According to
the Vice President for Student Affairs, as quoted by the Daily Mail Online, “Barry
University would not approve any group supporting a terrorist organization.”
But other universities have revealed in previously released videos that they
have no problem with ISIS and Hamas being on their campus.
This video
contradicts our National Security Strategy which was released in February 2015
from the executive office. It addressed security, prosperity, values, and
international order. One of the important issues in the report involves “combating
the persistent threat of terrorism.” Yet colleges are sanctioning and willing
to support terrorist groups.
“This new National
Security Strategy positions the United States to safeguard our national
interests through strong and sustainable leadership.” Apparently, this strong
and sustainable leadership, in partnership with Congress, has “helped the world
recover from a global economic crisis and respond to an array of emerging
challenges.”
One such challenge
is the “potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly
nuclear weapons,” posing a great risk. I do hope Iran got the message that they
must stop in their tracks any non-peaceful nuclear arming.
Because we are a “global
force for good,” we must “lead with a purpose,” in line with the 2010 National
Security Strategy:
-
Secure the
U.S, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;
-
Grow the U.S.
economy in an “open international economic system;”
-
Respect “universal
values at home and around the world;”
-
International
order based on rules “advanced by U.S. leadership,” promoting “peace, security,
and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.”
What are the top risks to our
interests?
-
“Catastrophic
attack on the U.S. homeland or critical infrastructure
-
Threats or
attacks against U.S. citizens abroad and our allies;
-
Global economic
crisis or widespread economic slowdown;
-
Proliferation
and/or use of weapons of mass destruction;
-
Severe global
infectious disease outbreaks;
-
Climate change;
(Who knew suddenly climate changing from season to season could be
such a
threat!)
-
Major energy
market disruptions; (Maybe closing so many coal-fired power plants may not have
been such a good idea)
-
Significant
security consequences associated with weak or falling states (including mass
atrocities, regional spillover, and transnational organized crime).”
The Arab
Winter comes to mind under this rubric and the drug cartel members coming unimpeded
through our porous southern borders.
According to this report, America
must lead “with strength,” “by example,” “with capable partners,” “with all the
instruments of U.S. power,” and “with a long-term perspective.”
Since the last National
Security Strategy in 2010, five recent transitions have been identified as
significantly changing our security landscape, the academic progressivism not withstanding:
1.
“Power among
states is more dynamic,” i.e., India’s potential, China’s rise, Russia’s
aggression, impacting “the future of major power relations.”
2.
“Power is
shifting below and beyond the nation-state.” Weak governments or authoritarian
regimes have to deal with technology, growing middle class, and unruly “youth
as a majority in many societies.”
3.
“Increasing
interdependence of the global economy,” creating vulnerability through
interconnected systems and sectors “susceptible to the threats of climate
change, malicious cyber activity, pandemic diseases, and transnational terrorism
and crime.”
4.
“Struggle for
power among and within many states in the Middle East and North Africa.” The
report points out “religious extremists” and “rulers that reject democratic
reforms, exploit their economies, and crush civil society.”
5.
“Global
energy market has changed dramatically.” Apparently we are now “the world’s
largest natural gas and oil producer” and “we are leading a new clean energy
economy.” I am not sure if this clean energy can yet supply our large economy
and keep our factories running, our lights on, our heat on, and the A/C constantly
powered. The report points out that our energy security has been worsened by
the “European dependence on Russian natural gas and the willingness of Russia
to use energy for political ends.”
In the meantime, can someone
tell the U.S. academia that supporting terrorists such as ISIS or Hamas on
their campuses and financing their mayhem goes against our national security
strategy and interests?
Copyright: Ileana Johnson 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment