New strategy for national defense

Just before the events of Sept. 11, the United States military had been undergoing a much-needed national debate on what course it will take for securing our defense in the years to come. \nThe U.S. faces new threats in the 21st Century and must be reformed to counter those threats. Now, more than ever, we are faced with the possibility that rogue states and terrorist groups will use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons -- or our own planes as missiles. \nTwo possible paths have emerged in Washington's delayed discussion on military readiness and capabilities. \nOne plan would have the military hold on to its traditional policy of being ready to engage and win two major conflicts in different parts of the world simultaneously. The other, which is being proposed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top military brass, has caused some fierce discussion in conservative circles. It calls for scrapping the two-front war approach and instituting a policy of preparedness for one major war, while also being able to engage in a "holding-action" in another, smaller conflict. \nUnder the traditional plan, our military is structured in such a way that its forces can go full-force and win in two distant lands at the same time. That means we need enough tanks, soldiers, planes, ships and such to take on, for example, both Iraq and North Korea. \nIt's an outdated approach that must be changed.\nThe Rumsfeld proposal describes four areas of military engagement: The ability to "win decisively" one major conflict or war; to defend U.S. soil; to maintain U.S. troop deployments around the world, and to engage in limited, smaller-scale conflicts. Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the Bush defense team are partially right in their analysis of where the military should put its emphasis for change in the coming years.\nMissing from their list is an emphasis on coalition building and diplomacy. Before the conflict in Afghanistan showed the Bush Administration just how wrong it was about the need for the U.S. to be engaged in the international community, the trend from January to September was toward American isolationism. The conservative isolationist foreign policy of the Bush team replaced a Clinton team more willing to involve itself in humanitarian missions, peace negotiations and nation building. Our commitment to these important foreign policy tools was lost in January 2001 and is only being regained -- likely temporarily -- to further our objectives in Afghanistan.\nJust as candidate Bush scorned nation-building, President Bush is doing it in Afghanistan today, with a new government freshly installed. A generally unilateralist approach to foreign policy shifted on Sept. 11.\nAnd just as candidate Bush railed against big, intrusive government, President Bush has overseen massive increases in the federal government's reach into our lives.\nHow does it look to other nations for the U.S. to turn its back to humanitarian missions, peace negotiations, international treaties and other commitments to our allies? Bush would have us pull out of the Balkans, cease negotiations with warring peoples in an effort to find a peaceful resolution, abandon the Kyoto Protocol and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and build a diplomatic wall around our borders.\nAnd how does it look to other nations for the U.S. to turn its back on individual freedoms, supposedly protected by our Constitution? Bush would have our right to a public trial by jury and to be confronted by two sworn witnesses (act of terrorism) taken away.\nLet's fight terrorism with a strong, capable military, backed up with appropriate intelligence and international diplomacy.