Comments on: National Security

By: Kelly F

Kelly F — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:58:24 +0000

Mr. Lankford,
I’m not voting in your district, but you will be representing not only your district, but this state so I do have a thought I would like to put forward.

National Security is only second to the economy at the moment, and in all honesty should always be one of this countries top priorities. My concern is that we are playing catch up with the threats that we face. We are not in the same time as Ronald Reagan. As much as I admired Reagan, we have to ask ourselves if we can stay in that frame of mind. Why do we have bases overseas? Why are we the Global Police? Is this really promoting national security? Our borders are open wide, and we are currently fighting in a region that was a major contributor to the financial decline of the Soviet Union in the ’80′s (Afghanistan). I want our soliders to succeed, my brother is currently in Kandahar, but we are fighting a “movement” not a “State” our mind set has to change. When I read your statement I hear the same thing I’ve heard for years. This is the epitome of the “Status Quo”. We have to seriously ask why we are spread out around the globe? How is this making our country secure? Our founders had a very clear vision of our place in the world, and how we would interact with our global neighbors, and where we are is not it. While I’ll admit that we have to look at how we implement that vision in the twenty-first century, I do believe that is where we should start.

Just a thought,

Thank you,

Kelly

By: Jim G.

Jim G. — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:28:55 +0000

Dear Mr. Lankford,

I highly respect and support your values and believe you can bring a sensible change to Congress that we sorely need, both on Democrats and Republicans.

Concerning National Security, I hope that you take a strong stand on anyone who would be willing to threaten innocent American lives in order to fulfill some extreme ideological agenda, Homegrown or Foreign. The American people would like to see these terrorists dealt with efficiently, precisely, throughly and openly.

Previously, we have only treated the symptoms of Islamic Radicalism and as a result have done nothing but turn the Middle East into a costly and fruitless whack-a-mole game. I also hope that you work to treat the causes of terrorism and not just the symptoms. Mr. Lankford, I hope that you strive to make America a more economic and energy independent nation so we do not have to resort to clock-and-dagger politics that have plagued the Mideast and Latin America for years, and served as breeding groups for hostile Anti-American sentiment. In addition, I hope that you are able improve relations with the Muslim world and utilize moderate Muslims as allies in fighting Islamic Extremism instead of treating the whole of the Muslim World as some pathologic entity on Earth such as previous Administrations have done.

Secondly, I hope that as a man devoted to the Constitution that you effectively deal with terrorism with as minimal loss of innocent lives and loss of rights of American citizens as possible. As a God-fearing and VERY patriotic American who happens to also be of the Islamic faith, I do not want myself or my family to live in fear of the government and be subject to a second-class citizen status by racial/religious profiling, secret trials, and arbitrary dismissal or the Constitutional Rights.

Please do not give into folly of Racial/Religious profiling because it disregards a group of citizens of their Constitutional Due Process rights. Furthermore, potential terrorists will be able “play the system” and send people who do not fit the demographic criteria of a racial profiling set further compromising American lives (In addition, trying to profile a religion like Islam would in of itself, be difficult considering the ethnic and racial diversity)

What America needs is a strong coalition of allies who can act as our eyes and ears in spotting terror as well as our own intelligence network and well-trained and highly-funded Special Forces to precisely and securely deal with violent elements in society.

You clearly are a man of sensibility and wisdom, and I hope you manage to listen to this humble constituent. I wish you the best of luck in your up-coming election. Godspeed,
Mr. Lankford.

Jim G., 24
Edmond, Oklahoma

By: CDT Alex Bogaski

CDT Alex Bogaski — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:23:21 +0000

Mr. Lankford,
It is my sincere hope that if you are elected, you can make a positive change on the way this country fights wars. People in this nation seem to have forgotten what it means to be a nation at war. If you turn on the TV these days, you hear a great deal about the economy, celebrity scandals, healthcare, and then more about the economy. The war is often treated as a footnote, not worth a full report. This is unfair to our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, it is a detriment to the morale of the nation as whole. America must once again mobilize AS A NATION, much as it did in World War II. Only then can we be truly victorious in our fight against radical Islamic terrorism.

By: Lee Bowen

Lee Bowen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:54:09 +0000

James,
The federal government is slipping back into a pre-9/11 mindset by playing “Law & Order” with terrorists (such as Khalid Sheik Mohamed) by giving these murderers the same rights as U.S. citizens: such as requiring soldiers and marines to “Mirandize” captured terrorists and trying them in federal court. CIA operatives, who had previously been able to thwart terrorists by using enhanced interrogation techniques (ex: water-boarding), are now reduced to asking “please, pretty please” with the terrorists’ attorney present (ex: the “Underwear Bomber”) or risk legal action.
As a student of military history, I assure you the President’s policies are a recipe for disaster. These are my opinions on how to win the War on Terror and I would like to know whether or not you agree.
1. Make War “Hell” for the Enemy. During his March to the Sea, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman was confronted by Confederate citizens complaining about his army’s destruction of the South’s industrial base (ability to wage war). Sherman’s simple reply was, “War is Hell”. Sherman was not condemning war but was stating that the consequences of war should be so awful that no enemy will dare fight without risking total annihilation. War is not a “gentleman’s game” and it is a disservice to our troops to reduce them to “cops in camouflage (no offense to police).” The military’s primary job is to protect this country by killing its enemies.
2. Treat Terrorists ‘Appropriately’: The military term for the terrorists they face in battle is ‘Illegal Enemy Combatant”. The Geneva Convention does not apply to them nor should they be protected under federal law. In WW 2 captured partisans knew their final destination was either the gallows or a firing squad. I believe that it should be made clear that our previous treatment of terrorists (as enemy combatants) was just, but that it was much more than they deserve under the rules of war. We’ve seen how Al-Quaeda treats its captives.
3. Intelligence: Quite frankly, allow the CIA to do their job and get information from terrorists. In my opinion, if interrogation techniques makes a terrorist cry like a little girl-GOOD!
4. Profile PEOPLE not STUFF: In an effort to be politically correct, airport security is not allowed to single out individuals for screening without risking legal action for discrimination. I’ve never seen a tube of toothpaste or a bottle of antibacterial hand gel blow up a plane. PEOPLE blow up planes: start singling out the folks that look like possible terrorists and leave “Grandma” and “little Timmy” alone.
Contrary to the warped beliefs of the President’s “former” pastor (whom he never listened to for 10+ years), Jeremiah Wright, we did not ask for this war but WE CAN’T AFFORD TO LOSE IT EITHER.
I would appreciate a response with your position on these issues.

Thanks,

Lee B.
Jones, OK