Vietnam Redux

“The American response during the enemy offensive was timely, forceful and decisive. This staunch resolve of the U.S. to stand behind its ally stunned the enemy.” LTG Ngo Quanq Truong, Army of the Republic of Vietnam, 1972

“It is a fact that in the United States all the press, the media and intellectuals have a vested interest in our defeat.” Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, 1974

“. . . perhaps the major lesson of the Vietnam war is: do not rely on the United States as an ally.” Sir Robert Thompson, one of Britain’s leading experts on counterinsurgency, 1974.

Yesterday (October 18), George Stephanopoulos, in an interview with President Bush, asked if the current increase in violence in Iraq is comparable to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. His question deserves an answer.

In the minds of many liberals, invoking Tet is the ultimate trump card to prove that the U.S. cannot, perhaps should not, win any war in the third world. In this, they are right that the lessons of Vietnam should be applied to Iraq. But, they are totally wrong in both fact and interpretation of what those lessons are.

The quotes above summarize the path of the Vietnam War and, regrettably, the path that we seem to be taking in Iraq.

In February 1968, North Vietnam violated the lunar New Year cease fire agreement and launched a massive attack throughout South Vietnam. Their goal was to spark a local uprising to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. In spite of some brief territorial gains, most notably in Saigon and Hue, the attack was a total failure. The local uprising in support of the North did not occur, the communist infrastructure established in the South was eliminated, and at the end of the battles, the casualties suffered by the North Vietnamese were more than 100 percent of the original attacking forces.

More importantly, Tet was such a major setback to North Vietnam’s ability to wage war in the South, that it would take another four years before the North could restore the capability to do so. By the end of 1971, 95 percent of the population of the South supported their government, agricultural production was at historically high levels, the communists were confined to small enclaves in the jungle, and one could travel almost anywhere in South Vietnam in security. I know. I was there.

By most accepted definitions, the war had been won and the peace was fairly nearly won.

But, Tet was portrayed as a defeat for the American effort by the media and that view was adopted by a large segment of our country. Indeed, it has entered the conventional wisdom as a symbol of the futility of exercising American power.

The political climate that emerged from such a biased view, led to precipitous withdraw of American forces based upon unilateral timetables that bore no relationship to what was actually happening in Vietnam. (Sound familiar?)

In 1968’s Tet battles, the US had 543,400 military personnel in South Vietnam. The politically imposed reductions lowered that number by more than 90 percent to 49,000 by early 1972. In spite of those reductions, a dramatic shift in the tactics used by the U.S. forces and acceleration in training and empowering the South Vietnamese military helped secure the peace after Tet.

The reductions in US force levels were accompanied by promises to the South Vietnamese that the US would continue to support their country with supplies and air support. That promise was to be tested in Easter 1972.

On March 30, 1972, North Vietnam launched a conventional invasion of the South which, in terms of manpower, was larger than the 1968 Tet Offensive. Every combat division and independent brigade in the North Vietnamese army was committed. The South Vietnamese army faced them standing alone on the ground; there were no American troops to help them. They were helped only by continued supplies and available American airpower. (As an aside, my tour in Vietnam ended just a month before this offensive began. I was intimately familiar with many of the areas of conflict and followed it in great detail—my friends were still there.)

The results were the same as in 1968. South Vietnam, without US troops at their side this time, massively defeated the North. The Republic of Vietnam had turned back the communist invasion and was still in control of its territory. America’s quest to help an ally obtain freedom was almost accomplished. And, our fidelity was appreciated, as seen by the first quote above.

But, this victory was not reported in America. To the extent it was covered at all, the reporting was critical of the South and, especially, of continued US support of a “doomed” cause.

Political pressure to withdraw the US at any cost continued to mount, forcing a peace accord in 1974 that all parties knew at the time was a sham; North Vietnam would not honor any commitments it had made. Knowing that future attacks were certain to occur, the US promised South Vietnam that it would continue to provide military aid and air support in the case of another invasion.

The Congress didn’t care, it only wanted out. Treaty commitments were ignored. Promised aid was not forthcoming. South Vietnamese military supplies were so limited that, in some units, bullets were issued to the soldiers one at a time. When the inevitable invasion occurred in 1975, the South was truly alone; the US reneged on every promise of support that it had made.

Even though the invading forces of 1975 were no more powerful than those of 1972, this time they won handily.

