Defense

The word Defense is probably the most misused word in American governance. Rightly or wrongly, it is used to justify actions by the government that are anything but defensive. Pardon the pun, but they are downright offensive at times. My view of national defense is exactly that, the defense of our nation against all enemies foreign or domestic. I do believe I've read that in a very important document somewhere.

Some will argue that the best defense is a good offense. There are indeed merits to that arguement, but only in a limited sense, not as a part of a broad ideology, in my opinion. Strategically, a good offense takes the form of diplomacy, economic sanctions, and the negotiating of alliances and treaties, never military force. Tactical operations, by definition, involve the use of military assets, and should only be used offensively when an attack on American assets is imminent and substantiated by unambiguous, reliable intelligence. The President of the United States has the implied power to order such offensive operations and should be obligated to brief Congress of the justifactions and consequences of such actions, at the earliest possible opportunity. In summary, I accept the idea of preemption in principle, however in only in the rarest of occasions and with significant limitations. Almost certainly, preemptive use of force should not be used repetitively or to justify any operation that resembles war. I strongly believe that only Congress can authorize war, to include any operation that can loosely be defined as war.

Any budgetary considerations for the Department of Defense should be directed toward defensive means. This includes protecting the human resources charged with defending our borders and citizens. Toward that end, I support the investment in and development of strategic weapons systems to guard against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Ideally, these missiles would prevent their targets, whether armed with conventional or nuclear warheads, from reaching American soil. Furthermore, if scientifically possible, a project should be lauched to devise a way to counteract the devastating effects of nuclear weapons should they ever be used against us. Nuclear non-proliferation attempts are important and should not be abandoned, however, it is critcal that we now take steps to deal with the growing likelihhod that they will be used.

Given the current burden on our soldiers and sailors it has become necessary to increase troop levels. National Guard resources have been overused in my opinion. Active duty military personnel should be recruited to levels which relieves most Guard and reserve units from duty overseas. There are a few reserve units whose specific skills would be in need to their active duty counterparts and should continue to be used in the current conflicts. With few exceptions, National Guard and reserve units should be expected to be dployed no more often than once every 4 years and for no more than one year at a time. Active duty troops should expect to be deployed no more often than once every 2 years for no more than a year at a time. However many troops such rotations would require to be maintained, considering retirements and enlistment terms, should dictate the target recruiting levels. In peacetime, the troop levels should be 75% these proposed levels.

Unmanned reconnaissance and weapons systems have proven their mettle in recent conflicts. I support increased funding for their improvement and expanding their training and use for future conflicts. There should also be better funding for body and vehicle armor of a quality to withstand the use of improvised explosive devices or IEDs. I also support research and development in non-lethal weapons capable of effectively neutralizing the enemy. War is always tragic and loss of life is a certainty, but with advanced technology, it can be waged in much more humane terms. The use of force, of course, should alwayts be a last resort.