At any rate, McCain's chances elsewhere in the south aren't exactly favorable (except possibly in Florida, which really isn't 'south'), but he did manage to deprive the other non-conservative, Huckabee, from another gold medal in his own territory. The case could be made that he-or both-deprived Fred of the sort of showing he needed to eventually prevail. Well, maybe, but there are 44 states to go yet. Yes, he's an underdog. What a surprise, eh, considering how Fred's largely been frozen out by the DBM-and how bout those bogus polls? That's certainly not all of it, but it's hardly insignificant to how things have played out to date-consider the nature of the IA, NH, and MI contests, speaking of bogus. I find the nominating process annoying and ridiculous-but there's no point in bitterness. Determination and keeping faith that, even if it doesn't work out for Fred, it won't a non-conservative like McCain or Huckabee who wins the nomination-I'll focus on that.
In that spirit, I will continue this series on Fred's 'white papers' with the related follow-up, noted in the post title:
The threats to the United States today are more complex, dispersed, and opportunistic than ever before. Terrorists and terror states observe no rules and have no restraints of conscience. The enemy understands only the language of power. While the central front in the war against Islamic extremism is in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is clear that our enemies extend far beyond those borders. The gravest danger is terrorists or terrorist states acquiring weapons of mass destruction. But other, more traditional, more conventional challenges await us as well. To overcome these dangers, we need a clear and consistent strategy to address them, and the means to be successful.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, many falsely assumed that unquestioned American military superiority was unneeded. Indeed, many Democrats saw the 1990s as an opportunity to take a holiday from history, and as a consequence, our government began one of the largest unilateral reductions of military power in history. Our Armed Forces were cut 30 percent on average. Army combat power was reduced by nearly half, the Air Force down-sized considerably, and the Navy could not maintain 300 ships, much less the 600-ship Navy that President Reagan once envisioned. We are still feeling the effect of these reductions today.
No one will ever doubt the quality of those who serve our nation in the Armed Forces. The brave men and women who comprise our military have answered every call to duty and defended our freedom with honor. During my days in the Senate, I had the privilege to spend time with them as I traveled abroad to meet with world leaders, visit global hotspots, and gain a better understanding of events on the ground in far-away places. Whether at an outpost in Kosovo with U.S. Army troops; watching flight operations with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aboard an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean; meeting at a darkened Afghan airfield with special operations forces shortly after 9/11; or flying aboard a cargo aircraft with the U.S. Air Force in South America and South Asia. I am always inspired by the courage, competence, and commitment of our men and women in uniform.
But we are fighting a war in two theaters today, against an enemy not bound by borders, using 20th century equipment in a 21st century war. And our material support for our troops has not matched the demands we have placed on them. Their readiness and capabilities could soon be in doubt. We simply have been asking too few troops to do too much for too long.
The rest is definitely worth a read; it's clearly very well thought out. I keep firmly in mind the fact that without our country we would have no freedom, and without security, at some point we'll have no country. I think that's well worth keeping in mind.
