]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]      DEFENSE DYNAMICS        [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
                                                           (4/6/1989)
            by Brant Gaede, Freeman 07656GAED, 4/5/89

   Do  you have the right to defend yourself against those who  would
violate  your  rights--i.e., use physical force against  your  person
(and property)?

   If  you do, you have the right to defend yourself with  something.
What?  Whatever would be appropriate.  If monsters popped out of  the
ground  to  gobble  up  your children, you might have  a  few  flame-
throwers handy.

   I hope so.

   As private citizens in this world we  don't need flamethrowers and
H-bombs.  Our armed forces do though, along with airplanes, missiles,
tanks, ships, warriors, etc., in order to protect our rights.  Essen-
tially they  serve the same function as our police.  So do our intel-
ligence gathering and espionage agencies.  (So does our foreign poli-
cy.)  They are our agents who we  control through  our government and
law. They are just as much an expression of our right to self-defense
as the gun we may keep to thwart an intruder.

   (This  is  an ideal model for a  free  society.  Since ours  is  a
mixed-economy,  there are all kinds of perversions, like  the war  on
drugs,  which creates  and subsidizes  the  worst  kind  of  violence
and scum at the expense of our civil liberties.)

   If  we negotiate  with those  who would violate  our  rights  (the 
Soviets), it could only rightfully be done as a stratagem to allow us 
time  to  gain an advantage. This is not, of course,  the attitude of
the West, but of the Soviets.  The democracies  think  disarmament is
the path to peace, as if the ability to effectively  fight, deter and
protect were "provocative."  But as World War II proved, the greatest
provocation is weakness:  perceived, actual or both.

   Disarmament movements in the West are basically led  and  nurtured
by  leftists  who are  more sympathetic to the Soviet Union  and  its
ideology  than an ideology  which is  representative of individualism
and capitalism,  which they consider inherent in their own countries. 
That is why they  want us to burn  down our  houses with  a  possible
winter storm coming on--and throw our clothes on the flames.

   It's  very  possible  that right now the  Soviet  Union  wants  to 
actually   reduce  its  conventional forces in occupied Europe  to  a 
significant  extent--an  extent that will  eliminate its  ability  to 
launch a tank attack on NATO forces on short notice.  There are funny 
things going on in the Soviet Union, but we have to assume the worst,
not  the best.  The worst is that the Soviets really  have   no  such
intention  and  are  trying  to eviscerate NATO militarily to  make a
successful war with  the West more likely. Perhaps Gorbachev actually
wants to eviscerate NATO through negotiations and genuine withdrawals
and constriction of  Warsaw  Pact forces so the Soviet Union can more
effectively  use its  resources  to complete  an unbeatable strategic 
threat to the United States based on offensive and defensive  weapons 
including civil defense.

   If  the Soviet Union threatened the United States with war,  would 
European NATO countries in Europe come to  the aid  of the US even if
they effectively could?

   The  point of all this is the importance of creating and maintain-
ing the ability to defend ourselves no matter what  kind  of horn the
Soviets toot.  If  they really don't  want war with the West, let  us 
encourage  them by making it an impractical  proposition  regardless. 
Above  all, we should not tempt them by making  ourselves  attractive  
targets to a society based on looting, not production.

   As our main antagonist it is important to recognize that the  USSR 
is  at best a second-rate monkey-see, monkey-do country--with  varia-
tions.   It tries to imitate the industries of the West, but  through
centralized  planning.  It has "democratic" elections,  but  no  true 
opposition. It even had its own Vietnam in Afghanistan, oblivious  to 
someone else's hard-learned--or was it?--lesson. I really don't think 
the USSR is competent enough to start WW III, except out of  accident 
or  chaos.  It's too thoroughly ruled by bureaucrats for such a  huge 
undertaking.

   A problem for the US in regards the USSR, however,is that one man, 
Gorbachev, is accumulating more and more power.  If he gets enough to 
overwhelm  the bureaucrats, he or his successor(s) may indeed  become 
able  enough  to take on a weakened West.  The  military  might  take
over (Beckmann) with  the same  result if the many  ethnic  groups of
the USSR threaten the State with actual chaos and  political disinte-
gration  or if the military resents or fears a diminution of its sta-
tus, size, mission, etc.

   The USSR stifles individualism and creativity.  It cannot  conquer 
and   rule   the  West, it can only physically destroy  it.  The  US, 
aside from military strength and the will to use  it if necessary, in 
the defense of its freedoms, which  would include civil defense and a
missile  shield,  should do  everything  to further enhance  personal 
freedoms and productivity. To make this happen is our personal   res-
responsibility as its citizens.  The USSR will soon  enough disappear 
as a world power and threat to our rights if we leave  it to its fate
and never present ourselves as a tempting target.  The Soviets  would 
have to acquire Western values to truly match the West,  which  would 
completely vitiate Communist political power.  

   In   the  Arab-Muslim  world  of  theocratic  states,   individual 
initiative  is even more discouraged than in the USSR.  At least  the 
Soviets   admire  American   technology  and  industry   and  try  to 
emulate them.  These countries by and large live on their oil, primi-
tive agriculture and foreign aid.  Condemned to a lifetime of prayer,
drudgery, boredom or war and envy of the West moving  ever  ahead  in 
technology  and  achievements,  their  citizens  exist  in   horrible 
totalitarian   and  feudal  squalor.  Terrorists can't  build  modern 
jetliners, but  they  can  blow  them up.  These loonies,  armed with
missiles, H-bombs and God-knows-what,  will be with us for some  time 
to come.   For the  most part they will be  (and are)  sponsored  and
protected by specific countries: Libya, Syria, Iran and Iraq.  

   How  the US is to deal with this problem above and beyond  setting 
an example of what a truly free country is--leading the  world by ex-
ample is grossly underrated--is a complicated and difficult question.
There is no point in being nice.  Libya could be used as a convenient 
model.  Send in  the  Marines  and take over.  The  problem with such
action is that  there are sure to be unintended consequences.  Funda-
mentalists, in reaction, might take over Egypt.  Etc.  A good general
principle is that  the least you have  to do  to accomplish what must
be accomplished, in case you are wrong  about what it is that  really
needs to be accomplished, is the best way to go.  Invading  Libya now 
might be better  than taking on  the whole bunch later on.  But  even
less  might  do the job, which is the vitiation of  terrorism,  which 
must not be lost sight of.

   What is clear is how much the West has been encouraging  terrorism 
by  letting Syria, in particular, get away with it.  Syria is  almost 
certainly  responsible for the blowing up of flight 103.  Its  agents 
had    been   previously  captured  in  Europe  with  the   kind   of 
sophisticated detonation device used.  How has Syria paid?

   How has the Soviet Union paid?  Syria is all but its client state.

   Iran is free to attempt the murder a US naval officer's wife in an 
American  city.  What has the US done in retaliation?  Doing  nothing
means that engaging in terrorism is a no lose proposition for terror-
ist nations and encourages more of the same.
 
   This is an interventionist foreign policy. If we intend to protect 
ourselves it is the kind of foreign policy we'll have to use. If   we 
can  tolerate  all  of  Central  America,  including  Mexico,   going 
Communist in the next ten or twenty years, then perhaps a case can be
made for a non-interventionist foreign policy.

   Could we tolerate it if the ideology were Nazism?

   Comments are more than welcome.

                         *     *     *


Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page