The Budget & U.S. National Defense and Security

Samson, AL - Over the past ten years, we have all witnessed the stories in main-stream-media, as well as some have witnessed first hand, through deployment of their loved ones to the Middle East and Southwest Asia since the events of September 11, 2001.

What has this so-called "War on Terrorism" cost the United States of America, besides the legs, arms, and lives of many American men and women? The reports vary in amount and depend on circumstances I guess, but I do recall that former President Bush requested $89billion in supplemental funding, only to be followed by another similar amount request a few months later.

Osama bin Laden, and his second, third, and maybe fourth in command are now dead. At what point will the present policy end, and we bring home our men and women? Are we trying to exterminate Al Qa'eda, the Taliban and other such groups? I have seen the interviews, and the "potential" of threats that this group and that group present. I have also read reports on what another Katrina would do to the Gulf Coast, or what would happen if the Yellowstone Super volcano erupted.

I was not the Commander-in-Chief when these American Men and Women were deployed, and therefore I do not have all the facts and military intelligence the Commander-in-Chief did, so I can not and will not comment on their initial or continued deployment. Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, family members and neighbors are overseas serving their country in the Armed Forces. One problem I see however, is having a "Commander-in-Chief" who has never served on Active Duty in the Armed Forces. Having served in the Untied States Air Force, even though I never left the United States, nor was I in combat, as an air traffic control specialist, I still experienced the basic military training, some may call it brainwashing, to which .... whatever. The fact is that every man and woman serving took the same Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Here let me quote General Douglas MacArthur, "I find in existence a new and heretofore unknown and dangerous concept, that the members of our armed forces owe primary allegiance or loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of the government rather than to the country and its Constitution which they are sworn to defend." Here lies the rub. MacArthur could not accept the authority of the President of the United States. His repeated disobedience and interference in foreign policy could no longer be tolerated. While the cunning political fox, FDR, either ignored or out maneuvered MacArthur's defiance, the Buck Stops Here President would not tolerate it. In essence, MacArthur had posed a challenge to one of the fundamental principles of American government - civilian control of the military.

Whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm, or the present conflicts/wars to which we are now engaged in; the military must be given a clear and concise mission, and then be allowed to complete their mission tasking. Do not tell them to do something and tie one hand behind their backs.

For too many years now that military that is to support and defend the Constitution, has in effect been played as a pawn by those holding the Office of President and to further that Administration's Foreign Policy. If they are going to continue to be used in this manner, then maybe we had better revert to their former designation under the Department of War, or follow the lead of the French, and call the the American Foreign Legion, instead of Department of Defense. Yes, I understand the whole Peace through Strength scenario, but I'm also aware of the civility and necessity of when lethal/deadly force is necessary. As I have said publicly and written elsewhere, you don't make friends by beating them into submission with a baseball bat.

We are in a strange and different era, than our parents were at the end of World War II. Wars are no longer fought alone battle lines and trenches, you are no longer up-close and personal like in the movie The Last Samurai. Instead you maybe anywhere from a few hundred yards to thousands of miles away from the person you kill. And why?  Because they have a different belief or ideological system than we do in America?

Let's face it, I don't think that Russia or China have a desire to dance toe-to-toe with the American Military, any more than we have to dance toe-to-toe with them. Between the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans I think they can take care of regional incident flare-ups just fine. Just as the European-NATO members and Russia can handle incidents in that part of the world; and how between the United States, Canada, and Brazil and even possibly Venezuela with a carrot and stick approach we can address the Americas. We can not afford to continue to try and be all things to all Peoples. Let us work with our neighbors here in securing the Americas, including eliminating drug cartels, and providing emergency humanitarian aide here.

As President, I would ask the members of the Joint Chiefs for an alternative, somewhat returning to the original concept of one maybe two, Rapid Deployment Forces, these would be the front line troops used when American Interests, and not resources of Mother Earth in another country were at risk. I would seek that Air National Guard and Army National Guard units were just that remained home, defending America, and not being the bulk of the American Military. We have already drawn down some of our foreign bases, and honestly I believe we can drawn them down further.

I believe we could save a great deal of military dollars and lives, if the Department of Defense, were just that a National Defense Force, and not an offensive weapon of politicians. There are a number of intergovernmental assets that could be combined to provide border, airport, port and coastal security, and at less cost than we are putting forward today. We also need to review our own internal status of forces, and review the implications of the Posse Commitus Act. The March 2009 event here in Samson, Alabama, is evidence of that, when you have rural sheriff department and police departments that are understaffed, and a situation occurs, and they ask for assistance from the nearby military base in a mutual aid agreement.

Think about it, when you have National Guard, Air National Guard, Homeland Security, FEMA, Customs and Border Patrol, DEA, etc., all with various unshared assets that if administered properly could meet not only the day to day national security and defense needs of the country, but also humanitarian aid during natural disasters.  A better budgeting can be done.