Announcing the Formation of the Center for the National Security Interest

Center for the National Security Interest ^ | October 18, 2002

[rightwing2]

Special Announcement, Oct 18, 2002

Announcing the Formation of the Center for the National Security Interest

CNSI motto—“Addressing the vital national security issues of our time from a veteran’s perspective”

We are pleased to announce the formation of a new pro-defense national security think tank--the Center for the National Security Interest (CNSI). The Center is a non-partisan, non-profit organization whose purpose is to help ensure that America's national security interests are placed first and foremost in US policy. It is unique in that it is led and staffed in large part by veterans of the United States armed forces. CNSI supports all policies that serve to conserve and maintain America's national security strengths and its armed forces. CNSI opposes all measures and policies which have the effect of disarming, dismantling or dismembering US national military power be they attempts to disarm the nation of its strategic nuclear deterrent or its conventional military forces. CNSI opposes as a matter of principle the signing and ratification of all international treaties (such as the recently signed Treaty of Moscow) which seek to implement these policies and supports the addition of amendments to such treaties to lessen the impact of their harmful effects and make them less objectionable from a national security standpoint.

The Center for the National Security Interest strongly supports and applauds President Bush in continuing to prosecute America’s just war against Islamicist terrorists and fanatics and those nations that support them. CNSI supports the implementation of the tenets of the Weinburger Doctrine, which states that the US should only fight wars that are just and that further the US vital interest only after all reasonable alternatives have first been exhausted and with total national commitment including the support of a sizable majority of the US population. CNSI adds its voice to those of retired Generals Schwartzkopf, Zinni, Hoar, Clark, Scowcroft, Sheehan, Shalikashvili and many members of former President George H.W. Bush’s Gulf War cabinet including former Secretary of States Jim Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger, former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp and until recently, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell in urging the Administration to abandon its plans for an unnecessary and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. CNSI believes that such an undertaking would be fraught with potential negative consequences for US national security.

The Center believes that it is imperative to maintain strong, robust ground forces including a large force of tanks and tracked armor assets to ensure that America is prepared to fight and win large-scale wars in the future. Specifically, we strongly oppose efforts to reduce the size of the Army below its current level of ten active divisions and oppose the currently planned phased elimination of its “heavy” armored brigades and all of its tanks as part of current plans for Army transformation. CNSI strongly supports the employment of Air-Mech-Strike ‘3D’ tracked armor assets to revolutionize the battlefield in assisting more conventional heavy units in defeating the enemy with maximum speed and effectiveness.

CNSI will be holding the inaugural meeting of its Leadership Council on October 22nd in Washington, DC and will be sending out nationwide media announcements shortly. The Center welcomes media inquiries about our new organization and coming meeting. Please contact us at the E-mail address at the bottom of this page if you would like to learn more about us or if you are interested in being considered for CNSI membership. Below is a short list of the principles and causes for which we stand. If you agree with most of the principles expressed below, please check back at our website for further updates and more comprehensive articles in support of our national security priorities.

Top CNSI Priorities to Enhance and Promote US National Security

1. Support President Bush’s laudable just war against Islamicist terrorist groups

2. Oppose an unnecessary, unprovoked invasion of Iraq to avoid unavoidable blowback and likely extremely adverse policy consequences to US national security

3. Oppose all conventional and particularly nuclear disarmament measures and international agreements such as the Treaty of Moscow which mandate such measures in order to preserve the US strategic nuclear deterrent and ensure our ability to deter nuclear attack from our enemies

4. Build a comprehensive national missile defense system capable of defending America from a nuclear attack of any size and from any country.

5. Retain a strong and robust Army at current levels and oppose the current itineration of Army Transformation to a tankless, trackless Army

6. Enforce the Monroe Doctrine with regards to Communist expansion in Latin America

7. Re-implement the Reagan Doctrine of supporting and encouraging all anti-Communist resistance movements worldwide

8. Halt current US trade, aid and export policies, which serve to appease Communist Chinese and North Korean tyrants including the construction of two large nuclear reactors which would enable North Korea to greatly increase its rate of nuclear warhead production.

9. Counter, disrupt and divide the Sino-Russian axis of evil to forestall emergence of a global peer competitor capable of challenging the US and halt its WMD transfers and military assistance to its rogue state affiliates

10. Implement stronger border security measures to help advert further terrorist attacks to include the deportation of illegal immigrants and a 75% reduction in legal immigration

11. Halt all US funding of the United Nations and its affiliates and achieve a US withdrawal from that vociferously anti-American organization.

12. End US involvement in UN peacemaking missions, which do nothing to further the US interest and bring our troops home from Bosnia, Kosovo and other UN missions in order to use them to help better provide for continental defense at home.

13. Abandon the Bush Administration’s new doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and return to a national security policy based on proven concepts of containment and most importantly deterrence, which have kept the nuclear peace for over half a century

14. Cutback or eliminate expensive and redundant weapons programs to help fund more urgent priorities like building a national missile defense.

15. Support the implementation of policies which serve to actively promote and encourage the adoption by the world's nations of comprehensive constitutionally-guaranteed political and economic freedoms as one of the best means to solve world poverty and promote world peace.

[rightwing2]

11. Halt all US funding of the United Nations and its affiliates and achieve a US withdrawal from that vociferously anti-American organization.

Based on the hard-core conservative stands expressed on their home page, this looks like a pretty cool new start-up think tank. However, it looks like the site is still under construction since many of the sidebar links aren't working yet. I especially like their stand against the UN. I haven't heard of a one other single think-tank that has called for a withdrawal of the US from the UN--a step that is long overdue.

[rightwing2]

New conservative national security think-tank BUMP!

[Lexington Green]

16. Stop the idiotic drug war.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"
1. Support President Bush’s laudable just war against Islamicist terrorist groups

2. Oppose an unnecessary, unprovoked invasion of Iraq to avoid unavoidable blowback and likely extremely adverse policy consequences to US national security
"

Am I nuts or do #1 and #2 conflict with each other?

[AdamSelene235]

Since 30% of the GDP isn't enough for the Feds to get the job done, its nice to see Americans take matters into their own hands.

It will interesting to see if any relations between these guys and CATO's defense analysts pop up. CATO, after all, has been warning,well before 911, that threats from non-state players with WMD is the future of national security.

Now about sending some privateers to blow Saudi's desalination plants.

[rightwing2]

Am I nuts or do #1 and #2 conflict with each other?

In my opinion, they do not. An invasion of Iraq seems to have very little to do with the war against terrorism since Iraq has no proven links to Al Queda or to any attempted or actual attacks carried out against the territory of the United States. Iran, on the other hand, is the prime sponsor of Islamicist state supported terrorism according to the US State Department. In fact, not only does Iraq have little or nothing to do with terrorism, according to the President in his Sept 12 speech to the UN, Saddam has killed one and one half million Muslims during his reign. Saddam's distrust for Islamicist terror groups is well known since they would threaten his power base. Saddam even assasinated the second most wanted anti-American terrorist, Abu Nidal earlier this year who had killed a couple hundred Americans--the very terrorist that the President accused Saddam of sheltering following his assasination. Perhaps we should be attacking Iran instead, not to mention North Korea with its nuclear missiles and threat to turn the US into "a sea of fire."

[Willie Green]

10. Implement stronger border security measures to help advert further terrorist attacks to include the deportation of illegal immigrants and a 75% reduction in legal immigration

Bravo!!!

11. Halt all US funding of the United Nations and its affiliates and achieve a US withdrawal from that vociferously anti-American organization.

NATO'S mission was successfully completed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that time, it should have been ceremoniously disbanded amidst victorious celebration. Instead, it's been allowed to "reinvent" itself as a global police force for the U.N.

I hope NATO is one of the UN "affiliates" that this organization proposes defunding.

[JohnGalt]

No, they don't conflict.

Invading Iraq to stop hijakers and snipers already within the city walls, now that conflicts.

[JohnGalt]

Two weeks ago Rummie was telling Nato 'friends' in Poland about the need for a rapid deployment force for Nato. If the neo-con foreign policy establishment are brazen enough to float that one out there, God help us.

[rightwing2]

NATO'S mission was successfully completed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that time, it should have been ceremoniously disbanded amidst victorious celebration. Instead, it's been allowed to "reinvent" itself as a global police force for the U.N. I hope NATO is one of the UN "affiliates" that this organization proposes defunding.

