National Security Must Be Progressive

National Security Must Be Progressive

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Lynden Tribune

Rick Larsen, Guest Editorial

Americans faces two great threats to our national security: terrorism driven by Islamic fundamentalism and the proliferation of dangerous weapons and the materials to make them.

America must return to the traditional tough-minded and progressive approach to building alliances and getting others to share the burden to address these threats. Just as the preservation of freedom at home is a common project, preserving and creating freedom abroad is a common endeavor Americans can ill-afford to neglect.

The greatest national security threat to the United States, particularly in this age of terrorism, is poorly secured weapons of mass destruction (WMD), WMD materials, and WMD expertise. Over the last 12 years, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Initiative (CTRI) has led to the deactivation of thousands of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles in the former Soviet Union. By eliminating the threat of nuclear, the CTRI has enhanced every American's security by keeping these weapons out of terrorists' hands.

America must stay committed to bringing terrorists to justice. Preventing terrorist attacks will take years of "patient and unspectacular work," as one commentator put it. Osama Bin Laden is still wanted, dead or alive. The Al-Qaeda organization is much more difficult to get at than ever before. They still want to kill Americans. We must support our military and the use of force to defeat terrorists.

There is much work left to do in Iraq. Our women and men in the military have rehabilitated schools and reopened hospitals, yet electricity to power the country still falls short causing frustration and slowed economic reconstruction.
Security is the number one need in Iraq. Against an active insurgency, the 140,000 U.S. military on the ground in Iraq need the resources to help them do their jobs. That is why I supported our troops by getting them the body armor to protect themselves and ensuring additional pay for time served in Iraq.

It is also why I have called for more effort to garner international assistance. The United States military and the United States taxpayer are carrying too much of the burden in Iraq. Americans ought to expect our elected officials to do everything necessary to lessen that burden by getting allies to share the load.

We can never fully repay the sacrifices of our women and men in the military. However, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I believe that Congress must provide adequate pay, appropriate housing, and weapons to those who protect our nation. For this reason, I have strongly supported every pay increase proposed for our troops and will continue to fight for improvements to their quality of life.

Today's woman or man in the military reminds us of all those who have defended our freedoms. I am maintaining my commitment to our veterans by fighting for their health care, retirement and disability benefits, and the pension that goes to the survivor of a deceased veteran.

A final word closer to home: The Navy homeport in Everett and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island are two of our greatest assets to enhance our national security. Next year the president will recommend closing military bases around the country. I am confident that our bases will escape the chopping block. It is important, though, to defend these homes of our sailors as they protect our homes.

I am working to combine America's power with its values to maintain our security and defend our interests abroad. Our country must move away from creeping isolation from the rest of the world and engage with its allies on any number of critical issues to ensure our progressive ideals take root beyond our shores to enhance our national security.