The President And Our Security

Just sat down to read what I wrote last night and I was just a little surprised. I didn't realize just how strong the tone was in my post about the California Congressman on Hannity & Colmes. I guess he just managed to hit just the right buttons!

It is my firm belief that we cannot and should not rely on anyone else to provide our national security. We, and we alone, are responsible for protecting our people from harm. Now that's not to say that we shouldn't turn down help when it is offered (usually by the British, Canadians and Australians), but that we should not count on that help as an integral part of our security plan.

Last night, it felt as though the good Congressman was advocating the surrender of our soveirgnty and security to the UN. This mans job is to help protect our national interests - not France's, not Germany's, not the UN's interests, not even the British interests. In subjugating ourselves to the whims of the UN we are not acting our own best interests. Not one bit. And to advocate the subjugation of our interests to a foreign or super-national organization is, in my opinion, borderline treason. It is basically a US Congressman saying that we need to eliminate the US government's responsibilities because other nations may not like our decisions.

Geroge W Bush was elected to office and was sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the document that we have created to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people. He didn't swear to protect it sometimes or whenever "world opinion" okayed it. He swore to protect it against all enemies foreign or domestic - with no conditions or clauses.

The President believes that Saddam Hussein is a clear and present threat to America's people and therefore the Constitution. He is exercising his oath and authority to protect us from an enemy - this time foreign. The Constitution is open enough to have allowed him to attempt to find a diplomatic solution; it is also open enough to allow him to attack Iraq, if that is the course he feels is necessary to carry out his oath of office. The most important fact here is that the President, not the UN, not Congress, not the military, is responsible for ensuring our national security.

The President has the authority to use all the tools at his disposal to protect the nation. Most of the time that means that he will use the carrot of the State Department and the stick of the military. He may use trade sanctions or enhancements as a way to protect us. He may work with our allies or he may act unilaterally. He cannot be Machiavellian, the means he uses must be valid under US law, but the protection of the US is really an ends driven endeavor.

In dealing with the problem Saddam poses, the last three US administrations have used almost every tool available to them. We have attempted to work with the international community through the UN to bring Saddam into compliance with the cease-fire agreement that ended the fighting the first time around. We have tried economic sanctions, economic inducements (food for oil), multilateral inspections, unilateral and multilateral use of force, and 17 international ultimatums. For 12 years, we have attempted to solve this problem multilaterally. The President is now offering the UN one last opportunity to assist in this issue.

I believe that the UN has wasted 12 years playing footsie with Saddam. The Security Council has no power in the world. They have squandered virtually all of their moral authority since the end of Desert Storm and the fall of the Soviet Union. President Bush 43, the simplistic unilateral cowboy, has really been giving the UN an opportunity to rebuild some semblance of credibility since September 2002. But the UN is about to squander this last, final opportunity to act.

I think that the President (and our allies for this fight- the Coalition of the Willing) realized about a month ago that the UN was not going to act. That realization coincided with Secretary of State Powell becoming the public face of the US effort. That was the real signal of the end of diplomacy and the beginning of the final planning for the use of force. It's the old axiom - if you can hear the sword rattling it is still in its sheath, when the rattling stops - the sword is being drawn. So long as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was out front talking trash, everything was happy and kosher in the world. As soon as the public face changed, so did our planning.

The fighting will start again. Saddam does not comprehend anything other than brute force. His concessions are proof that he does not understand the paradigm shift that has taken place since 9/11. He is still operating under the belief that he can buy off the west by making a few functionally insignificant concessions. Times have changed, but his thinking has not. That is why we will have to fight again.

The President proved the other night that he understands the magnitude of current events. He proved that he takes his oath of office seriously. Right now he is in the process of proving that the UN is feckless. And he also understands that he cannot abdicate US soveirgnty to the UN.

Which brings me back full circle to the good Congressman that so raised my hackles. He, like Saddam, does not understand the situation facing the world today. Which means in the end he is not guilty of treason, merely of being an uninformed and clueless.