National Security

Read what Dave Anderson has to say.

Lamborn Platform

Defense

Congressman Lamborn’s position is to oppose any and all reductions in military spending.  He has stated that he will do “everything in his power to prevent defense spending cuts.”

Proposed Lamborn policy assumes that threat to be countered originate in “rogue nations” (ex: Iran, North Korea) which are developing nuclear capability and the means of weapons delivery.

 

A coherent response is a process involving the following stages:

  • Identify and define the potential threat.
  • Track the threat to its source. In the case of nuclear/missile proliferation, the main technology/materials suppliers have been Pakistan and North Korea. Both are Chinese allies/satellites. Have this angle and its implications been investigated?
  • A response framework must be put in place. The best such framework to-date has been the START agreements between the USSR/Russia and the U.S.A. that was initiated by President Reagan and executed by President George H.W. Bush. This resulted in the elimination of thousands of warheads and delivery systems.
  • Once a framework is in place, a series of graduated responses must be implemented: diplomacy, economic pressure and sanctions, military intervention. The effectiveness of these measures will be multiplied if the threat mitigation framework has broad acceptance and support.
  • The anti-delivery system is the last line of defense. It cannot be developed in a vacuum, but all the measures outlined above will contribute to the definition and requirements of the system.
  • Cooperation with similarly threatened states will greatly reduce costs and improve effectiveness.
  • Nuclear/missile proliferation is a real danger. A fully developed response framework provides the best chance that mitigation will be effective.


Dave Anderson for Congress Platform

Issue

The events of 9/11 – beyond the horrific tragedy and loss of life — changed the game when it comes to our national security. The days of the Cold War are long gone and those intent on the destruction of our nation and our way of life are a different kind of enemy. And this requires a different approach to assembling our forces and how we engage our enemies.

As Congress failed to act, sequestration is on the horizon which means our defense budget is facing massive cuts beginning January 2013. These limited resources coupled with two prolonged wars on two different fronts further stretches our capacity to defend ourselves.

Our fragile economy is a key factor in why we don’t have the ability to support our defense systems in the way that we have. Another critical problem is less apparent, as our military relies increasingly on adversaries for components in our armaments.

 

Solution

We must evaluate our strategic obligations and interests in a post 9/11 world. We must also identify capabilities that are required rather than what would be nice to have. We also need to follow the lead of our military leaders and keep the politicians from manipulating the process by earmarking pet projects that curry favor with defense contractors but are not in the strategic interest of our military.

Other efforts to improve our nation’s security include planning for future wars rather than modeling plans off past, differing experiences. We should also include requirements to meet a protracted insurgency which includes shifting to low-tech, inexpensive, high in education and training (Special Forces and Marine Corps) from infantry-heavy models. Assessing modernization requirements to maintain advantage over near-peers and prioritize Navy and Air Force weapons systems and weapon-delivery systems is essential. We also need to remove Congressional influences that tend to deal in “favor” rather than what is necessary. Lastly, we must assure that our veterans receive due recognition, care and support.

Background

Refer to the .pdf that may be downloaded from the campaign website.