- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,059
I dislike this proposal as much as anyone and frankly dislike much of what this administration is doing as much as anyone, but give me a break! Having read this - you really have to be a conspiracy buff to believe that what the president is calling for in the speech Steve Holt posted is a paramilitary force or some nefarious "security force" . Clearly he is making a fairly sophisticated analysis of national security concerns and RIGHTLY- as virtually every professional soldier recognizes- asserting that national security in general and indeed success in the current wars is a function that requires assets, resources and expertise from various sources military and nonmilitary. Ditto domestic "security". FEMA for example in New Orleans was an utter disaster. Admiral Allen came in and did much to rescue that miserable response - but what really changed was that you had a professional command and control structure put in place and a guy who knew how to run a complex organization with multiple different civilian logistic, economic and legal assets required. It wasn't a military problem per se- it was an experience, resources and competency problem. Why shouldn't the government have recourse to non military people with the capability, competence and experience to do the same?
Whether you are a supporter of the President or a vociferous critic of this or all of his proposals- it certainly doesn't add much to your credibility when you approach this from the "area 51" or "Elvis is alive and living on Mars" perspective. Judge it on the efficiency (or utter lack thereof IMHO) of most government programs- it seems pretty darn easy to shoot holes in the proposal based on that perspective without resorting to the off the wall insinuations being thrown around here.
With that- I join Steve Holt and bow out- keep it civil and respectful folks and post away to your heart's content.
Whether you are a supporter of the President or a vociferous critic of this or all of his proposals- it certainly doesn't add much to your credibility when you approach this from the "area 51" or "Elvis is alive and living on Mars" perspective. Judge it on the efficiency (or utter lack thereof IMHO) of most government programs- it seems pretty darn easy to shoot holes in the proposal based on that perspective without resorting to the off the wall insinuations being thrown around here.
With that- I join Steve Holt and bow out- keep it civil and respectful folks and post away to your heart's content.