1 of 26

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 6

our President taking a stand against all who would threaten the sanctity of US democracy or the Constitution, the document that instituted this way of governing ourselves? Was he saying that he is determined, on our behalf, to protect the health and well being of all the people of the USA? Or were those few words a way of succinctly saying that he intended to use his power as the leader of the most powerful country in the world to secure the lifestyle of those experiencing the highest standard of living in these here United States?

Is that what is meant by "protecting against suffering?"

There are so many possible interpretations, we may have to turn this over to one of our not liberal, not activist judges to apply the proper not political jurisprudent spin and narrow the possibilities so that we may properly prepare for those other sources of suffering.

The notion that we are resolved to protect ourselves against any of these definitions of suffering and their sources is less propitious than the fact that, in his declaration of American resolve to respond mightily to what he quickly labeled "terrorism" the President left the door ajar for something other than "terrorists" (or whatever the evil bullies of the world will be fashionably named in the face of future partisan political needs), to slip across our porous borders. While the door is open, let us look to see what other threats might be lurking outside the Green Zone.

A few years ago (March 24, 2000), Robert E. Ebel, Director of Energy and National Security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a fellow who should have a pretty good idea about national security, was speaking before the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs when he said that he thought that former state department thinker and ambassador George Kennan, regarded as one of the primary architects of the Truman Doctrine and the US side of the Cold War, had the least complicated definition of national security: "THE CONTINUED ABILITY OF THIS COUNTRY TO PURSUE ITS INTERNAL LIFE WITHOUT SERIOUS INTERFERENCE." Obviously, this simple definition still leaves a lot of room for speculation. In order to get much use out of this definition we need to know what he meant by "internal life" and "interference." At the risk of appearing activist and putting words in the late Mr. Kennan's mouth, let us imagine that he was not limiting his definition of threats to national security to interference from foreign governments; that

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Appraising America's security in a post 9/11 era?
We want to hear your view. Write now!