National Security is the foremost responsibility of the Federal Government.  But, because of the policies we have been pursuing for the past fifty years, we are less secure today than at any time in our history.  

First, it is very important to understand how the Founding Fathers viewed the military.  Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and others, clearly stated that a standing military was ultimately a threat to the freedoms of the Republic.  As General, soon to be President Washington said,

“Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty.”

Further, they were very much opposed to involvement in the affairs of other nations, which they described as “foreign entanglements.”  They were not pacifists, they were pragmatists.  They understood that a standing military threatened not only “republican liberty,” but also led to unacceptable taxation. 

To underscore their mistrust of the military, they were careful to implant in the Constitution a very clear separation of powers between the Legislature (empowered to declare war and provide funding for war) and the Executive (empowered only to prosecute a war). This principle was more or less maintained over the first two centuries of the Republic.  However, the passage of the War Powers Act, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the Iraq War Resolution, has resulted in the Congress ceding the authority assigned to it in the Constitution to the Executive, and the Executive has not only accepted, but expanded Presidential powers to include the power to disregard international treaties which have been approved by the Senate.  So much for the oath our elected officials take to uphold the Constitution.

US military “adventures” go back to the 19th century, with our intervention in Hawaii and the Philippines. Throughout the 20th century, the US military was used dozens of times, in Central and South America, and Asia, to carry out what was essentially an imperial agenda in support of major U.S. and later multinational corporations, first in agriculture, then in minerals, and finally in energy.  The American public did not object first because they were not well informed about what was happening and second because this activity was providing raw materials at artificially low cost, which enabled them to enjoy a higher standard of living at an artificially low cost.

Use of the US military for the benefit of US and multinational corporations, from United Fruit and Standard Oil, to Anaconda and British Petroleum, was the first corruption of our economic system.  That is to say, while we thought we had a capitalist economy, we began to see the emergence of a system where costs are socialized, while profits are privatized.  This phenomenon has steadily expanded in other areas of our economy (bailouts), but as far as the military is concerned, if we included the costs of military operations involved in protecting foreign supplies of petroleum, a gallon of gas would probably cost $10.00.

At the end of World War II, the US faced new foreign policy choices (regarding foreign entanglements) and another choice regarding the role of the military in our society.  We elected our most respected and revered General as President.  By 1960, when he left office, in the speech for which he will be most remember, his “farewell speech,” President Dwight Eisenhower said the following,

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience….In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.  We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.  We should take nothing for granted.”  

It is widely reported that in the original draft of the speech, the most famous phrase was actually written as, “military, Congressional, industrial complex.”  We have heeded neither Washington nor Eisenhower, both accomplished military men and Presidents.  Our failure to do so has led us to where we are today: perpetuallyat war, maintaining over 800 military bases, supporting more than a half a million soldiers and private contractors, in 130 countries around the world.  This position is unsustainable.  It has virtually brought us to the edge of bankruptcy and increased the mistrust and disrespect of nations everywhere.

Clearly what is needed is a new definition of National Security, a new set of policies which will emphasize the use of economic weapons to ensure our safety and influence in the world of the 21st century.  Not only is it not too late to make these adjustments, it is imperative that we do so if we are to avoid real calamity.

This new definition of National Security would incorporate the following priorities:

 ·      Energy Independence – We must set not just a goal, but an immutable mission to make the United States completely energy self-sufficient within ten years.  We have accomplished such projects (Manhattan, Apollo) in the past.  We have the intellectual assets, the technology, and the resources to do this.  All we are lacking is the political will. 

·      Educational Excellence – We must resolve that the math and science skills of U.S. students will be second to none within ten years.

·      Infrastructure Modernization – The dominance of the U.S. economy after WWII is generally credited to the development of an infrastructure for the efficient movement of goods and ideas, from the Interstate Highway system, to the Information Highway system (Internet).  Our new challenge is the construction of the “Super Grid,” to facilitate the realization of our “green energy” economy, which must be completed within ten years.

·      Globalization Reform – We must do the hard work of protecting our economy from manipulation by multinational corporations.  “Free Trade” must be replaced by “Fair Trade,” where competition is based on greater equivalency of labor and environmental costs, and currency values.

·      Buy American – The long and short of it is, we’ve based our economy on consumer goods, we’ve “outsourced” the manufacture of those goods to other countries, and encouraged unhealthy levels of personal debt to support that consumption.  The result is we’ve been sending a significant portion of our income overseas.  We must strip our tax code of all provisions which reward companies who ship jobs overseas.  But not all good policy can be legislated.  In the end, leaders should be encouraging consumers not to participate in the rush to the bottom, always insisting on paying the least amount for a product, regardless of where it was manufactured. 

In short, we must seek to enhance our National Security by strengthening ourselves from within, instead of by imposing our will on others abroad.  Above all, we must recognize that we will never be secure so long as we are dependent on the natural resources and capital of other nations.