Thanks Lindy!
Ok, here are some of my points that I think Rand Beers is overlooking.
1.) He advocates more spending on direct Homeland Defense. That's a valid point to make because it expresses a valid difference of opinions. Myself? Rather than focusing on turning the US into "Fortress Amerika", we must focus on the elements which threaten to disrupt the freedom and security we cherish.
We need to make those nation states and powerful cabals who would be tempted to attack the US fear losing everything they have worked to achieve, namely a decrease of US presence in their spheres of influence. Piss us off and target us, and the repercussions will be significant and the battle will be carried to THEIR territory, rather than spending our time wondering when the next attack will come against the US.
As Patton aptly stated, "L'audace, L'audace, Toujours L'audace!!".. Always attack.. Don't worry about your flanks. If you're implementing the proper strategy, they enemy will worry about HIS flanks.
The war on terrorism is a war that MUST BE fought on the enemy's home territory, just as they seek to do the same to us. Given there are only finite resources available, I prefer an active offense.
But I certainly can understand why someone would express concern about the vulnerabilities that exist in our society. I can name, right now, any number of significant strategies the terrorists could use to cause tremendous pain to the US. But that pain would be temporary and in return, we must make our strategies permanently hurt our enemies.
2.) Mr. Beers has retired with a very nice government pension. He probably was looking for a greater position of responsibility within the Bush White House, a position that his status as a democrat probably was denied to him (not saying that's right.. it's just politics).
Thus, it's only natural for him to resign and seek a greater potential opportunity in a Kerry White House. I would do the same thing. The worst thing that happens is he goes to work for a think tank, and the best case scenario is he stands 1st in line to be Kerry's National Security Adviser.
3.) He's burned out. He admitted as much. The events of the past 2 years would be enough to burn anyone in that position out. The responsibilities are huge, and the costs of "getting it wrong" full of potential soul-destroying guilt.
4.) It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."
Only he can truly know how much of this is political posturing for his position with Kerry, and how much of it is valid. Wolfowitz doesn't talk like someone who has not thought about the long-term issues. He has advocated a Marshall Plan for the Mid-East, thus committing the US to a long-term presence.
It's obvious that this is a long-term struggle, to be fought one step at a time.. Simply because going into a "total war" mode would be FAR TOO expensive and disruptive to the global economy, if not our own.
First Iraq, then Iran (hopefully peacefully), and then Syria (again, I hope peacefully), and ultimately, Saudi Arabia, where I hope the Royals will see the handwriting on the wall and apply the appropriate pressures on their Wahhibists to "cool it".
And in the face of all of this, we have entrenched politicians and bureaucrats who are protecting their "turf". We have the State Dept defending its traditional role in "nation building". We have the FBI and Homeland Defense in a rivalry.
And we have Rumsfeld infighting with his general staff about force structure, since most generals want the big ticket items, while Rummy seems to want more special ops and rapid deployment forces. (Shinseki's retirement ceremony was not attended by even a single OSD civilian official).
So there are a lot of folks "not getting their way" in this warfighting strategy. Rand Beers is not alone..
Hawk |
