|
||
The New Security
Though national security will be front and center in the 2008 presidential election, few if any candidates or analysts will take the trouble to define it. Instead, we'll be treated to another round of charges and counter-charges, more spending versus less spending, flag pins and symbolic patriotism. Almost two decades after the end of the Cold War, we are long overdue for a new understanding of national security, what it means, and how to achieve it.
This Thursday, May 1st, the American Security Project will release A New American Arsenal, a groundbreaking bi-partisan proposal for understanding security and what must be done to achieve it. Rather than limit the discussion to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, or even the "war on terrorism," this far-reaching project challenges Americans to think more broadly about what does, and does not, make us secure, how much of that security can be achieved by military means alone, and how we can reduce partisan politics and restore a common national interest to our security deliberations.
The next president will face the following security threats, most new and different from the previous Cold War era: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their availability to stateless nations (i.e. jihadists); ground forces exhausted by two protracted wars; energy dependence in the Persian Gulf; America's disproportionate role in protecting the global flow of oil; the security implications of climate change, and the list continues.
Issues that were recently separated into policy "boxes" are now interrelated. Consider the linkages among the cost of food and fuel, the world price of oil, increase in demand for oil in coming decades, the cost to U.S. taxpayers to protect global oil supplies, the impact of oil consumption on climate, two wars in the Persian Gulf, and so forth. Consider also how global warming is changing weather patterns. In the American West and elsewhere aquifers and reservoirs are drying up. Crops are becoming scarce and costly, thus leading to massive instability among the world's poor. In South Asia, over a billion people may lose their source of fresh water as Himalayan glaciers recede. Two of these nations are India and Pakistan -- nuclear states with indigenous terrorist movements and a history of conflict between them.
To break this cycle of interlinkage, everyone has a magic bullet. One is nuclear power. Yet mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, traditionally necessary to develop a national nuclear power industry, is virtually inseparable from access to material and technology necessary to produce nuclear weapons. We now find out that even the promising ethanol harbors its own economic and climate risks.
These are but illustrations of the ways in which national security is increasingly becoming global security and of the limits of purely military power to achieve it. These facts also illustrate how destructive it is for political "strategists" and spin-doctors to make security a partisan issue. The American Security Project is the product of a desire by members of both political parties who have given much of their lives to the security of our nation to leave behind the politics of security and engage the American people in a new and more product dialogue and discussion.
Our goal is to open a new debate necessary for an informed citizenry to come to terms with a host of new realities in the 21st century, to transform the dialogue from sound-bite sloganeering to a serious exchange of ideas and opinions, and to set a course that ensures security for Americans and all people of good will and for future generations in the new century ahead. Please join this discussion by visiting www.americansecurityproject.org.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm curious Mr Hart... this "New American Arsenal" you mention, how does it relate to the much speculated about "New World Order" you once brought up shortly after 911?
There has to be a international diplomatic body that all nations agree to cede some degree of national interest to for the international good- there is one in place, but we seem to think that the international consensus has to be in total agreement with us. It wil not work that way.
Considering what a failure the UN has become. Selling itself to Saddam and helping him to starve his people while enriching their pockets, why would you turn US security over to some corrupt failure of an "international body" willing to sell us off to the highest bidder?
It is interesting that our leaders and pundits such as Mr. Hart act as if we suddenly, surprisingly, almost magically find ourselves in our current economic, energy, agricultural, environmental and security reality by accident, as if nobody could have anticipated this or made other plans, as if government policies, intelligence operations, think-tank studies, trade agreements, Federal Reserve policies, military industrial plans, etc etc. over the last 50 years have not specifically brought us to this point, by design.
Many people are now awakening to the realization that our great nation has been for years and continues to be run not by the people and our elected representatives, but in essence by a parallel government whose goals have nothing to do with freedom, liberty or democracy. People are beginning to understand that the news media, internet, news punditry, entertainment and other cultural influences are being used to keep the public misinformed, distracted, complacent and dumbed-down.
It is acknowledged that Gary Hart does seem to have a handle on the future, however, even taking credit for predicting the attacks of 9/11/01 as seen in the following quote from 9/12/01 concerning his work on the CFR's, Hart-Rudman commission:
"We predicted it," Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999."
Knowing how distracted the public is and how quickly we forget, even mid-level CFR operatives such as Mr Hart seem to relish deflecting questions when confronted with apparently uncomfortable truths, such as when he was recently asked about a statement he made during a CFR meeting in 2001, the day after the attacks of 9/11/01.
