From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:
What is the biggest threat to the national security of the United States?
There are several nominees for the position. In the post-9/11 world, it used to be incontestable that the prize goes to al-Qaeda. No more. That the former head of the CIA, David Petraeus, could openly call for an alliance with the heirs of Osama bin Laden is proof positive, in my view, that the baton has been passed to other entrants.
Okay, then, what about ISIS, a.k.a. the “Islamic State”? Surely these head-choppers, whose brutal crimes make al-Qaeda look “moderate,” qualify for the prize? Well, not exactly, at least in the estimation of our wise rulers, since a) US-supported Syrian rebels of an Islamist bent have regularly defected to the Islamic State’s ranks, demonstrating that the line between friend and foe is blurry at best, and b) Russia’s entry into the fight against the self-proclaimed “Caliphate,” far from being welcomed by Washington, has elicited denunciations from US government officials and politicians of all stripes, on the grounds that they’re poaching on our territory, as well as making no distinction between alleged“moderates” and the Islamic State.
If ISIS were indeed the main danger to US national security, then wouldn’t we welcome the Russian initiative?
Which leads us to our third candidate, which is Russia itself, and specifically Vladimir Putin’s Russia – because prior to the Russian leader’s rise to power, the former Soviet Union was considered a spent force. However, under Putin – who is routinely demonized as the second coming of Stalin – a vastly shrunken Russia is now characterized as a “revisionist” power which seeks to reclaim its lost empire by any means necessary. A nation with a rapidly falling birth rate, an economy that is on the skids, and a level of public health that is far below what it was during the Soviet era, is now being held up as the main obstacle to American military and ideological primacy across the globe.
How credible is that?
Another nominee for Biggest Threat is China, in spite of the fact that the Chinese military budget is a small fraction of our own, and in direct contradiction to China’s actual record, which clearly shows that its territorial ambitions don’t extend much beyond the South China Sea. Yet our alarmists contend that, due merely to its population and its rising economic power, China represents a dire threat to the US.
The reality is far different, however: the Chinese are supremely uninterested in projecting power beyond their borders, choosing to concentrate instead on the goal of raising their standard of living. “To get rich is glorious,” said Deng Xiaoping, the late Chinese leader who supplanted Mao as the chief ideologist and “Great Helmsman” of the post-Mao era, and certainly the Chinese have taken him up on his challenge: the nation’s industry and technological development has undergone unparalleled growth. The Chinese are too preoccupied with their own internal affairs – including, I might add, the fragility of the Communist Party’s hold on power – to bother with empire-building. They have enough on their plate.
None of these alleged threats to the United States measure up to their billing: the terrorist threat was always inflated, and has since abated with the shrinkage of al-Qaeda. The Russians are a ramshackle remnant of their former glory, and the Chinese are wisely more concerned with economic than military matters.
We should emulate the Chinese in their fiscal focus, since the real threat to our national security is economic rather than any external military peril. Admiral Michael Mullen, former head of the joint chiefs of staff, was on target when he identified the soaring national debt – now standing at $20 trillion – as the biggest threat we must confront before it’s too late.
To continue reading: The Enemy Within?
