Reply #7: Security for who? [View All]

[Ecotopian]

The Republicans love to define national security in simplistic conservative terms where the underlying foundation of their message is their faith in their quasi-religion of capitalism mixed into their traditional dogma of protestant Christianity for white folks. It is only a religion in terms of "professing one's faith" because they cannot overcome their own cognitive dissonance if they go deeper into the practice of the religion since the business side of their beliefs is based on the notion that the more individuals pursue their own greed, the greater their contribution will be to society. For them, national security is simple, it's about protecting the foundation of "their" society, business and dogmatic Christianity where anything that challenges it must be wiped out en masse.

The Democrats define national security in far more complex terms based on their underlying foundation of egalitarian democracy. Religion and economics take a back seat to the more important issue of trying to lift humanity, or at least our fellow citizens, out of the pit of despair into a more enlightened and humane world. The ethical foundation of democracy is based on a more universal and transcendant spiritual mindset of the equality of our fragile and mortal existence. National security from this point-of-view is not intended to be temporary but to be more long-term and permanent in which the root causes of conflict are eliminated.

A case in point is Iraq. Saddam Hussein was perceived to be a major threat merely because he possessed chemical weapons and used them against rebels within his own country. The fact is, chemical weapons were used by all of the major powers during both world wars and by the US to a remarkable extent during the Vietnam War in the form of Agent Orange and Napalm. In fact, there were more than one chemical agents used in Vietnam (think of the names of the basic colors). Since it was probable that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Coalition forces during the first gulf war, the threat assessment strategists at the Pentagon more than likely believed that he might arm a terrorist to come to the US for retaliation against its decade-long police action enforcing an embargo.

The Republican (primarily the right-wing Neocons) point of view was that Hussein was a major POTENTIAL threat and had to be eliminated in order to protect our oil interests. This is a point of view that oil is necessary for our society to exist therefore their oil indirectly belongs to us, and if they don't like it, we'll send in our military forces (with the mindset of relying on our position as the world's sole super-power) to "pacify them" and "help them" to "see things our way."

The Democrats (primarily the left-wing liberals) point of view was that we created dictators like Hussein due to our oil politics and the best way to eliminate any potential danger that he might pose to us is to maneuver our political situation to finding an alternative energy source (oil being his source of power), so that he will no longer have any power, thus making conflict altogether unnecessary. Sort of like depriving the German Panzer Tanks of fuel during the Battle of the Bulge. In this way, the suffering on both sides can be averted. The use of the military is more of a defensive point of view in order to preserve its strength for the maximum protection of the people.

It is clear that the Republicans are relying on our military strength as the foundation of their policies. Our strength is primarily in our technological capability mixed with the ugliest weapons of all, nuclear weaponry. The policy of a smaller and leaner military would work best for a defensive strategy. The size of the military could be supplemented through citizen reserves when we are under genuine threat. However a leaner military deployed abroad for an offensive strategy is dangerous, if not foolish. The offensive strategy that the Pentagon is using in order to "pacify" the world is creating a dangerously thin military that puts our short-term national security intersts at risk. An offensive strategy causes strife that creates more enemies for the long term, thus putting our long-term national security interests at risk as well.

I think that if the Democrats backed up an alternative energy source, we could politically position the US away from oil and the politics that go with it. This would be a better way of pacifying the region since they will not be able to feel independent enough to attack us since their long-term economic viability will depend on our benevolence. In being benevolent, we would be able to foster goodwill (provided that we have the political willpower to do so), strengthen cultural bonds, and demonstrate our true strength, socially democratic egalitarian ideals. Under this more ideal point of view, the Democrats will be able to rely on a deeper more altruistic source of strength, our hope for a better humanity. This is something that cannot be attacked or destroyed (although GWB is trying hard to do so!).