Liberty Just in Case

A Dialogue for the September 12th World

National Security Strategy 2006

Posted by Mark on March 17, 2006

An important document was released yesterday. Considering the trouble I had finding it, I thought a link would be helpful.
Now, I want to know which part of this those on the left disagree with:

I. Overview of America’s National Security Strategy
It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements
institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny
world. In the world today, the fundamental character of regimes matters as much
distribution of power among them. The goal of our statecraft is to help create
democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and
themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide
enduring security for the American people.
Achieving this goal is the work of generations. The United States is in the early
a long struggle, similar to what our country faced in the early years of the Cold
20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over the threats of fascism and
communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded
secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion. Its content may
from the ideologies of the last century, but its means are similar: intolerance,
terror, enslavement, and repression.
Like those who came before us, we must lay the foundations and build the institutions
that our country needs to meet the challenges we face. The chapters that follow
focus on several essential tasks. The United States must:
• Champion aspirations for human dignity;
• Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks
and our friends;
• Work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
• Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with
mass destruction (WMD);
• Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free
• Expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure
of democracy;
• Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global
• Transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges
opportunities of the 21st century; and
• Engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization.

A remarkable document. Let me know what you disagree with. I’m sure the Defeatocrats have a plan similar to this, and will reveal it before the November elections…then again, maybe not.

2 Responses to “National Security Strategy 2006”

  1. Anonymous Libertarian said

    We disagree with the implied, but unstated, premise that Bush is actually trying to do any of this.

    He slashed funding for programs to recover rogue nukes and prevent Russian nukes from being sold on the black market. So much for “• Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with
    mass destruction (WMD);”

    He’s presided over the worst economic situation in the US since the 1970s. So much for “• Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free”

    He’s damaging democracy in the US by refusing to support voter-verified paper ballots; meanwhile, he supports the absolute monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE without question, while failing to install a functioning democratic government in Iraq (and indeed continuing to operate the US military without consultation with the new government), while failing to put in the resources necessary to back up democracy in Afghanistan (where the government now controls only Kabul). So much for “• Expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure
    of democracy;”

    He’s alienated all of America’s traditional allies. So much for “• Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global”…

    And so much for “• Work with others to defuse regional conflicts;” — speaking of which, he’s caused a regional conflict in Iraq, and failed to support an African effort to defuse one in the Sudan —

    And so much for “• Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks
    and our friends;” — speaking of which, he’s the President who let 9/11 happen, and since then our friends (Spain, Britain) *have* been attacked, and incidentally he still hasn’t caught Osama bin Laden.

    And as for this one:
    “• Champion aspirations for human dignity;”,
    good grief. The administration which is responsible for Abu Ghraib, which still hasn’t punished the high-level commanders who knew and tolerated it (and in some cases encouraged it), which is responsible for the pro-torture memos pushed throughout the government, which is trying to avoid applying the Geneva Conventions to prisoners,…. this is a joke, right?

    A remarkable document, in that it advocates a bunch of things which can only be done if the primary obstacle, the Bush administration, is removed.

    “Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded [not in]
    secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion. Its content may [differ]
    from the ideologies of the last century, but its means are similar: intolerance,
    terror, enslavement, and repression.”

    That would be the so-called Christian right, I guess. Consider George H. W. Bush’s statement “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” We effectively have a religious test for office in this country now; and the government is funding religious sects under the guise of “faith-based” programs. How about the President’s repeated claims that opposition to him is support for the terrorists? Intolerance anyone? How about the administration’s attempt to silence the people who exposed its breaking the FISA law? How about “free speech zones”? How about the pre-screening of audiences (to weed out non-Republicans) for *government-funded* publicity events? How about attempting to silence government scientists for giving their scientific opinions? Repression anyone? They actually oppose the HPV vaccine because they think it might encourage premarital sex (which is ludicrous) — they want to restrict access to contraception — all their policies indicate that they want women who have sex to be punished by death.

    Sure, they haven’t enslaved anyone yet. But their rhetoric, calling for “Bible-based” law to be enforced on everyone, differs not at all from the Taliban’s, except for the minor detail of being “Christian” rather than “Muslim”. Ever listened to Pat “let’s assassinate him” Robertson? If they actually mean what they say — watch out.

    The Christofascists are like peas in a pod with the Islamofascists. (There are also some Judeofascists in Likud and the “ultra-right-wing” parties in Israel.) The difference is that the Christofascists have way more power, since they’re running the US Government.

  2. Matthew said

    Anon,
    Who is WE? as in “We disagree with the implied, but unstated, premise that Bush is actually trying to do any of this.” Who is the we in that statement, just curous… Is athat all Anons everywhere? or just the cowardly ones?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: