How to Win the Next "Libya"

            The war, yes war, in Libya is certain to become another drain on the United States.  At this time the U.S. is debating the arming of Libyan rebels.  The rebels are also now in contact with CIA operatives.  (CNN)   The decision to consult with, train, and arm rebels should have been made well before any action by rebel forces or commitment of U.S. military resources.  More effective intelligence work would have determined a decisive course of action and a quick victory by the rebels.  Instead the U.S. will be fighting another war, in a third different country, 7,000 miles from home.  This is just one more responsibility placed on the military. 

            The U.S. military is an incredible entity, more capable than any armed force in the world.  Although they are highly trained and well equipped the U.S. military is not designed to be an occupation force.  Counterinsurgency is a very demanding mission.  Iraq and Afghanistan have shown military leadership the best plan for dealing with insurgents is to enable the populace to care for and police itself.  Proper intelligence work can lay the groundwork for a populace to rise up but more importantly the information can be given to leadership so they can make a proper assessment of the situation.  Correct assessment of rebel intentions, strategies, and capabilities allow the U.S. to implement plans that have a higher probability of success.  Conversely, correct assessment could also allow the U.S. to steer clear of situations deemed less likely to be beneficial or worthwhile.  Improving and broadening the intelligence capabilities is a complex undertaking but is possible with more funding.

            The United States has $703 billion proposed for the defense budget in 2012.  (Washington Post)  While the defense budget is important for maintaining and improving our military to defend our country and project power across the globe, some of this money could be better spent to reduce the need for some military missions.  Only $55 billion has been allocated for non-military intelligence services.   (Harvard National Security Journal)  While this may seem like a large amount, the money is spread between 12 separate agencies*.  An influx of money to the intelligence community would allow the U.S. to increase, diversify, and improve international intelligence operations.  These operations could produce more desirable results at a lower cost than full scale military action.  A cost effective solution to a broadening global situation is the best course.

            Steering our military away from unnecessary conflicts and empowering other countries to do more for themselves is a worthwhile and attainable goal. 

    

*The agencies are the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy (Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence), Department of Homeland Security (Office of Intelligence and Analysis), Department of State (Bureau of Intelligence and Research), Department of the Treasury (Office of Intelligence and Analysis), Drug Enforcement Administration (Office of National Security Intelligence), Federal Bureau of Investigation (National Security Branch), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  (http://www.dni.gov/faq_intel.htm)     

Gangsters, Pinocchio, and Government?

     In an editorial highly critical of Democrats efforts to cut from the budget Kevin D. Williamson hits the mark.  Gangster Government, Pinocchio Government, Whatever is from The National Review and was published March 8, 2011.  First off, the title grabbed my attention.  Gangsters and Pinocchio sounded much more intriguing than war, default, stocks, and money articles that I barely gave a glance. 

     I really appreciate the sarcasm and wit that Williamson uses to highlight his stance.  Williamson quips "Michele Bachmann  (and I) call it “gangster government.” The Washington Post calls it “three-Pinocchio” government, assigning the Democrats’ most recent budget claims a credibility rating of roughly You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me. Seriously: Even the Washington by-God Post is getting the message about Fiscal Armageddon."  At issue is the Democrats proposing cuts to a budget that doesn't exist yet.  In response to Democrats claims of meeting the Republicans in the middle for budget cuts, Williamson writes "At issue are Democratic claims that they are offering the Republicans a meaningful compromise on spending cuts, that they are meeting them “halfway.”  Which, as the Post points out, is true, if your baseline is an imaginary budget that was never enacted." 

     Williamson's intention is to appeal to a conservative audience.  The National Review is a conservative site so most people who will read his article are conservatives who use the site or other people seeing what the conservatives are saying.  While the intended audience is conservative Williamson does a great job (humorously) laying out some important national issues that can appeal to a broader audience.  The budget is a key issue for all Americans and many people around the world. 

     Williamson transitions from his general budget talk to his opinion and some specific numbers on Obama Care.  "Given the uncertain constitutional status of Obamacare, and given the sneaky way it’s been budgeted for, how about we hold onto that $105 billion in implementation spending that Michele Bachmann is so excited about until we’ve got a Supreme Court ruling on the mandate, etc? That does not seem to me unreasonable, and making the Republicans’ $60 billion in cuts $165 billion would move us that much closer to national solvency."  Once again mixing wit, sarcasm, and common sense to prove his point I find it hard to disagree with Williamson's logic. 

     The arguments in this article are convincing and well written.  I really enjoyed the humor he used to bring people on his side before he went into his own agenda.  In all I would recommend "Gangster Government, Pinocchio Government, Whatever" to anyone interested in American Government.

    

           "The Prison That Won't Go Away" is an editorial that appeared in the New York Times on March 9, 2011 (Page A26).  The article gives a brief overview of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  The author first blames the Bush administration for the creation of the prison but quickly attacks the Obama administration as well.  “…Barack Obama raised the hopes of millions around the world in 2008 when he campaigned on the promise of closing it.  On Monday, that promise crumbled, the victim of Congressional spinelessness and President Obama’s inability to create political support for a way out of the moral quagmire created by his predecessor.”  Most of the “moral quagmire”  the author refers to revolves around one concept, indefinite detention.  The prisoners cannot be tried (either because evidence to prosecute them is classified or gathered illegally).  Even though the prisoners cannot receive a trial they are deemed too dangerous to release.  The author goes over some things Obama has been able to improve but quickly points out how disappointing those improvements are.  Presidential administrations are not the only groups to feel the authors bite.  “…members of Congress from both parties, in an act of notable political cowardice, banned moving those trials to the United States.”

            The unnamed author clearly dislikes the entire concept of an American prison without American laws and I have to agree.  Shame, anger, revulsion.  These are all words describing how the writers of our Bill of Rights would feel if they knew about the prison America has at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  There are only ten main guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and Guantanamo Bay tramples on four of them.  The fourth (unreasonable searches), fifth (due process), sixth (speedy trial and trial by jury), and eighth (cruel and unusual punishment) amendments are being ignored.  While the people there are not U.S. citizens it is our moral imperative to uphold our ideals, not to ignore them when it suits us.  Yes, the terrorists need to be stopped, but at what cost?  Holding these prisoners indefinitely because they are dangerous opens a Pandora’s Box of resentment and fear from other countries.  Our freedom is why so many people try to make it to America.  If we are so ready to take away those freedoms from others and justify it by saying, “It’s okay, it’s in Cuba.”  I fear what parlor tricks to dance around the Constitution our government may try next.

"The Prison That Won't Go Away"