Who can forget the images of the final day of Saigon’s fall? The rooftops were covered with those who had believed that the American Dream of freedom could be theirs. Their arms were raised to the heavens, some holding children. Those arms were not raised in prayer to God, but in unanswered prayer to the fleeing US helicopters that they not be abandoned.

The South Vietnamese lost their struggle to be free, and the cost of their defeat was high. The armed forces lost 275,000 killed in action. Another 465,000 civilians lost their lives; many were assassinated by the Viet Cong and others fell to the indiscriminate shelling of cities by the North. More than two million were driven from their country. Of those who stayed, an estimated 315,000 were either executed outright or killed in the vicious “reeducation” camps set up by their “liberators”.

I fear that my country is traveling down the same ignominious path that it trod three decades ago. Once again, we are trying to help the people of a country to be free and in control of their own land. Once again, we have many influential voices who have staked their political future to an American failure. And again, they are using the same tactics that they used in Vietnam to twist the facts, distort the accomplishments, and ignore the implications for those we are trying to help.

If they succeed in their efforts to get America to withdraw from the struggle, the strategic implications for the Middle East and impact on the US will be dire. But, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have joined with the US to fight for freedom and democracy in their country won’t care. They will be dead; killed, like others before them, for putting their trust in a country that is not bound by its own promises.

The combat troops of Vietnam shared an attitude that is common with the troops of today in Iraq: the cause of freedom is a worthy one and the people we are trying to help deserve that help.

It’s a shame that too many of our political leaders don’t agree.

What's Going On?

Today's Washington Post and National Public Radio share the same headline: "U.S. Casualties in Iraq Rise Sharply". The basis for this is the fact that 776 wounded U.S. troops in September is the fourth highest total since the war began in 2003.

These publications, along with the other "mainstream" media such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN make much of the 2,700 U.S. killed since the start of the war. Each week the death count finds its way into the headlines in some form. Periodically, many of them will post photos of the young men and women who have died.

I'm sure that these numbers are accurate. But, have you noticed that these same media sources:

• Almost never mention the number of enemy casualties?
  
• Almost never mention any successes achieved by the coalition forces?
  
• Almost never mention the many acts of individual heroism and awards for valor?

What does 2,700 deaths mean without placing them in the context of what is being achieved at such a cost? Yes, each death breaks the heart of a family for evermore. But, from the viewpoint of a nation, such a number doesn't tell us very much in isolation. For example:

• 2,700 deaths equal about three months of fighting during the height of the Vietnam War.
  
• 2,700 deaths equal a half a day of fighting during the Normandy Invasion in 1944.
  
• 2,700 deaths equal about an hour's worth of fighting at the battle of Antietam in 1862.

But, does any one of the above "facts"--by itself--tell us whether those wars were worth fighting?

It is possible to tell nothing but the truth, and still fail to give a truthful picture of what is actually happening. With the media focusing only upon the cost of the war and giving very little attention to what is being achieved, do you think they are really giving us the full story?

Regardless of your position on the war, please ask yourself this: Can your position be as fully informed as it should be, if your source of information provides only selected negative "facts"?

What's really going on here?

The Decline of Majority Rule

Among the most treasured principles of American democracy are “one man, one vote” and “the majority rules”. Together, they ensure that the will of the people cannot be held hostage to the views of a determined minority. They are the secret of our political stability; they force compromise. Unlike so many other countries that change governments with the seasons, we have been blessed with stability and a government that never strays too far from the center of gravity of American opinion.

That is beginning to change, and America is the worse for it. If you are among the many who decry the lack of bi-partisan cooperation in Washington, what has happened in the U.S. Senate has helped fuel the acrimony.

How this is happening is a little bit technical. But, the implications are so important that it is worth looking at. Here is the bottom line:

It has now become conventional wisdom in Washington that no important measure can pass the Senate unless it has 60 votes—a 60 percent super majority. This has happened because the Senate Democrats have abused Senate rules and the Republican leadership has allowed them to do it. The legacy of the 109th Congress will be a new practice that weakens the need for compromise and empowers whomever is in the minority to block legislation and thwart consensus.

This is how it came about.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, codifies the principle of “one man, one vote” in the sections that created the Congress and its two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The vote cast by each of our elected representatives is equal to those of all other members of the Congress. The Constitution is silent, however, on what the voting standard should be for the Congress to enact a law. It does require that a super majority be required for such extraordinary actions as: impeachment, expelling a member from the Congress, vetoing a bill signed by the President, or passing an amendment to the Constitution.

But it says nothing about what will be required to approve a bill or, in the case of the Senate, confirm a Presidential appointment to the Executive or Judicial Branches. Perhaps the American tradition of settling disputes on the principle of 50 percent plus one vote was so ingrained in our culture, that the authors of the Constitution felt it was unnecessary to spell it out. And, that has generally been the practice until lately.

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . .” Thus, each has developed detailed rules of how it will conduct its business. They are different for each; generally, the Senate is much less restrictive on the rights of individual members. Under the Senate rules, the first Senator to ask the chair for recognition must be recognized and, once recognized, may hold the floor for as long as he or she is willing to speak. All business before the Senate stops at that point. The Senator holding the floor is in complete control and cannot even be interrupted without his consent—as long as the Senator keeps talking and doesn’t sit down.

The vast majority of the time, this is no impediment to the conduct of business before the Senate. A Senator will hold the floor only long enough to state a position or argument in the debate and then yield it to other Senators. But, when a Senator decides to capture the floor to force public attention to an issue, it makes for high drama. This is called a filibuster.

We’ve all seen the movie in which Jimmy Stewart bravely holds the floor to protest corrupt legislation until his eventual collapse from physical exhaustion shames the guilty into confessing the crime. In real life, the cause has not always been so noble (e.g. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina set the record with a 24 hour speech in 1957 to defend racial segregation), but the drama has been as compelling as the movies.

The Senator controlling the floor to champion a position forces all other 99 Senators to participate. A majority is forced to be available or on the floor regardless of the hour. Cots are brought in so that other Senators may sleep outside the door of the chamber to be ready for instant attendance when the quorum is called. It is physically and emotionally exhausting for everyone. But, the country is transfixed by the drama. It is perhaps the single most effective way to publicize a position for public consideration.

The only way to end a filibuster is to invoke cloture. This requires a 60 percent super majority vote. If all Senators are present this requires 60 votes.

Filibusters are messy and expensive. And, worst of all, from a political point of view, they can backfire. A Senator may feel strongly opposed to a position that a majority of the Senate and the American people would support. A filibuster will allow that Senator to bring everything to a halt for a while and focus national attention on his or her views, but it will also make that Senator personally responsible in the public’s eye for opposing a popular measure or nomination.

Wouldn’t it be more convenient if one could block legislation without ever taking personal responsibility for doing so? This is what is happening now.

The Senate has had a long standing, informal practice that allows an individual Senator to put a “hold” on a measure or nomination that will be coming to the floor for a vote. Implicitly, it is a notice that the Senator may filibuster the vote. A hold is secret. The name of the Senator requesting it is not made public. It has no standing in the rules and is not formally binding on the leadership. But, by custom, it is honored.

When a hold is placed, all action on that measure is stopped until the Senator changes his or her mind, the leadership breaks with custom, or cloture is invoked to preempt a filibuster.

This is the technique the Democrats have perfected over the past few years. A secret hold is placed on nominations and bills to which the Democratic leadership objects. This is done even when it is clear that a majority of the Senate—including Democrats—would vote to approve the matter. The Republican majority is then placed in the position of finding 60 votes to break the hold. Since the issue then becomes one of party solidarity on a procedural matter, that is a threshold that has been almost impossible to achieve.

The only way to circumvent a hold, as things are now done, is to have 60 votes in your pocket before you bring a bill or nomination to the floor.

As long as this practice is allowed to continue, it will increase in frequency until the vast number of bills and nominations are subject to it. We are not very far away from the point that passing legislation will require a three-fifth’s vote, not a majority. That is because blocking legislation in this way is a free gift of power to the minority. They have much to gain and nothing to loose.

When the ruling party has only a small majority, this practice increases the strength of the minority party. It gains not only negotiating leverage, but the power to disrupt or derail the other party’s legislative agenda. At the same time, there is no political risk or cost to do so. No individual member of the minority must take responsibility.

This is wrong. If a Senator feels strongly enough about a bill or nomination to block the entire chamber from taking action, then he or she should have the right to do so with a traditional filibuster. But, the Senator should also take the responsibility for his or her position. Let the country decide on the merits of the issue.

No Senate Majority Leader of the past, of either party, would have allowed stealth, in-the-dark filibusters to so weaken the ability of the Senate to fulfill its responsibilities. It is not too late to end the practice, and it should be done with the beginning of the 110th Congress in January.

