The case against war.
Support and defend. I have always insisted that my employers
observed this with regard to employee rights. The armed services ask, at the
outset, that the employee relinquish those rights. This seems contradictory to
me. That’s not a citizen’s army. It’s a hit squad. In any fight you need a
defense as well. Agility, training and strength may also be a factor. The best
a soldier can do is take no action that violates that contract. Such are truly
patriots. A modest draft, with an exemption for other projects in the national
interest, seems like a reasonable option. To be clear, the armed forces are for
the national defense in the world that is or will be in a short time.
Moving on, what size military do we require? The question is
best answered by an accurate assessment of our enemies. I would submit that
they are fewer than we would expect, given the devastation we have caused. In
any rational assessment, it is time to stand down from our current posture and
begin to adapt away from confrontation. Just a tiny bit? For a prolonged time?
The nuclear option seems remote enough to lower production to the lowest level
possible. We need a Department of State that understands foreign relations and
doesn’t see an enemy under every rock. This applies to the intelligence
agencies as well. The patriot Act should switch names with the Whistleblower
Act.
It is a remarkably clear path. Just ask who fears peace?
Then look as the conglomerate enemy of peace reveals itself. And then ask why. The world is
remarkably peaceful but for those suffering from greed.
No comments:
Post a Comment