DATE: 16
September 2014
Recently, I
read an article by Mr. Alan Grayson, D-FL (incumbent Congressman in Florida
District 9) and wanted to comment on it. This seemed reasonable since I am a
candidate for this position and will face him in the polls on November 4, 2014;
and if afforded “equal time”, then my response seems appropriate. However, so far I have been ignored by the
major news papers. They have not been
interested, apparently since I am an Independent. As such, I am mostly invisible, a Mr. NObody,
from NOwhere, with NOmoney running for Congress, not as a politician, but as a
Citizen Warrior. My voice remains
silenced and ignored, compared to the Incumbent. How can I equally compete against such
judgmental, prejudicial, and biased mentality – Ah Ha! I will post my response on this Blog.
My name is
Marko Milakovich. I am retired military,
a Vietnam Veteran, an electrical engineer, a small business owner, a regular
worker in many jobs, and I have a fire in my belly to ACT and do something
about the perils our country faces. We
are in BIG TROUBLE and we keep sending the same type of person to Congress and
therefore we can expect the same results (or no results). Whatever happened to vetting candidates based
on skill, knowledge and experience?
The
following is my response to the comments made by Representative Alan Grayson concerning
Iraq, which appeared in USA Today August 10, 2014.
It is a
never-ending cycle of ill-qualified politicians, most often with little
experience or historical knowledge, to keep repeating the same, age-old
mistakes on international policies and strategies. This is particularly frightening when our
military, an instrument of our national policy, responds with honor and
commitment and many of our warriors sacrifice their lives in the process. Their sacrifice should not be taken lightly.
When the
U.S. departed Iraq and did not keep a meaningful force in place because of the
lack of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), was this an excuse to vacate and
leave a large void, which has now been filled by ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State? Historically, we have always retained a
presence after a conflict and in every case, we had a SOFA. Why didn’t we obtain one in Iraq? The obvious reason is that our government was
not serious and did not want to leave a meaningful residual force. What are the consequences of this? Genocide there today, and a highly probable,
strategic threat to the very security of our country in the future – more
terrorist attacks within our borders. It
is in our national, strategic interest to take action when needed to protect
the security of our country.
Historically, we have tended to be slow to prepare for war, but we have
been fortunate enough to have quickly responded to the need when it was
essential. The threat of ISIS/ISIL today in the Middle East will become the
terrorist acts of tomorrow in the United States. “If the Iraqis won’t defend themselves, then
why should we?”, states Mr. Grayson. The
simple answer is, “When it is in our national interest.” Too often the United States has been quick to
pursue activities in another country for political reasons. This is shameful, because it typically means forsaking
our values for political reasons and typically imposing our viewpoints upon
another country and their culture. I
firmly believe that our American values are a statement of our essence to the
world and should reflect the bedrock principles conveyed in the United States
Constitution. In this specific case,
based on the information available, there is no question in my mind, as well as
in the judgment of recognized experts, that the United States has an urgent,
strategic interest in opposing ISIS/ISIL and that it is better to do it there,
now, than within our borders. I
obviously disagree with Mr. Grayson and I pose the question on competency of
subject matter without regard to political titles.
On the
other hand, I do agree with Mr. Grayson that we should not be the world’s
guardian to become involved in every crisis in the world. However, we must be consistent in the
implementation of actions regarding our values and national interest. Of necessity, this is often a judgment call
because the world does not present us with clear black and white situations.
This is the domain of national leadership – for better or worse.
“Ain’t
gonna study war no more. Gonna lay down my sword and shield. Down by the
riverside.” Mr. Grayson, this quote you
cite truly frightens me. It only takes “one”
to start a fight/war; it is not a mutually agreed upon event. Conversely, it takes two serious parities to
negotiate a peace. History is replete of
many examples, from Pearl Harbor to the present day Israeli-Hamas fighting,
which were initiated by “one”. If we had
laid down our arms in the name of peace, we would all be speaking Japanese
today.
We were
not mentally aware of the threat when the horrendous act of “911”
happened. I personally encountered an
International Terrorist five months prior to “911” and when I called to report
it, I was not believed. Now there is an
open border to the United States with an untold number of “foreign operatives”
able to easily enter our country. Are we
mentally prepared for the predictable outcome?
Will we later look back in retrospect and bemoan our inaction and
blindness? Should we “lay down our sword
and shield”? I for one, will reinforce
my shield and sharpen my sword and stand ready should my country need me – and
I hope it is before, and not after.
Marko
No comments :
Post a Comment