How Intelligent is the Intelligence Estimate?

One of the most important pieces of advice my father ever gave me was to "consider the source" of an opinion.

Opinions do not materialize in the air; pure, untarnished, and shimmering with truth and justice. They come from people, and all people have their own interests and perspectives which shape their view of the world and, hence, their opinions. This is somewhat easier to see when we hear an opinion with which we disagree. But, is equally true for those opinions that agree with our own point of view.

Much is being made at the moment about a National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") on Iraq. It was issued last April and leaked just before the mid-term elections. (An innocent coincidence, I'm sure.) The media fuss has forced President Bush to declassify portions of the NIE. The fuss has been caused by a conclusion in the NIE (starkly clear for Bush opponents, and subtly nuanced for his supporters) that the war in Iraq has increased opposition to the U.S. among radical Muslims.

I'd like to weigh in with two points.

First, NIE's are not the final word. They are often no more insightful than what one can find among the more thoughtful media commentators.

Secondly, so what?

I have read NIE's in the past. They are highly classified analyses that represent the consensus viewpoint among a dozen intelligence agencies. Each agency gets a vote on what position the NIE will take. That agency vote is, itself, the product of a consensus developed within the agency and colored by the perspective and objectives of that agency. The result is almost always the lowest common denominator (i.e. the safest and least controversial) opinion.

As an example, in 1973 the King of Jordan secretly gave the U.S. the Egyptian battle plans for their surprise attack on Israel well in advance of that attack. But, because this was inconsistent with the Intelligence Community's consensus that war was not likely, this information was not believed. Hours after the war began, the U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting to the White House that this was no more than a large border raid, it was not a war.

When the topic is technical and ample factual evidence is available, the NIE's can be brilliant and very useful. But, in most cases, the factual evidence is spotty and contradictory. The answer is not clear, and the final opinion rests upon the individual judgements of its authors.

Wise decision makers understand this, and factor it into their decisions.

Lastly, many in the media and the political world are hyperventilating over the conclusion that our actions in Iraq are generating resentment among our nation's enemies. Why is this a surprise? Does one think that those we are trying to kill or capture will support those efforts? Can one imagine that they will not use the actions of the "Great Satan" as a rallying cry to obtain more converts to their cause of terror and jihad? Can one imagine that our enemies will stop their efforts to attack the U.S. if we stop trying to defeat them?

This conclusion of the NIE is neither news or surprising. It is the expected by-product of any offensive action in war time. The question, then, is why is it being made into news?

Consider the source.

Should the Clock Be Moved Forward?

In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists introduced the Doomsday Clock. Alumni of World War II’s Manhattan Project, they used a clock’s imagery to indicate how close the world was to a global thermonuclear war—and the end of civilization as we know it. The clock debuted at seven minutes to midnight.

The minute hand had has moved backwards and forward 13 times since then. The last time was in 2002 when it was moved forward to seven minutes to midnight; it’s starting point at the beginning of the Cold War. Among the many reasons for the move, the Bulletin cited: “. . . too little progress on global nuclear disarmament; growing concerns about the security of nuclear weapons materials worldwide; . . . [and] terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons. . .”

The clock was designed to bring focus on a global war, not a regional use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it is time to refocus the clock.

The failure of Israel to disarm Hezbollah this summer and the almost certainly doomed-to-failure international peacekeeping force (reluctantly led by 200 French engineers) has left the Middle East less stable than an any time since the creation of Israel—ironically, in 1947 when the Doomsday Clock was introduced. It has diverted world attention from Iran’s determination to obtain nuclear weapons and the means to use them. It has emboldened the enemies of democracy in the region and shown the terrorists that no matter how they act (as long as Israel is the target), they will be met with sympathetic world opinion.

Worst of all, it has given ammunition to the increasing chorus of voices in the West who believe that Islamic extremists who vow to destroy all who do not convert to their views don’t really mean what they say. Or, if they do, they can be persuaded to change their mind if we are just nice enough.

In this environment, the stage has been set for a series of seemingly unrelated steps to be taken that, when taken together, amount to abandonment of Israel and withdraw of support for democracy in the region.

Tony Blankley, Editor of the editorial page for the Washington Times, outlined how one such a scenario might play out in his column yesterday. I recommend it strongly.

