|
Contributors
Gordon
Cucullu- Contributor
Former Green
Beret lieutenant colonel, Gordon Cucullu is now an editorialist,
author and a popular speaker. Born into a military
family, he lived and served for more than thirteen years in East
Asia, including eight years in Korea. For his Special Forces
service in Vietnam he was awarded a Bronze Star, Vietnamese Cross
of Gallantry, and the Presidential Unit Commendation. After separation
from the Army, he worked on Korea and East Asian affairs at both
the Pentagon and Department of State as well as an executive
for General Electric in Korea. His first major non-fiction work,
Separated
at Birth: How North Korea became the Evil Twin, is
based in large part on his extensive experience in
Korea and East Asia as a governmental insider and businessman.
[website]
[go to Cucullu index]
 It’s
the Security, Mom (and Dad)
A
clear choice...
[Gordon Cucullu] 10/28/04
Stop
for a moment the personal attack, innuendo and insult in this
presidential campaign. For this discussion
we won’t call George Bush stupid, manipulative, and divisive.
We will also refrain from calling John Kerry liberal, a flip-flopper,
an opportunist, and divisive. Let’s focus instead on the most
serious issue in this campaign - or for that matter any campaign
in recent years: national security.
Certain facts are indisputable: America was
viciously attacked on 9-11 by an Islamist-fascist movement that
had declared war on this country years prior. This attack was
one in a series that grew bolder and more aggressive. And, terrorists
were financed, protected, trained, and based - in part or in
whole - by several nations categorized as state supporters of
terrorism.
The
series of terrorist successes - some spectacular
in their horror - that marked the march of terrorism across the
world until it ended up at our doorstep is well known. Our enemy
plans to strike again. And again. And again. So we must accept
the fact, however unpleasant, that security and security alone
is the single most important issue in this presidential race.
Forget education as a key issue. Perhaps education
was important in Beslan, Russia prior to the attack by terrorists
who raped and murdered children. Now parents focus on keeping
their kids alive. Forget transportation. Commuters in Madrid
and Tel Aviv worry less about getting to their destinations on
time than they do about the terrorist or homicide bomber who
may be riding with them.
Concerned
about health care? So are the hundreds of thousands of helpless
refugees in Somalia who are being assaulted,
starved and exterminated by a mad Islamic regime. Maybe you’re
fretting about employment. For the tens of thousands of slave
laborers in Kim Jong Il’s North Korean gulag mere survive is
their only hope due to meager rations and daily beatings. And
for many Americans, Social Security is a big deal. It will be
a bigger deal if you have no society to be secure within. We
must face the fact that we are no longer immune from attack.
The two candidates have very different worldviews
about fighting terrorism. After understanding each, the choice
then falls to the electorate. In essence the two policy options
for dealing with the terrorist enemy we face are legalistic and military.
The
legalistic approach places terrorism in the ‘crime’ category.
The proper approach to crime solving is through law enforcement
channels. Agencies such as the FBI, DEA,
Interpol, and national police agencies are considered the best
vehicles to eliminate terrorism. In fact, this world view accepts
that a certain amount of terrorism is inevitable and normal.
Much like other crime it cannot be totally eliminated and must
be accepted as part of our daily lives. It relies heavily on
international organizations for assistance. It considers it reasonable
and proper for the United Nations to be the lead agency in reducing
terror.
The
legalistic approach focuses on defensive, protective measures
as a first priority: building an impenetrable
wall against the terrorists. It also examines the ‘roots of terror’ that
it defines as poverty, lack of esteem and lack of opportunity.
A legalistic analyst wishes to determine ‘why they hate us’ in
order to understand more fully the motives of the terrorists
and, if possible, deal with them. The legalistic approach was
chosen by Kerry to deal with terrorism.
The military approach incorporates some of the
policy initiatives of the legalistic approach: upgrades in law
enforcement capabilities and widespread defensive measures. But
it sees terrorism as a military operation (i.e., a war) not a
crime. In a war it is appropriate and necessary to take the fight
to the enemy and destroy him: his army, leadership, financing,
base of support, and ultimately his ideology. The military approach
views Islamist-fascists as Nazi-like: we need to destroy their
ideology as well as their physical structure otherwise they regenerate
and attack again.
The military approach is action-oriented. Friends,
allies and international organizations are offered the opportunity
to join with America in our mutual defense. But the final responsibility
lies with the nation that is strong enough to accept the challenge
and deal with the threat as a leader, not as a follower or mere
discussant. Action implies a willingness to take the fight to
the terrorists where ever they may hide, cut off funding from
all sources, eliminate regimes that support and promote terror,
and restructure dysfunctional societies so that they no longer
act as spawning grounds for terrorists themselves.
The military approach is decidedly more ambitious
and far-reaching than the legalistic approach. It requires short-term
sacrifice for long-term peace. This means that costs will have
to be paid in terms of casualties and resources. It is the approach
to fighting terrorism selected by Bush.
The crime approach was used for years under
several presidents. It failed miserably to protect America. The
military approach has been used since 9-11. Since embarking on
the military approach thousands of terrorists have been killed
or captured. Two vicious dictatorships have been overthrown and
a third (Libya) has flipped. Millions of innocents now have the
freedoms that we take for granted. Most significantly America
has not been attacked again.
It’s
your choice: crime or war; Kerry or Bush. CRO
copyright
Gordon Cucullu 2004
§
|
