60° SUNNY, Weapons proliferation won't wait for a better economy
Last Modified: Saturday, December 13, 2008 at 5:20 p.m.
When the United States was engaged in the Vietnam War and attempted to engage in the War on Poverty, the nation again debated the guns or butter question.
The argument was, at its core, whether America would channel most of its resources to domestic affairs -- feeding the hungry, creating jobs, caring for the sick -- or foreign affairs and wars abroad.
Four decades later, the U.S. military is again involved in conflicts on foreign soil and confronting economic turmoil. Although the war in Iraq was the focus of President-elect Barack Obama's campaign in its early stages, he turned his attention to domestic issues as the economy tanked.
Since winning the general election handily, Obama and his transition team have spent most of their time shaping a domestic agenda -- providing input on the credit crisis and pledging to pass and implement an enormous economic-stimulus plan based on federal investments in public works.
Yet as Obama and company focused on the nation's internal challenges, a commission of experts in politics and security released a sobering report on the external threats facing the nation.
So, permit me to interrupt this recession with some of the findings from the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism:
"The commission believes that unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013."
The commission -- whose members included Bob Graham of Florida, who formerly served on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- concluded that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon.
"The commission believes that the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bioterror attack ...
"Further compounding the nuclear threat is the proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities to new states and the decision by several existing nuclear states to build up their arsenals. Such proliferation is a concern in its own right because it may increase the prospect of military crises that could lead to war and catastrophic use of these weapons."
The 132-page report was released earlier this month. It was the subject of news coverage but its scale and impact were obscured by stories about bailouts of the financial and auto industries, rising unemployment and record-breaking numbers of home foreclosures.
It would be a grave mistake for the commission's report -- which has been printed by Vintage Books or can be downloaded via www.preventwmd.org -- to gather dust on a bookshelf or the virtual equivalent thereof.
The report is important not only because of the warnings it issues and its emphasis on the potential for bioterrorism, but because the commission called upon the U.S. government to spread more "butter" on its anti-terrorism efforts.
The commission recognized the need to keep the military's "guns" available as an option for defending against terrorism and pursuing terrorist organizations. But the commission also called for a series of domestic initiatives -- for example, reviewing national programs designed to secure dangerous pathogens and improve oversight of laboratories -- and cited the need for increased investments in "soft power" abroad.
Examples of soft power include diplomacy, weapons-inspections programs and foreign aid. Fortunately, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who will move into the Obama administration, advocates enhancing America's soft-power capabilities to complement its military power -- in the process, enabling the military to focus on its core mission.
It won't be easy for Gates or Obama, for that matter, to spread more "butter" on national and international security initiatives, while also investing in economic programs and sustaining conventional military operations. But America cannot afford to ignore the risks cited by the commission and its recommendations for investing in prevention.
This story appeared in print on page A20
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Next Article in
- Real Estate Today: Hermitage Artist's Retreat
- Grocery store may cancel on Lakewood Ranch
- Area tourism in doldrums
- Father accused of abuse
- For Nadel's investors, it's IRS as resource
- SNN suspending operations temporarily
- Rodgers-Cromartie's Super path not exactly direct
- Six vehicles involved in Sarasota pileup
- From the ashes, family looks to rebuild
- Cuts will go deeper, legislators tell locals
- Regional gas falls slightly as oil rises
- Judge blocks bank from cashing Nadel check
- Rodgers-Cromartie's Super path not exactly direct
- Six vehicles involved in Sarasota pileup
- Obama's first signing is the equal-pay law
- Military career spanned conflicts
- Surprise pick to lead offense
- Kindler, gentler approach
- Indians clinch top seed with win against 'Noles
- Grocery store may cancel on Lakewood Ranch
Comments
Post a comment | View all comments on this topic.
December 14, 2008 8:28:15 am
RE: Link
Guns or Butter?
Tom Tryon of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune writes an excellent and insightful column titled, "Weapons proliferation won't wait for a better economy".
Tom refers to a recently released report from the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. You may read the entire report by going here Link.
On their website the WMD Commission says, "In its report to the American people in 2004, the 9/11 Commission warned that 'the greatest danger of another catastrophic attack in the United States will materialize if the world's most dangerous terrorists acquire the world's most dangerous weapons'."
Tom says, "The commission recognized the need to keep the military's "guns" available as an option for defending against terrorism and pursuing terrorist organizations. But the commission also called for a series of domestic initiatives -- for example, reviewing national programs designed to secure dangerous pathogens and improve oversight of laboratories -- and cited the need for increased investments in "soft power" abroad."
I believe we must do more to secure our borders, remove the use of soft power on us by Middle Eastern oil producers by becoming energy independent, and keep our military and intelligence agencies the best in the world.
Using soft power means economic, legal, religious, social, and political assets to prevent WMD proliferation by a nation or ideology that would use these weapons against America or our allies. My concern is "soft power" does not work without the clear belief that if this fails then military power can and will be used. This is the Bush Doctrine.
Tom mentions in his article President-elect Obama's public works economic stimulus package. I have written that the federal government cannot jump start our economy by creating make work projects. This strategy did not get us out of the Great Depression under President Roosevelt or recession under President Carter. In fact in each case it made things worse by taking money out of the pockets of consumers. Remember it is consumers that account for 70% of the growth in our economy, not government.
The most important role of the President and
December 14, 2008 11:21:07 am
Strange to see someone is still sitting on Bush's bandwagon. Must feel kinda lonly up there now, huh?
The BUSH POLICY: Commonly said to be the controversial policy of PREVENTIVE WAR, which holds that the US should wage war against foreign regimes that represent a potential or a perceived threat to the US, even if that threat was not immediate.
A DANGEROUS policy, indeed. If it takes hold worldwide, any dictator could attack another country and claim a "perceived threat" down the road. Yikes!
And has this policy reduced the scourge of terrorism? NO, NO and NO! There are a bunch of government reports out there which say our Iraq invasion actually vitalized AlQaeda.You say "The most important role of the President and Congress is the defense of this nation. Without security in the homeland and overseas we and our allies cannot grow and prosper."
I do agree, security is important, but we have done much more than "defense". We have established a military empire across the globe with bases on each continent, over 800 of them. It is one of the reasons people oppose us and it is also bankrupting us.
HIGH time to get back to a healthy balance. Other nations have grown and prospered without putting most of their resources into the military. We can not be a strong nation with our infrastructure and our economy in dispair. Time to invest in both and stop fighting wars of choice financed by the Chinese.
B
December 14, 2008 12:36:53 pm
What Mr. Tryon does not "point out" is that under Bush since 11th of Sept. the US Mainland has not been attacked by terrorists.
No one knows how many attacks have been prevented and averted by our CIA, your FBI and our Armed Forces.
Nobody knows how the intelligence Community has changed it's dynamics since 11th of Sept.
Yes the REPORT is a major wake up hall, but i hardly think that our intelligence Community or that of ISRAEL or that of ENGLAND or that of other Allies has let up or not been vigiliant in sharing and minimizing cells where they are and when they are found.
Remember India was warned by our Intelligent Departments of the impending attack weeks ago, and never did a damn thing to change or alter their security at these Hotels or the Holy Jewish Center.
The NSA and the CIA and the Top Secret Intelligence Services from within and outside the USA are doing all they can to stop Bio, Nuclear and Chemical threats.
It may take ISRAEL to attack Iran's sites to wipe out it's nuke program as ISRAEL did to IRAQ and to Syria.
Mr Tyron needs to not only note a caution and warning, but also needs to acknowledge that since 11th of Sept. he nor any average American has any clue, insight or knowledge of the numerous attempts and planned attacks that have been stopped and prevented.
Ths US nor the world does not need a REPORT to alarm them over the threat, the World is well aware of the threat, the enemies, and the access.
Give some credit where credit is due, England just prevented another major attack.
Yes bush was wrong for invading IRAQ, no question about it, but he is also due credit.
Post a comment | View all comments