He concluded by saying that the result could be oil at $250 a barrel. I think it could even be worse. It could be a nuclear exchange in the Middle East as Iran—or its agents—use the threat of newly acquired weaponry to gain its objective of destroying Israel and, fighting for its life, Israel retaliates. In that scenario, it won’t matter who used the weapons first. It will only matter that they were used.

Only peace in the region can avoid that. Yet all the attempts to obtain peace through land concessions, economic aid, and accommodations to extremist demands have failed. Each concession seems to wheaten the appetite for more demands.

So, I leave you with a question. What is the true source of instability and violence in the region, the fact that Israel is armed, or that the terrorists are?

Four Years of Failure

"After four years of failure . . . by the experiment of war, the time has come to demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities."

Sound familiar? Which political leader or major newspaper do you think made the above statement?

Actually, it comes from the Democratic Party's platform in the presidential nominating convention that began in Chicago on August 29, 1864. Yes, 1864. Four years into the administration of Abraham Lincoln; just three days before the fall of Atlanta and less than eight months before the surrender of Robert E. Lee.

Dissent and name calling are nothing new in American politics. Since the Revolution, more than two centuries ago, every war the U.S. has been involved in has had a sizable and vocal element of the American population who felt strongly that the war was not justified, being managed ineptly, and just plain wrong. Protest was not invented in the Vietnam era.

Each protester who believes that the President is an immoral idiot for leading us into war is free to say so; secure in the knowledge that the freedom to do so is protected in this nation--as it is in few countries of the world.

That freedom was won and maintained by Presidents who rose above the popular passions of the moment to do what they believed was right for the country--in spite of domestic criticism. Not all were wise, and all made mistakes. But they acted on behalf of the country. No man who has had to order another to go into harm's way, can take such responsibility lightly. And, every war time president that we have had has felt that burden.

The strength and sincerity of the opposition now being displayed toward American policy in the war against terror is not new. This would not be America if we did not have it. In the same vein, the fact that it is strong does not mean that it is right.

But, thank God that we have it. For it keeps us as a country honest and it forces those who are in power to explain their actions and goals to the America people. And, when they do, we are unstoppable. As Abraham Lincoln said during his first debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858:

"With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."

E Pluribus Unum?

E Pluribus Unum was the first national motto of the United States. In Latin, it means "From Many, One." It may be found on the Great Seal of the U.S. and it originally referred to the integration of 13 separate colonies into one united nation.

It has taken on an additional meaning over the years to reflect a single society that has emerged from the contributions of immigrants from around the world. There are few national cultures that have not contributed to the American culture, and made it richer and stronger by doing so.

But, this concept is under attack today. In Great Britain it appears that virturally all of the conspirators in last week's foiled plot to murder thousands of innocent airline passengers were native British Muslims. Yet, when polled, 81 percent of those native-born Britons declare that they consider themselves to be Muslims first rather than Britons.

In the U.S., similar sentiments can be found in immigrant enclaves of Muslims, Hispanics, and many other ethnic and religious groups. Remaining isolated, they contribute little to the American culture and society. Remaining isolated, they learn little of the tolerance that is necessary in a free, democratic society. Yet, in the name of compassion and diversity, governments at all levels throughout the U.S. are going to great lengths to ensure that the people in these enclaves never have to assimilate into America, learn the country's language, or participate in it.

Our country has achieved its preeminence in the world from the contributions made to it by immigrants. Those who join our society, add to it. They don't become enemies of it.

Isn't this really the neglected issue when we debate immigration policies and priorities in the war on terror? It seems to me that they are linked. The more that those who voluntarily come to this country are required to become part of it, the more support immigrants will have and the more the swamps which serve as a breeding ground for terrorists will be drained.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Surveillance!

That is a somewhat inelegant way of summarizing the attitude of many who have attacked the President's policies over the last year. I won't get into the absurdities or the details of the many claims that have been made to discredit the U.S. effort in this area. (Though, if President Bush had knowingly set out to break the law and flaunt the Constitution, as many have claimed, he's the only master criminal in history to do so by setting up an elaborate review process of his actions and informing the leadership of both parties in Congress of what he was doing. How sneaky can one get?)

What I will do, however, is give thanks that the British didn't buy into the nonsense that if we ignore the terrorist threat it will go away. Yesterday, they arrested some two dozen home grown Islamic terrorists that were just days away from blowing up numerous trans-Atlantic flights and killing hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people. The British attribute their success to active surveillance of the terrorists.

To the British: thank you for listening to the terrorists and not to their apologists. Please keep it up.

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Yesterday's defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate Primary will be seen as evidence that opposition to the war in Iraq will be a winning strategy in American politics. In some areas it may.

But, if so, are these politicians really serving America or themselves?

The last century saw the rise of two evil ideologies that proclaimed superiority as the final and highest manifestation of the human condition. Anything that interfered with their inevitable conquest of the world was to be crushed without mercy. Anything that furthered their goals was, by definition, good--no matter how brutal and vicious it might be.

Nazi Germany and the various communist regimes, led by the Soviet Union, used their ideologies to justify the wanton killing of more than 100 million innocent people in the last century.

Their ranks have been joined by a third ideology, masking itself as a religion, that contains the same belief structure and rationalizations that foresee ultimate world domination. It is radical Islam. Like its predecessors, these true believers do not feel the slightest remorse or empathy as they murder any who would stand in their way.

They have picked the US as their primary target and shown a willingness and capability to bring killing of innocents to our shores. They are not interested in compromise. For, compromise would require them to abandon their belief structure. They will be stopped only with defeat.

Heaven only knows that we have made many mistakes in our efforts to combat terror in the Middle East. But, mistakes made in the fight do no invalidate the nature of the threat.

True political leaders appeal to the best of our natures and trust us with information on the world as it is. Those who are only in the game for what they can get personally pander to our fears.

So, as you listen to the politicians as we approach the fall elections, ask yourself this, are you hearing the words of a leader, or a panderer?

Connect the Dots on Oil

Yesterday, August 7, BP announced that a quarter-inch leak in its Alaska pipeline led to the discovery of a significant corrosion problem. The 22 mile pipeline will be closed while a 16 mile segment will be replaced. This reduces the domestic oil supply by about eight percent for several months.

The usual suspects among the media, liberal politicians, and environmental groups have once again begun to criticize the evil oil corporations—their stock answer to any energy problem. I don’t know who is really at fault in this particular leak. But, it does give us a chance to “connect the dots”.

Who is really responsible for the high price of energy in the U.S. today? Here are some of the dots:

• ANWAR, the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is a 19 million acre area north of the Artic Circle. By itself, it is larger than ten states yet only 220 people live on it. Some 17.5 million acres (92.11%) have been permanently protected against development of any kind. Experts estimate that enough oil is beneath the costal plain (a 1.5 million acre area) to supply US needs for several years. Yet, environmental forces have been successful in preventing any development of this area.
  
  
• The US government owns some 460 million acres of proven oil rich reserves that lie just offshore of the US. Yet, all oil exploration has been banned in those areas because of environmental concerns. Other countries, such as Cuba, have no such qualms and are beginning to exploit the areas adjacent to the US-owned areas. And they are doing so with much less environmentally friendly technology than American firms would use.
  
  
• No new oil refining capacity has been built in the US over the last three decades because of environmental opposition.
  
  
• No new nuclear power plant has been built in the US over the past four decades, again because of environmental opposition. Yet, countries such as France and Sweden get the majority of their electrical power from nuclear sources. Meanwhile, we burn fossil fuels and create additional air pollution in the name of environmental purity.
  
  
• There are many other self-imposed restrictions that could be cited; too numerous for this venue.

The result is a domestic energy industry that is producing beyond full capacity. It has no reserves or flexibility. The slightest problem, even a quarter inch leak, can cause a major disruption to domestic supplies—and the resulting price of oil products.

Connect the dots and the pattern that emerges is clear. America has let a legitimate concern for the environment lock itself into a cage with no escape. The competing needs of both the environment and energy are never discussed together in the public debate. Those who have devoted themselves to protecting the environment do so without concern for the implications of their policies on the nation. And they have dominated the public debate. The result is that America has doomed itself to dependency upon the highly unstable mid-eastern nations and exposed itself to price shocks when our overstressed domestic faces any problem at all.

I am not against the environment. Anyone who has ever seen the ravages of the third world knows the need for protection. But, it is not the only consideration. People live on this planet, just as the plants and animals do. Protecting the welfare of people is also important.

We will never solve America’s energy problems until we take a second look at the self-imposed restrictions that we live under in the name of environmentalism. We must strike a better balance with protecting nature and protecting people.