THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VII, Issue # 204, September 13, 2005
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY
By Jon Kyle
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: U.S. SENATOR JON KYLE'S POSITIONS ON U.S. MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ, EFFORTS OF ROGUE
STATES TO ACQUIRE & USE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, OUR NEED TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING & EQUIPPING AMERICA'S
ARMED FORCES, & ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF SHORTFALLS IN U.S. INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES
FULL STORY:
The September 11, 2001, Islamist terrorist attacks on the United States of America demonstrated the importance of a strong military
and superior homeland defense for the American nation. The 9-11 terrorist attacks also illustrated that the U.S.A. must develop new
strategies to deal with the twin threats of the 21st century: international terrorism and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and
weapons of mass destruction.
IRAQ: THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR
The strategy outlined by President George W. Bush has been to stop threats before we are attacked. Because of the growing threat
posed by Iraq's then well-documented pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, Congress, in 2002,
overwhelmingly passed a resolution authorizing the President to use military force to (1) defend the national security of the United
States against the threat posed by Iraq and (2) enforce all Iraq-related United Nations Security Council resolutions.
At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein had agreed to terms contained in a cease-fire resolution approved by the United
Nations. For the 12 years that followed, he willfully and repeatedly violated those terms, and the United Nations responded by
passing more resolutions -- resolutions revamping sanctions, calling for new inspections, and vowing unspecified "consequences"
if Saddam continued his violations. Time after time, Saddam refused to comply with the United Nations. Ultimately, military action
was the only remaining option available to eliminate the threat posed by his aggressive and dictatorial political regime.
Some question the decision to remove Saddam Hussein, given that large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons were not
found. But the inability to find WMD stockpiles now does not mean that Iraq didn't have access to such weapons or that, under
Saddam Hussein, Iraq was not a grave and gathering danger. While it is troubling that our intelligence failed in its assessment of
Hussein's weapons programs, the fact remains that we know with certainty he once had them, and he used them twice. The gassing
of the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds showed the lengths to which he was willing to go to achieve his objectives. The Bush
administration, supported by a large coalition of nation-states, pursued a responsible policy, given all of the information it had
regarding Saddam's history, aggressive intentions, violations of international law, and previously known capabilities.
Today, the United States and its coalition allies have undertaken an ambitious mission: the fostering of a free and prosperous
constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East. We seek to offer freedom and hope to a world where tyranny and terror
are the only things many people have ever known.
It is undeniable that progress is being made. On June 28, 2004, with Saddam Hussein gone from power, sovereignty was
transferred to the people of Iraq. In January of 2005, despite the threats made by insurgents and terrorists, and in the face of
those who predicted failure, the Iraqi people voted in their first democratic elections in their entire history. No clearer rejection of
terrorism or terrorist groups could be sent than by the long lines of people who defied terrorists and patiently waited to vote, and
raised ink-stained fingers in celebration.
Iraq's proposed Constitution has been drafted and is to be submitted to the Iraqi people for ratification in a general referendum held
no later than October 15, 2005.
If we are to continue as good stewards to Iraq, we must continue to stand by and guide that country, as it works to solve its
remaining fundamental political, legal, and constitutional problems and as it takes its place among the free countries of the world.
DEFENDING AGAINST THE THREAT OF WMD PROLIFERATION
Perhaps the greatest threat the United States of America faces today lies in the nexus between terrorist groups, weapons of mass
destruction, and sovereign states that, either because of ideological conformity with terrorists, or simply out of convenience,
would be willing to unite the two. In that regard, North Korea's and Iran's nuclear weapons programs are significant challenges
facing the U.S.A. and the international community.
In North Korea, the U.S.A. and the international community are faced with a despotic political regime that already possesses
nuclear weapons. North Korea has violated every agreement it has ever signed regarding its nuclear programs, including the 1994
Agreed Framework that awarded to North Korea generous economic incentives in return for a promise to abandon its nuclear
weapons program. It is clear that negotiating with Kim Jong Il has failed and resulted in a nuclear North Korea that is now
attempting to extort even more from the international community.
There are a number of measures still available to deal with North Korea, measures short of military action. Once implemented,
these actions will likely create an environment in which North Korea will either have to agree to halt and dismantle its nuclear
program, or face economic collapse. This approach should combine economic isolation of the North Korean government by the
U.S.A. and its allies, while reaching out to the North Korean people.
