Musical Chairs
By Jermaine Smith
With the November election edging closer and the White House up for grabs, President Bush took aim at solidifying the military vote with a quizzical move.
The president offered a new plan to decrease the number of troops abroad, instead stationing them domestically for longer periods, with the possibility of re-stationing in the future. Though many military men and women abroad and their families will receive this proposal well, it may prove disadvantageous to national security. The death toll of American soldiers since the start of the war on terrorism has now reached nearly one thousand, and certainly played a role in the President’s decision to remove troops from locations where they appear obsolete. Nevertheless, if President Bush hopes to remain strong on national security and the war on terror, he may be setting himself up for defeat.
The president’s proposal is most problematic in two strategically important areas: Europe and Asia, most notably South Korea. In the midst of a delicate series of conversations with North Korea regarding their nuclear weapons program, President Bush wishes to gradually remove troops from South Korea. This move certainly conflicts with the invasion of Iraq, as there is more empirical evidence of a nuclear weapons program in North Korea than there was in Iraq, where the administration relied more heavily on intelligence gathering and guesswork. In contrast, decreasing troops in Europe will not affect them in a military aspect. Nevertheless, it will exacerbate existing problems over foreign policy, while negatively affecting those economies of our allies’ which center around U.S. military bases abroad.
However, if President Bush insists on adjusting the troops’ positioning, perhaps a better solution than bringing them home would be reassignment to Iraq. U.S. forces in Iraq can use the extra assistance and a few thousand extra soldiers walking the streets of Baghdad would help restore order, particularly around election time. The lack of proper American military presence has directly contributed to the steady loss of lives in Iraq, and this measure would help to counter that trend.
The timing of President Bush’s recommendation lends itself to further criticism and speculation. Given the fast-approaching election, the effort to appeal to military voters appears to be the key motive, rather than national security. President Bush has a clear hard-line stance on the war on terror; he is similarly unyielding regarding the defense of democracy, ridding the world of dictatorships and regulating weapons of mass destruction. However, Kim Jong-il, an infamous dictator in his own right, has led North Korea to openly defy the international regulations concerning nuclear arms and recently ended talks to freeze their weapons program.
This shift of soldiers is not an entirely new philosophy, but its timing is certainly questionable. In defense of the shift, removal of soldiers from Germany will likely have minimal effect. Many of those military plans were remnants of the Cold War, which effectively ended with the fall of the Berlin wall. By decreasing troops in both Europe and South Korea, the military hopes to allow for quicker deployment in future conflicts. This strategy would be particularly useful in a war on terror, where the enemy lies not in one set area but many. President Bush’s plan is simply the practical manifestation of such a policy.
Most likely, President Bush will get his wish with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lending his support to the cause. The true value of this new “lily pad” approach will eventually reveal itself, but in the meantime, President Bush will score thousands of votes from military families domestically – not to mention abroad. Still, the question remains: is the presidency worth effectively ignoring a member of the “axis of evil?” President Bush votes yes.
By Jermaine Smith
With the November election edging closer and the White House up for grabs, President Bush took aim at solidifying the military vote with a quizzical move.
The president offered a new plan to decrease the number of troops abroad, instead stationing them domestically for longer periods, with the possibility of re-stationing in the future. Though many military men and women abroad and their families will receive this proposal well, it may prove disadvantageous to national security. The death toll of American soldiers since the start of the war on terrorism has now reached nearly one thousand, and certainly played a role in the President’s decision to remove troops from locations where they appear obsolete. Nevertheless, if President Bush hopes to remain strong on national security and the war on terror, he may be setting himself up for defeat.
The president’s proposal is most problematic in two strategically important areas: Europe and Asia, most notably South Korea. In the midst of a delicate series of conversations with North Korea regarding their nuclear weapons program, President Bush wishes to gradually remove troops from South Korea. This move certainly conflicts with the invasion of Iraq, as there is more empirical evidence of a nuclear weapons program in North Korea than there was in Iraq, where the administration relied more heavily on intelligence gathering and guesswork. In contrast, decreasing troops in Europe will not affect them in a military aspect. Nevertheless, it will exacerbate existing problems over foreign policy, while negatively affecting those economies of our allies’ which center around U.S. military bases abroad.
However, if President Bush insists on adjusting the troops’ positioning, perhaps a better solution than bringing them home would be reassignment to Iraq. U.S. forces in Iraq can use the extra assistance and a few thousand extra soldiers walking the streets of Baghdad would help restore order, particularly around election time. The lack of proper American military presence has directly contributed to the steady loss of lives in Iraq, and this measure would help to counter that trend.
The timing of President Bush’s recommendation lends itself to further criticism and speculation. Given the fast-approaching election, the effort to appeal to military voters appears to be the key motive, rather than national security. President Bush has a clear hard-line stance on the war on terror; he is similarly unyielding regarding the defense of democracy, ridding the world of dictatorships and regulating weapons of mass destruction. However, Kim Jong-il, an infamous dictator in his own right, has led North Korea to openly defy the international regulations concerning nuclear arms and recently ended talks to freeze their weapons program.
This shift of soldiers is not an entirely new philosophy, but its timing is certainly questionable. In defense of the shift, removal of soldiers from Germany will likely have minimal effect. Many of those military plans were remnants of the Cold War, which effectively ended with the fall of the Berlin wall. By decreasing troops in both Europe and South Korea, the military hopes to allow for quicker deployment in future conflicts. This strategy would be particularly useful in a war on terror, where the enemy lies not in one set area but many. President Bush’s plan is simply the practical manifestation of such a policy.
Most likely, President Bush will get his wish with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lending his support to the cause. The true value of this new “lily pad” approach will eventually reveal itself, but in the meantime, President Bush will score thousands of votes from military families domestically – not to mention abroad. Still, the question remains: is the presidency worth effectively ignoring a member of the “axis of evil?” President Bush votes yes.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home