The Tease
In A Red Dress Alone
Shine Your Cadillac

-The Bloodhound Gang
The Bad Touch
I Hope You Die
Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss

-Bloc Party
Hunting For Witches
Helicopter
Banquet

- Doubledrive -
11:50
I Don't Care
Track Number 7

-Girls Against Boys
BFF
Let It Breathe

-Deep Purple
Girls Like That
Wrong Man
Money Talks

-Three Days Grace
Riot
Over And Over
Crank That - Soulja Boy

Thrash Unreal - Against Me!

Amaranth - Nightwish

Umbrella - Rihanna

Stronger - Kanye West

U + Ur Hand - Pink

Rag And Bone - The White Stripes

Never Been Any Reason - Head East

I've been on quite a Deep Purple kick lately and have concluded that "Highway Star" is one of the greatest rock songs of all time. Not sure why it took me so long to figure that out. I also continue to enjoy Evans Blue for their brooding intensity. Danko Jones is just some of the best pure rock 'n' roll I've heard in a long, long time. No self-respecting guy should be without it. I also went through a bit of a GvsB phase in January, although it's not reflected in this playlist. I think "The Come Down" from You Can't Fight What You Can't See is probably my favorite song of theirs recently. Doubledrive was one of those brilliant, short-lived bands that I like to keep handy. I think Blue In The Face will end up in my top 100 albums of all time.

Back from the dead: The sequel

One week ago, I started experiencing the first symptoms of yet another cold. I've had at least two others already this winter and would have to say this year has been one of the worst. A slight sniffle, a tickle in my throat, and a subsequent cough all pointed to the need for a restful weekend. As it turned out, I felt so bad Friday that I stayed home, and things didn't get much better over the weekend. By Sunday, I had a terrible sore throat and decided it was time to see a doctor. Monday was another sick day, but I did get a prescription for a course of antibiotics to treat what had become a sinus infection. I probably should have stayed home Tuesday, but dragged myself to work. Today is the first day I've felt almost whole, and other than some persistent congestion, I think I'm going to pull through.