False Premise

False Premise
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano

During the Iowa Democrat debate featuring Vice President Al Gore and former Senator Bill Bradley, a question arose that should give any voter reason to pause. A mature woman from the audience, reportedly attending college pursuing a degree in social work, asked both candidates to comment on funding for the military. To paraphrase, she asked, "If we use funds to increase our military, where will we find the needed funds for social programs?"

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the underlying false premise of the question: that strengthening our military is somehow 'bad,' while pouring additional funds into social programs is 'good.'

Both candidates, as well as many of their supporters, fail to realize the grave importance of a strong, alert military. Perhaps the grand failure of the attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in New York City has lulled us into a naive sense of security. Perhaps our ability to wage war against smaller countries has encouraged a sense of military invincibility. Perhaps the horror of the Oklahoma City bombing, having sprung from a homegrown terrorist attack, leads us to believe we are somehow impervious to outside assault.

We are neither invincible nor impervious. Moreover, those who pretend we are do us a gross injustice. If we fail to ensure our security, against international attacks, or foreign or domestic terrorist-based attacks, all other social concerns are moot. If we do not guarantee our very lives, how we plan to live them is meaningless.

Young people will not be attending Midnight Basketball games if a rogue Russian nuclear suitcase bomb incinerates them. The impoverished will not be collecting their government assistance if they are dead from an insidious biological agent. The homeless won't need homes if the city in which they live has been leveled by a terrorist attack.

Even more alarming are Gore and Bradley's support of dangerous policies and treaties. Gore insists that if he wins the White House, he will reintroduce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for ratification by the Senate. Although America might be honorable enough to abide by this treaty, history has shown that other countries probably will not. Gore's assertion should not come as a surprise to anyone, given how the Clinton/Gore Administration has stood virtually silent as China broke every single non-proliferation treaty and promise it ever made during Gore's term as Vice President. If Gore follows the established Clinton pattern, his Administration will parse and excuse these violations or rarely, if ever, impose any remotely resembling a sanction in response.

Both Gore and Bradley support fulfilling our obligations under Start II and aggressively pursing Start III. This will, of course, make all the de-alerting fans happy. They operate under the same flawed logic as the anti-Second Amendment crowd: if no one has guns, then the violence will end. In this case, if no one has nukes, then nuclear war will no longer be a threat.

Digest this for a moment. When you are done laughing at their whimsy, you will realize they are serious. At the point, their plans will cease to be even slightly humorous.

Thankfully, the Republicans are all pledging to rebuild our military. They recognize that a strong military is necessary for our future survival, not just as a country, but as a superpower. Our goal of being able to fight a dual-front war has, sadly, been jeopardized by the continual cutbacks in overall military budget. Does waste exist? Yes, in certain areas. Can we trim that waste? Of course we can, but we should not wield the scalpel against our brave soldiers, forcing them to survive on pitiful pay. Our fleets are operating at 23% lower than basic allowance, our folks are heading out without proper training and equipment, our bases are standing empty -- and that's not even the half of it.

These soldiers have dedicated their existence to ensuring our way of life. Without them, we would not be able to offer the "social programs" necessary to lift people up. Without them, we would not be able to bring stability to unstable areas of the world. Without them, we would not enjoy the very freedoms we preciously claim as our own.

Soldiers deserve not only a Commander-in-Chief who they can be proud of, they deserve a Commander-in-Chief who will treat them with the respect they have earned through their blood, and one who will not pander to known proliferators and enemies of the United States under the guise of "building peace."

Anything less is a betrayal.