At this CFR meeting (clip available on video tape) Hart said, “There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster . . . to carry out what his father - a phrase his father used I think only once, and it hasn't been used since - and that is a New World Order." Yet when questioned about this, he flatly denied ever using those words. He also went on to insist that President HW Bush used the NWO phrase only once, (yet it’s a matter of public record that Bush used the term at least a half a dozen times during the course of his presidency.)
So, is Gary Hart lying, grossly misinformed, or simply suffering early onset senility? I leave it to you to draw own conclusions and decide for yourselves if you find Mr. Hart to be a credible pundit worth listening to:
First, Google “Gary Hart and the New World Order” to find a video of him using the NWO phrase at the CFR meeting, then Google “Gary Hart denied using the phrase New World Order” to find a video of Mr. Hart’s public denial.
This seems to me a great argument for Humanism. Until the human race decides that imaginary borderlines and imaginary gods are not worth fighting and dying for and that pulling together to solve our problems and our planet's problems is the highest calling there will never be an end to this.
Although I normally disagree with you, this is a wonderful exception. This is the best thing I've ever seen you write, one of the best things I've ever seen written on this blog.
I'm sure when we get down to details there are issues on this subject we could disagree with but on principal I think you are dead on here and I'm in complete agreement.
Hopefully we are gradually moving from a gunboat, cowboy, industrial-oriented foreign policy to one that is focused on our nations real security issues. One that promotes democracy, free trade, non violence, human rights, and the rule of law. Too often these overriding concerns are not even considered as issues are dealt with piecemeal.
Why have we for 50 years been staring across the line that divides north and south korea? Why haven't we been working at building trade with them, encouraging economic development and human rights? Russia no longer want to blow us up, it wants to sell things to us. We are China's best customer and they do not want us destroyed, they want us to buy more.
We will win the war against radical islamic terrorists, really win it by the power of GLOBALISM. People who have freedom, jobs, education, hope, all their basic rights, tend to be more concerned about improving their future then turning themselves into human suicide bombs. When it comes to our national security, Globalism is America's best "weapon".....or should I say "Ambassador"?
In the mean time, inequitable free trade unaccompanied by responsible environmental requirements and the exportation of America's energy and food consumption model have resulted in the decline of the American economy, an unprecedented global surge in the emission of both environmental poisons and the primary contributors to global warming, and have created a situation where (in the words of United Nations chief Ban Ki-Moon) "we risk again the specter of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale".
People need start thinking and saying "responsible, equitable free trade" - otherwise, the powers that be will - as they have throughout history - continue to take their profits out of the very lives of humanity.
I believe you meant "irresponsible environmental" not "responsible" in your first sentence. No big deal we are all adults here, or I think so.
We can debate on the details but Gary didn't get down to details here, he laid forward the broad goals and agenda and I think he has it right. At the detail level I'm sure a left wing socialist would differ from a conservative capitalist.
But at a macro level if we can agree that it's more important to trade with Cuba and Korea than to wage an absolute cold war then American security can be inhanced. The details can be worked out.
Christian terrorist jewish terrorist..dont forget please..John hagee..falwell..the pope..Lebanon..
War criminals: House Democrats work on huge Iraq money bill: House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.
read thy history..SHOCK N AWE..NAGASAKI HIROSHIMA..
National security? You should be thinking Planetary security. In the coming century your world as you know it, is going to crumble around you. The lack of vision inherent in your species boggles minds much older than yours. Plan your National security, but make sure you plan it with ever changing borders. The borders you have now will be under water. Make immediate plans to move the institutions you so depend on inland. Make immediate plans to relocate fresh water to your masses. Make immediate plans for stockpiling food. Your species has less than two earth years to implement dramatic change in the human contamination of your world before you reach a point of no return in the destructive processes you have put in place. The universe is watching.
Have you ever had a Chicago style deep dish pizza?
It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.
The targeted victims are not Poland and France, but Iran, Syria, the remains of the Palestinian West Bank and southern Lebanon.
The American mass media is overjoyed. War coverage attracts viewers and sells advertising.
The neoconservatives are ecstatic. Hegemony uber alles is back on track.
The US Air Force can’t wait “to show what it can do.”
Defense contractors see no end of the profits.
Under cover of the mayhem and propaganda, Israel can grab the remains of the West Bank and have another go at grabbing the water resources of southern Lebanon.
Unlike the US and Israel, Iran is neither occupying any other country’s territory nor threatening to invade another country. Nevertheless, propaganda against Iran is spouting from US and Israeli mouths at an increasing rate. Lie after lie rolls off the tongues of leaders of the “two great democracies.”
On April 27 Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, blamed Iran for “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq. Has Admiral Mullen forgot that it is the US, not Iran, that is responsible for as many as one million dead Iraqis and four million displaced Iraqis, the “collateral damage” of a “cakewalk war” now into its sixth year?
Our "insecurity" is a paranoid delusion used to feed the military-industrial complex. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense. Against what? Sorry, a bunch of ragtag religious fanatics can't do one millionth the damage of a Soviet nuke. We wallow in our stupidity and greed while spending ourselves into banana republic status.
As the USSR collapsed of its own contradictions so shall we. America has become the Gilded Age Redux, a land driven to put wealth in the pockets of the rich and pauperize everyone else. Our pathetic Iraq war was won in three weeks. We have spent more time since--and as much money--as we did in WWII pursuing an illegal occupation of a non-belligerent nation. I can only hope to live long enough to see our leaders tried before the World Court for their crimes. Shame on us. Stop the madness now!
OUR NATIONS INSECURITY OR SECURITY IS TERM USE TO RIP OFF TAX PAYERS FOR MORE WARS AGAINST THE MUSLIMS AND ARABS BY THE PENTAGON.stop invading foreign countries over lies would be a good start. are we still looking for WMD S??I would like to know who owned those two towers in new york..was it obama??or hillary?/
What good was the vaunted U.S. military on 9/11? What good is it today for a repeat?
How about diplomacy? How about respect for the culture of others? Little George wants a "secular" government in Iraq. And... just what business is that of his?
Security you say. Mother Nature is the biggest terrorist. 30,000 die per year on the highway. A child dies ever few seconds from lack of water, food, or some other unnecessary villain. Maybe if you of the glitteratti would stop to define the enemy of humanity you could make some progress? Was the cccp really the enemy that it was painted in propaganda to us? Who will the nxt Pancho Villa be? (there's careers to be weaved and money to be made in that industry)
This post would be more timely at least 10 years ago. The future state described here is what exists today, and frankly for some time now. For example, who did not know that the CIA and Big Oil linked with the Industrial Military Complex many years ago?
What is most frightening about this post is that many party elders are attempting to frame issues around their own generation old agenda. This is not Progressiveness. For example, Carter is still trying to fix his mess in the Middle East dating from his Presidency and still makes the same mistakes today recently being used for Propaganda by Hamas.
This is exactly why we went into Iraq and pursued Cheney and Rumsfeld Nixonian policies that just could not get over wanting to win a war when they needed to fix the fact that we lost Vietnam and to the detriment of the entire country.
Much of the Democratic Party today continues to live a world that pre dates Clinton, with the same agenda using the same old tools. From Race to Poverty, to wealth distribution to taxes, the list goes on.
The party would do well not to fight dated policies as the Bush Administration does.
Please pursue truly progressive missions using truly progressive tools.
Please, for the good of the country.
I think that most of Hart's points are valid, but you need to dig a little deeper. William Blum's book
"Killing Hope", which details every CIA and Military involvement since WWII, and will not make you
proud to be an American, will give you a lot of insight. Although, Blum never makes the assertion, if
you know a little more history, you'll realize that a fascist element in America (almost openly declaring
itself during Dubya's administration) has been doing everything possible to stamp out any liberal,
progressive, or socialistic tendency that arises anywhere in the world, and has helped to make
us one of the most hated powers in the world. I don't feel that these puppet masters represent me,
or the majority of Americans.
It might be worthwhile to ask some questions about the assertion that the US needs to "protect" the flow of oil.
First questions about those who we believe want to interrupt the flow of oil.
Who precisely are these folks?
It couldn't be the producing nations. If they don't sell their oil, sand will make quite an unappetizing diet.
Do the interruptors want to interrupt the flow of oil to all nations? To China, to India? To France?
Do the interruptors only live in the Middle East? And if so, why?
Where are our military bases to protect the flow of oil from Venezuela and other Latin countries?
Do we need a military base in Russia to protect the flow of oil from that country?
What happens when the oil tanker sails out of the Gulf, is it magically protected? Or do the interruptors like to stay close to home? Are they unlike the terrorists who will follow us home? Perhaps by swimming the ocean?
If we protect the oil, why wouldn't "they" shift to interrupting the flow of other goods? Say foodstuffs. Say raw materials used in manufacturing and other processes?
Second, why do the interruptors want to interrupt?
Do they hate our freedoms?
Do they hate our freedom fries?
Could our foreign policy be related?
The best thing for America would be to start dismantling the Empire.
Why does the US continue to have military bases in nations from The Netherlands to Japan? They should be able to defend themselves.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
