BlueRidgeForum

Conservatives throughout America are frustrated with the by now widely recognized Establishment barriers to increasing energy supply, and with gross Establishment permissiveness toward illegal aliens and laxity in securing our borders. Less well known, but quite dangerous, are Establishment indifference or encouragement of multi-culturalism here and here and here, and Establishment nurturing of the expansion of the administrative state here and here and here and here.

But let’s leave consideration of these domestic issues for a few minutes. We all live in a very dangerous world where many other governments and movements are, to put it charitably, uncomfortable with our freedom and prosperity. Because we live in such a dangerous world, the following three recent articles by well-known center-right figures are especially troubling.

Ambassador John Bolton wrote in last Monday’s Wall Street Journal about “The Tragic End of Bush’s North Korea Policy” here:

“With much fanfare and choreography, but little substance, the administration has accepted a North Korean ‘declaration’ about its nuclear program that is narrowly limited, incomplete and almost certainly dishonest in material respects. In exchange, President Bush personally declared that North Korea is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism or an enemy of the United States. In a final flourish, North Korea has undertaken a reverse Potemkin Village act, destroying the antiquated cooling tower of the antiquated Yongbyon reactor.
*****
In the waning days of American presidencies, this theater is the stuff of legacy.But for many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse.”

Former Reagan defense aide Richard Perle last week had a parallel critique in his “Coalition of the Ineffectual” here:

“Building multilateral coalitions entails compromise: to entice countries to join, to keep them on board, to order priorities, to achieve consensus on an action plan. Sometimes the compromises are worth it because the coalition goes on to achieve an objective that we could not possibly have achieved alone. Sometimes they are not, as when members are unwilling or unable to take effective measures and our own freedom of action is encumbered–or worse, when satisfaction at having created a multilateral coalition becomes a substitute for achieving our objective. That is the case as the united multilateral coalition ‘confronts’ Iran.

One can argue whether we alone can prevent an ‘unforgivable betrayal of future generations,’ as President Bush has put it. But the way to develop strategy for doing that begins by recognizing that the multilateral approach is failing. Seven and a half years after denouncing Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a hapless president and his coalition can only look on while the Iranians rush to the finish line.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Also last week, conservative dean Paul Weyrich wrote here about a crucial need in passive defense against a potentially nation-disabling attack from an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP).

The U. S. EMP Commission puts the threat in a nutshell here:

“Briefly, a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiating down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth. EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electromagnetic ’shocking’ of electronics and stressing of electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that ’shocked’—upset, damaged, and destroyed—electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects. The electromagnetic fields produced by weapons designed and deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of damaging electrical power systems, electronics, and information systems upon which American society depends. Their effects on dependent systems and infrastructures could be sufficient to qualify as catastrophic to the Nation.”

Maryland Representative Roscoe Bartlett has been the point man here in calling public and governmental attention to the EMP threat. Dr. Bartlett writes:

“Terrorists, rogue states, China or Russia could acquire—or in some cases already have—the capability to devastate our critical infrastructures, on a scale far greater than Hurricane Katrina, according to the congressional EMP Commission that I established.”
********
“The Commission further concluded that EMP attack is one of the few ways that terrorists or state actors could inflict such catastrophic damage on the United States that the U.S. would cease to exist as a military superpower and as a modern society.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Free Congress CEO Weyrich urged here:

“America needs a plan to carry out the systematic recovery of key infrastructures. We must demonstrate the will and ability to recover from any attack. Toward that end we need a special team which frequently reports to Congress. We need to define the responsibilities of the Federal, state and local governments. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) needs to develop a plan for the country in conjunction with local governments and the Pentagon needs a clear plan to keep the Armed Forces functioning in the event of an attack. DHS must establish a senior leadership position with the accountability, authority and appropriate resources to defend against the most serious threats. Graham says that an EMP attack is a credible, potentially catastrophic threat to the United States. He says that the U.S. strategy should balance prevention, preparation, protection and recovery.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)

Click here to read the public version of the EMP Commission report.

Click here to read Representative Bartlett’s take on a projected “$34 - $770 Billion Blow to the Baltimore-Washington, DC – Richmond Economy from EMP Attack.”

It is not only the Obama Left that longs for a vacation from history, mostly for ideological reasons. We mean, of course, a vacation from the continuing necessity of maintaining sufficient, well trained and equipped forces that can be prudently projected around the globe both to defend ourselves and to keep world commerce safe on the sea lanes, commerce on which everyone’s well-being depends.

During the course of his two terms, the president’s style was not, in plain words and week-in and week-out, to name and spell out the jihadist security threat. Americans did not get regular, blunt progress reports about the president’s road map. The course of our struggle with the jihadists included (and includes) not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Iran and hostile elements in Saudi Arabia. It extends around the world and to our own homes. Partly from the failure of candid presidential guidance, there are otherwise well-intentioned voters on the Right likely seeking an escape from history as well.

Of course, no matter how adequate the military resources, without political will and clarity of vision, no White House can effectively meet the constitutional duty to “provide for the common defense.”

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed