bonzi:

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

wfaulk:

I don't find it amusing in the least. I find it scary. ``Homeland'' is a word they used a lot in that PNAC paper I went on a harague about a while back. In addition, the fact that they use that word at all is scary. If the continental US is the ``homeland'', as I assume, then what else is it that we're defending? This goes hand-in-hand with Bush's use of the phrase ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq in his speech announcing the ultimatum given to Iraq.

Boy, there is no conspiracy theory too far-fetched for you guys!

Let's review the facts.

The newly-formed Department of Homeland Security was formed to address the lack of one umbrella organization to make sure that various departments within the U.S. government are communicating properly. The idea is that if there is accountability straight up to a cabinet position, the CIA, FBI, INS, and dozens of other alphabet organizations will communicate more. It's also designed to bring State and local governments, police forces, etc. into closer, more consistent communication with federal agencies which are tasked with anti-terrorism oversight.

The DoD is, as it has always been, primarily concerned with the U.S. armed forces, for defense of the country in a military sense. The Homeland Security position obviously needs the backing of the armed forces, and if a serious terrorist incident occurs, the armed forces are certainly available. But the DHS didn't suddenly come about because our military is no longer concerned with defending within our borders. It is there because the attacks on 9/11/01 showed a consistent lack of cooperation between various governmental agencies. BOTH the DoD and the DHS are concerned with defending within our borders, and, in fact, both are concerned with matters abroad, as the DHS assuredly gets involved with counterterrorism efforts abroad.

Also, the word "defense" is used throughout the world to mean not only defense within a country's borders, but also defending that country's interests abroad. You guys are acting like the U.S. military is the only military that's ever gone to another country to wage war. Ever heard that the best defense is a good offense? I suppose you had a problem when the U.S. went to the "defense" of European nations during WWII?

You guys are really weakening some otherwise-plausible arguments with ridiculous conspiracy theories. To think that somehow the foundation of the DHS reflects on a shift in the role of the U.S. military is preposterous. If 9/11 didn't happen, there would be no DHS.

While Europe has much to thank US for its role in WWII (quite late role, BTW - US entered the war when, for example, battle for Britain was already won), especially France, I hope you are not implying US did that solely for altruism? Surely, prospect of first Hitler and later Stalin ruling the continent did not look good for American global interests, no?

Yes, and the U.S. is the first country to ever sit on the sidelines of a war because getting involved in the war did not suit its interests, right? Fact is, despite this isolationism, the U.S. was lending economic support prior to entering the war militarily.

Can you blame our country for being hesitant to send troops to Europe after losing so many in WWI? Once the true threat was understood (with France conquered and Britain falling fast) the U.S. realized the Europeans weren't going to be able to solve their own problems, so we reluctantly joined the SECOND war that we had absolutely no hand in creating. How can you on one hand say that the U.S. didn't enter WWII soon enough, and on another hand criticize the U.S. for intervening in other countries' foreign affairs?

Oh, I get it, isolationism and neutrality was a bad thing back then, but now, our desire to protect democracy abroad and stop evil dictators from turning into the NEXT Hitler is bad. What the fuck are we supposed to do to make you happy?

Look, I wanted the U.S. to do more to gain international support for action in Iraq. But the weapons inspection process was a complete sham, and it's very convenient that the countries most opposed to the war were the ones with economic ties to Iraq, including Russia, who has been supplying them with night vision goggles, GPS-jamming equipment, and all sorts of other goodies, in violation of U.N. sanctions. If they're not listening to the U.N., why should we?

Regarding the post-war rebuilding contracts, five American companies were involved in the bidding process that was won by the Haliburton company that Cheney is associated with. Your statement "without bids" is utterly false. While it certainly does look shady, there's no sign that anything illegal or unethical happened in the bidding process. It just looks real bad.

The bottom line is everyone, from the U.S., to France, to Russia, to Dick Cheney, is acting in their own self-interest. But for some reason, it's okay for France to protect their economic ties to Iraq, for Russia to sell munitions to Iraq... But if the U.S. wants to take care of what it sees as a threat, and realizes the rest of the world isn't going to do it, that's no good.. right?