While NATO's founding purpose is no longer relevant due to the apparant collapse of the Russian conventional threat to central Europe, if the US leaves NATO, Europe will become Finlandized and take on a much more pro-Russian and anti-US tilt. I am not willing to take that risk just yet, but I would support cutting our NATO contingent by half or more.

[DKNY]

"CNSI adds its voice to those... in urging the Administration to abandon its plans for an unnecessary and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. CNSI believes that such an undertaking would be fraught with potential negative consequences for US national security.".

They lost me on that one.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"actual attacks carried out against the territory of the United States"

What about the almost daily missile attacks on our aircraft flying the no-fly zone?

What about Iraq's promise to destroy us and their attemtps to obtain arms that can?

What about Iraq's supplying terrorists with weapons and training?

[janetgreen]

All good ideas. Hopefully this organization would enable ordinary Americans to voice their views, I like it because I don't always agree with the spoon-fed propaganda we get from whomever is in the White House and Congress.

[GOP_1900AD]

Similar 501 c 3's are on their way. Works in progress. Will advise upon formal introduction...

[rightwing2]

There have been very few missile attacks on our aircraft bombing Iraq. Then again, if our planes were not bombing Iraq, Iraq would have no need to defend itself by trying to shoot them down. Look the bottom line is that the Administration has no business putting our pilots in harms way by asking them to engage in provocative enforcement of the so-called UN no fly zones which are not UN no fly zones at all but US no fly zones since no UN resolution covers them. To call Iraqi attempts to shoot down US and UK warplanes bombing their country "hostile acts" is extremely Orwellian to say the least. Iraq has not promised to destroy us. They have only promised to destroy any US forces sent to invade their country. Again not very provocative since their statements are entirely in self-defense.

As for Iraq's alleged supplying of terrorists with weapons and training that is entirely unsupported by the evidence as British intelligence confirms. They have said over and over again that there are no real links between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein because there is a lot of bad blood between Saddam and Islamic terrorists since they threaten his hold on power as a secular dictator especially those like Al Queda whose principal sponsor is Iraq's "former" enemy the terrorist Islamicist Republic of Iran. If the President were serious about fighting the war against terrorism, why doesn't he invade them?

[IronJack]

Any idea who's behind this? Who's funding it? Who's on the Board?

[FairOpinion]

"urging the Administration to abandon its plans for an unnecessary and unprovoked invasion of Iraq."

DKNY: They lost me on that one.
----
Me too. Once I read this, my first thought was a site MASQUARADING as a conservative site, so they throw in a lot of "unimportant" things conservatives may agree with, but their REAL agenda is to be against the war with Iraq.

Isn't the timing of their creation just a bit suspicious too? NONE of the other items are time critical, except the war with Iraq. Maybe I have a suspicious mind, but what if they just want to have more credibility to propagandize against the war w Iraq? Something like: "We are a conservative think tank and we agree with Bush, EXCEPT for this "unnecessary and unprovoked" INVASION of Iraq". Kind of like my re-registering as a Democrat, so I can legitimately say, "I am a registered Democrat, but I wouldn't vote for Gray Davis to save my life" -- it would have more credibility, than if I say, as a Republican, I wouldn't vote for him, no matter what.

Also note the news links they have -- they are mostly links that are against the Iraq war.

[FairOpinion]

rightwing2: "There have been very few missile attacks on our aircraft bombing Iraq."
-----
Do you consider something like over 1000, "very few"?

"After that attack, known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam Hussein offered rewards for any U.S. aircraft shot down and pilots killed or captured.

Iraq's quest to shoot down a manned aircraft has been futile despite more than 1,000 attempts over the least three and a half years, according to U.S. Central Command. However, Iraq has shot down at least three unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft." from an article at Newsmax, because that's what I found fastest, but I remember watching a Pentagon briefing discussing this.
-------

rightwing2: "Then again, if our planes were not bombing Iraq, Iraq would have no need to defend itself by trying to shoot them down."

----
Sounds like you think Iraq is in the right and we are in the wrong, "poor Iraq is defending themselves agaist the imperialist USA"?