With respect to Iran and the threat it is posing, Iran, since its Islamic revolution in 1979, has never ceased its calls for the
destruction of Israel. Now, it has become the primary ideological, financial and logistical supporter of terrorists seeking to
attack the the U.S.A. and the West in the name of their distorted version of Islam.
Iran is also on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. While the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran is clear, we continue to
support diplomatic efforts to divert Iran from its destructive and threatening course. However, talk for the sake of talk is not
enough. Iran must demonstrate clearly its willingness to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, or face consequences for its action.
To this end, I cosponsored a U.S. Senate resolution which passed in July, 2004, a resolution expressing the concerns of the
Senate about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and urging that measures, such as referral from the International Atomic Energy
Agency Board of Governors to the United Nations Security Council, be taken to bring Iran into compliance with the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty.
The proliferation of ballistic missiles, which can carry nuclear, chemical or biological payloads, is also of serious concern.
Roughly two dozen countries, including North Korea and Iran, now have or are developing ballistic missiles. These countries
have ballistic missiles capable of striking our allies and U.S. military forces abroad, and are developing longer-range capabilities.
And we believe that North Korea's Taepo-Dong II missile is capable of reaching the continental United States. Unfortunately,
the U.S.A. does not yet have an operational defense against an accidental or deliberate missile launch, and is vulnerable to
blackmail intended to freeze us into inaction by the very threat of missile attack.
President Bush is determined to end this vulnerability and, indeed, we have made great progress toward that objective. In June,
2002, the President withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which prevented the U.S.A.
from developing and deploying missile defenses. I led the Senate fight to scrap that obsolete treaty with a country that no
longer existed -- the Soviet Union -- and deploy missile defenses as soon as possible. I am thus pleased to report that we are
moving forward with plans to begin operating an initial set of missile defense capabilities this year that will include
ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space.
U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and building a missile defense are just two aspects of a new overall approach to strategic
security, which also includes major reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. As we decrease the size of that arsenal, it will be
important to test our remaining nuclear weapons to ensure their safety and reliability. Without actual nuclear testing, it will
become difficult to maintain, let alone modernize, our reduced nuclear arsenal.
ENSURING THAT OUR TROOPS ARE WELL EQUIPPED & BETTER PAID
As the men and women in our military forces courageously fight the enemies of freedom throughout the world, we must ensure
that they have the resources necessary to carry out their missions. Congress has approved successive increases of the U.S.
defense budget over the past four years. These increases have provided pay raises for military personnel, and additional
funding for health care for active duty personnel and their families, counterterrorism programs to protect the U.S. homeland,
research on missile defense, and the procurement of badly needed defense equipment. Congress has also passed emergency
appropriations to help support continued operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The families of those servicemen and servicewomen who make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation should also receive
more of our support. To that end, I am gratified that the 2005 Defense Supplemental Appropriations bill that was signed into law
by President Bush in May, 2005, includes a provision I cosponsored increasing the death gratuity paid to families who lose a
loved one in combat.
I strongly support the President's call for additional increases in defense spending over the next five years to further improve
conditions for our men and women in uniform and to give them the training and equipment they will need to protect the United
States and defeat terrorism.
ADDRESSING SHORTFALLS IN INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES
If we are to identify and defend against future terrorist attacks, we must have a first-rate intelligence capability. That requires a
reevaluation of our intelligence-gathering activities worldwide. The United States had no direct warning of the the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, though they were planned far in advance. As a senior member of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, I participated in a joint Senate-House investigation to identify shortcomings in our intelligence community
and develop solutions to fix the problems. We held a series of hearings and ultimately generated legislation to reorganize U.S.
intelligence agencies.
With the passing of sweeping intelligence reform legislation in 2004, the United States government has undertaken the difficult
task of reorganizing and optimizing its intelligence gathering, analysis, and dissemination functions. A new National
Intelligence Director, Ambassador John Negroponte, has assumed oversight of the entire intelligence community this year.
Congress must provide strong oversight to ensure that the intelligence community not only reorganizes but finally reforms the
practices and attitudes that, for too long, have undermined our capabilities.
The U.S. government has no higher responsibility than protecting its citizens. I will continue to fight to ensure that our
defenses are strong and our military forces are equipped to defend our interests at home and abroad.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
Military Defense & National Security
Military Weaponry & International Security
U.S. Intelligence & America's National Security
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Islanist Terrorism & U.S. Homeland Security
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
U.S. National Security Strategy
Jon Kyle is a Republican member of the U.S. Senate, elected from and representing the State of Arizona.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VII, 2005
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues