<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Challenges</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/rss/challenges.asp</link>
<description>This is Challenges RSS from FSM</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>(c) 2008</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:27:00 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://feedvalidator.org/docs/rss2.html</docs>
<generator>www.eResources.com (Generator)</generator>
<managingEditor>webmaster@familysecuritymatters.org (FSM)</managingEditor>
<webMaster>support@eresources.com (eResources)</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"  rel="self" href="http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/rss/challenges.asp" type="application/rss+xml" /><item>
<title>FAQ</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.232/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[1. What has caused the spread of anti-Americanism and what effect can it have on American policies and security'  2. I hear so much partisanship in the media and I just don&#39;t know whom to trust. How can I figure out what is true and what is just spin'  3. How can I help motivate my friends and community to become more aware of current affairs and more involved in homeland security and the war on terror'  4. Are there any potential threats that may be growing while the American people and government are occupied by the war on terror'  5. Is it true that if I don&#39;t support particular counterterrorism policies that I&#39;m not a patriotic American']]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.232/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Challenges #1</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.233/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[1. What has caused the spread of anti-Americanism and what effect can it have on American policies and security' Americans overwhelmingly believe that the war on terrorism is a justified response to an attack on our homeland and are often surprised to learn that other countries, even our allies, are skeptical of our efforts in support of this war. But because it is not possible for us to win this war on our own, it is important to understand the objections that other countries may have to our actions. Many people simply resent the exercise of American power in a world that they believe is already dominated by the United States. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have become the world&#39;s only superpower and many countries believe that this imbalance is not only unjust but also dangerous. They believe that predominance by one country must be countered by either developing powerful coalitions as balances or by undermining the sources of that country&#39;s strength. Others believe that the American response to 9/11 was simply unjustified. While few countries seriously opposed the military operations in Afghanistan, the opposition to the war in Iraq was loud and vehement. Many foreign, and some domestic, groups believed our response should have been focused only on those specific individuals who attacked us and should not have expanded to include the broader movement and forces that empowered their destructive actions. Some countries even used the language of peace to cloak selfish financial motivations for opposing the war. The Oil for Food scandal that has become public following the war proved that influential individuals in several countries represented on the UN Security Council had profited greatly by the corruption of Saddam Hussein&#39;s government. Whether anti-Americanism is a response to American policies, American power, or both, it can still derail the American war against radical Islamist ideology. This is a conflict that spans continents and political boundaries and the United States must rely upon the goodwill of foreign governments to supply our national security services with essential information and to allow them to operate on foreign soil. Additionally, if the world community turns on the United States, it decreases our claims to moral legitimacy. Being cast, however incorrectly, as a bully will only demoralize the American people and encourage our enemy. That is why the American people must understand that anti-Americanism is not as much a response to our policies as to our power.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.233/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Challenges #2</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.234/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[2. I hear so much partisanship in the media and I just don&#39;t know whom to trust. How can I figure out what is true and what is just spin' Numerous studies, such as "A Measure of Media Bias", indicate the American people correctly believe that the media are overwhelmingly partisan and slanted in their reporting. If our media truly presents a slanted view of the news, we consequently have only two options. The first is to sit idly by, listening to everything on TV and reading everything in the newspaper and just hoping that it&#39;s true. The other is to be proactive and become an educated news consumer who is much less likely to be taken in by spin. Learn the facts and read some background information. Look things up in an encyclopedia or other fact-based reference book. Research the history of a particular subject. Start varying the sources from which you get your news. Watch more than one cable station, alternate your local evening news, read more than one newspaper. It doesn&#39;t have to take a long time - fifteen minutes a day on the Internet is plenty to do a little research and read a news story or two. Then start to trust your instincts. If something sounds questionable, look it up on the Internet. Find verification from another source or see if someone else is telling the story in a different way. Developing your ability to recognize and neutralize spin, or slanted reporting, is an important self-defense mechanism for your brain. Don&#39;t allow someone else to think for you. Teach yourself the basics, verify any information that sounds suspect, and start to take responsibility for your continuing education.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.234/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Challenges #3</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.235/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[3. How can I help motivate my friends and community to become more aware of current affairs and more involved in homeland security and the war on terror' It can be frustrating if you feel a sense of urgency about a subject as serious as the war on terror and homeland security and can see that your friends just don&#39;t recognize the threat. Many times, they just don&#39;t know enough about the subject to really understand the challenges that our nation faces or they are uncomfortable discussing something so unpleasant. This is a new kind of war that does not place the same kinds of demands on the entire population as in World War II or Vietnam and many Americans are able to live in relative isolation from world events. This is a false sense of security, however, as the threat to the United States still exists and could strike at any time. Lots of times, just offering an example of civic awareness will be sufficient for motivating those closest to you. Seeing a trusted friend or family member start to become more educated, aware, and involved can often spark newfound initiative in others. Let your friends and family know about your new interest and encourage them to learn more as well. The first step doesn&#39;t have to be intimidating or time-consuming; you can even recommend FSM as an easy introduction. You can take a more pro-active approach as well. Consider starting a reading group that focuses on books about public policy and national security. Forward interesting articles and website links to your friends. Talk to your children&#39;s schools, your employer or your local law enforcement about emergency preparedness and education. Attend community meetings about preparedness and bring friends. More often than not, all the motivation that anyone needs to become more involved in security issues is just to develop an awareness of the threats and challenges facing the United States. When someone who has the time and the inclination to become more involved in education or activism learns of these facts, they will frequently take the next step on their own. One small, but very important contribution is just to keep spreading the word and setting an example of civic participation for your friends and community.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.235/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Challenges #4</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.236/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[4. Are there any potential threats that may be growing while the American people and government are occupied by the war on terror' The war against Islamofascists is the most pressing and prominent national security issue in the United States today. The threat of another devastating attack on the American homeland is sufficient to encourage greater vigilance and attention on the part of many American citizens. Our military and intelligence services are obviously focused on the broad threat that terrorists pose and our diplomatic corps cannot long forget about the many issues involved in fighting terrorism. But there are other problems brewing in the world that may grow into terrible threats to American security. Countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela may someday force the United States into military conflict. Other multinational issues, such as access to oil and other scarce resources, are potential sources of conflict. All of these looming problems deserve the attention of every American citizen. Fortunately, the American government has the capacity to handle more than one problem at a time. While the war against radical Islamists is the most high-profile issue on the American security agenda and therefore attracts a large portion of our resources, there are individuals and agencies within the government that are monitoring these and other potential threats.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.236/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>FAQ Challenges #5</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.237/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[5. Is it true that if I don&#39;t support particular counterterrorism policies that I&#39;m not a patriotic American' Disagreement about how best to protect the United States from terrorism is to be expected - this is a very complex problem. Debate about which policies should be implemented should be encouraged, for an open exchange of ideas competing for public support will help policymakers find the one that is best. What all patriotic Americans can agree on is that the United States must be safe and secure. It is only when someone actively works to make the United States less safe or less successful that they have the potential to cross the line of acceptable behavior.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.237/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Future Threat</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.63/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[The war on terror is likely to be an extremely long-term endeavor that will not end with the election of a new president. It requires not only the prevention of acts of violence but the eradication of an ideology that will continue to breed radical terrorists. It is likely that other threats to American security will arise before the war on terror is complete, testing the tenacity of the resources and will of the American people. 1. North Korea While several small outposts of Communist ideology remain in the twenty-first century, North Korea is by far the most isolated. This, along with its nuclear capabilities, renders it a unique and dangerous threat to American security. Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, has virtually severed ties with most of the established democratic world and is involved in a network of violence and crime that includes international terrorist groups. North Korea&#39;s most likely threat to American security comes from Kim Jong Il&#39;s apparent willingness to sell weapons of mass destruction to the highest bidder. If the United States became aware of such transactions, it would force a confrontation between the two. While North Korea&#39;s resources are no match for the United States, Kim is still a rogue leader of a rogue state and not bound by the rules of personal and political behavior that govern most leaders. His response to an American challenge would be unpredictable and potentially extremely dangerous. 2. Venezuela Since the nineteenth century, the United States has publicly supported the Monroe Doctrine, or the idea that it would permit no foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere. It considers North and South America to be areas of particular interest, due to their geographic proximity to the American homeland. Venezuela represents a direct challenge to the Monroe Doctrine. While it is not being controlled by a foreign power, it represents a destabilizing force in South America that could undermine the essential purpose of the Doctrine: the creation and preservation of stable democratic states that will not threaten American security. Venezuela is currently ruled by President Hugo Chavez. While Chavez has been elected several times in elections certified by international observers, there is ample cause to suspect corruption and coercion in the voting procedures. He has substantially curtailed civil liberties in Venezuela and has developed ties with rogue states throughout the world, including Cuba and Iran. He is virulently anti-American and has repeatedly made personal attacks on President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as well as stating publicly that the United States is attempting to assassinate him. Most ominously, he has indicated a willingness to use Venezuela&#39;s vast oil resources as a tool to attempt to influence American policy. The expansion of Chavez&#39; influence throughout South and Central America would represent a direct threat to democracy and stability in the United States&#39; own backyard that would demand an American response. It would also threaten American homeland security as Chavez has supported Islamist terrorist activity in the past and would likely allow the use of an expanded sphere of influence for terrorist activities directed at American interests. 3. Iran In 1979, Iran became the world&#39;s first Islamic republic when Ayatollah Khomeini&#39;s forces overthrew the shah and seized power. Since then, Iran has remained a stalwart advocate for fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East. It has a repressive legal code that imposes great restrictions upon individual freedom, although it has never reached the levels of Afghanistan under the Taliban. It also has a unique government structure in which its elected leaders receive their legitimacy from a powerful religious hierarchy. These religious leaders have a great deal of influence over the legislative developments of Iran, as they can determine whether a particular violates the teachings of Islam and is therefore void. While Iran has made some steps toward liberalization in the past 25 years, it remains under a powerful theocratic influence. In recent elections, the people of Iran elected a new conservative president, rather than his opponent who was more receptive to new ideas. Today, Iran finds itself in conflict with the West over several issues. Primarily, a dispute has arisen over Iran&#39;s right to develop nuclear technology. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran&#39;s president, claims that the country is only seeking to build nuclear power plants to provide an alternative form of energy to its vast oil resources. However, Western countries, including the United States, fear that the Iranian government would use peaceful nuclear technology to develop nuclear weapons that could then threaten the entire region. While the likelihood of Iran attacking any of its neighbors with a nuclear weapon is small, such a weapon would be within easy striking distance of Israel and of certain targets in Europe. It would also destabilize the already precarious balance of power in the Middle East, by giving Iran an ascendancy that could threaten American relationships with other countries. In addition to the potential threat from nuclear weapons, Iran has a history of supporting international terrorism by providing financial resources, manpower, and safe haven to terrorist groups. Iran&#39;s long border with Iraq makes it likely that many of the insurgents in Iraq have entered from this direction and many may have received aid or training in Iran. For the United States to help achieve stability in Iraq, the border with Iran must be protected and Iranian support for terrorism effectively reduced. 4. China Of all the United States&#39; potential enemies, China may pose the greatest threat. It possesses an immense population, great resources, and a growing economy. It has a unique, antiquated form of Communist ideology that is directly hostile to American democracy. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, it faced a power vacuum in Central and East Asia that all competitors lacked the ability and proximity to fill. It has expanded into that vacuum, using its growing power to expand its interest over neighboring countries. It now believes it has the ability and appears to have the intention of assuming its traditional role as the most powerful state in Asia, seeking not to dominate its neighbors through force but to manipulate their policies through other means. It also is expressing increasingly greater disapproval over external involvement in regional affairs by other countries, such as the United States. For example, while it accepted the decision of several Central Asian states to allow American forces to be stationed on their territory during the war in Afghanistan, its patience on the matter has disappeared and it has begun to call for the removal of all American forces from the region. The most probable threat to the American-Chinese relationship is the issue of Taiwan. Following the Chinese Civil War and the ascension of Mao Tse-Tung to power, the nationalist party withdrew to the island of Taiwan. Today&#39;s government is a remnant of that original party. China believes that Taiwan is rightfully a part of its territory and has demanded all of its friends and allies pledge their support of this "One China" policy. The United States has traditionally supported the democratic aspirations and practices of the Taiwanese government. In 1979, the United States passed the Taiwan Relations Act which authorized a minimal level of diplomatic relations with Taiwan and committed the United States to help defend Taiwan in case of a challenge to its sovereignty. China does not recognize the legitimacy of this act and continues to make efforts to gradually reassert control over Taiwan. Because of the sheer size of both participants, a conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan or another issue could be far costlier in lives and resources than a war against any other enemy. The resources and capabilities of China would make it a very serious enemy.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.63/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Complacency</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.48/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[Since 9/11, the United States has not experienced another direct terrorist attack upon its homeland. The blessing of several peaceful years has led many Americans to believe that the threat of a devastating terrorist attack has passed. They believe that the good work done by the American government and public has so damaged terrorist organizations that they no longer have the capability or the desire to attack the United States. Tragically, this is not true. Many experts estimate the likelihood of an attack upon the United States using weapons of mass destruction in the next ten years to be nearly seventy percent. The 2004 attacks in Madrid and the 2005 attacks in London show that there is still an active international terrorist structure, with the desire and the capabilities to confront Western democracies. The American people must realize this danger and continue to demand vigilance from their lawmakers in the face of the continuing threat. 1. Increasing Awareness America&#39;s greatest strength has always been its people. Historically, the American people have assumed responsibility for their own destinies, through hard work, through education, and through the selection of wise leaders. In this challenge as in those that came before, the collective will and combined talents of the American people can defeat this enemy, if only we understand the danger we face. Only when the people of the United States understand who the enemy is, what his objectives are, and what methods he will employ, will we be as fully vigilant and as well prepared as possible. This is a personal responsibility. While there are sources available for honest and accurate information about the nature of this threat, there are also many sources of disinformation masquerading as fact. As Americans, we must seek to separate fact from fiction so that we may face our enemy straightforwardly and demand the utmost effort from our elected officials. 2. Increasing Participation Improved awareness is only half of the solution. Success in this struggle demands the effort, as well as the attention, of the American people. When we fully understand the nature of this threat and the urgent danger to our way of life that it poses, we must then act upon that knowledge to help secure our nation and our neighbors. There are numerous ways in which individual Americans can help, including many detailed on the Family Security Matters website. A few examples include contacting legislators to indicate our support for specific policies, contributing to educational efforts to help further awareness, volunteering for humanitarian organizations, and helping with fundraising and organizational efforts to promote a higher profile for our nation&#39;s efforts to preserve our national security.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.48/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Misinformation and Slanted Reporting</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.49/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[Many Americans, to the degree that they think about such things at all, believe that misinformation and disinformation as tools for manipulating public opinion are relics of the Cold War. A deep distrust of the media pervades the United States, but Americans tend to suspect journalists and publishers only of possessing a political ideology that may color their view of the facts, not of having a truly malicious intent. While numerous studies have documented the political bias, both liberal and conservative, of major newspapers and television stations, there are many other ways in which apparently factual news can be manipulated. Although the American people, government, and the news industry itself hold our media to a very high standard of transparency, it is not immune to manipulation by hostile foreign actors. For example, the American people are highly sympathetic to those in positions of weakness and can therefore be easily moved by heart-wrenching stories of pain or struggle. This compassionate nature is well known to foreign actors who would like to manipulate American policy. In 1993, the United States sent troops to Mogadishu, Somalia, to restore order in a city ravaged by local warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid. But American soldiers were surrounded in the center of the city, with 19 dying at the hands of local fighters. The fight was videotaped and broadcast across the world. The images of American defeat at the hands of local tribesmen bolstered the Islamist effort worldwide while so demoralizing the American political leadership that troops were withdrawn from Somalia. Was this information true' Sadly so. Did American media outlets have a right and even a responsibility to tell the story' Certainly. But the lesson to be learned is that even the truth can be damaging when delivered by hostile actors. Unless aware of the intent and ability of enemies of the United States to manipulate American policy through the skillful use of the international media, the American people will not be able to detect such ploys and to look beyond them. Radical Islamist leaders understand the power of the media to amplify their message and to support their limited resources. A letter from Ayman al Zawahiri to his allies in Iraq intercepted and made public by the United States government in October, 2005 explicitly discusses using the media as a tool for the terrorist cause. For the United States to avoid the undermining impact of hostile or easily manipulated media reports, the American people must be adamant in our demands for facts and truth in reporting. Additionally, the American people must understand the commercial realities of modern news outlets, particularly on television. News networks, both cable and national, in particular are forced to compete for ratings, which encourages the distillation of complex news stories into one-dimensional soundbite format. There is a fear on the part of producers that if too many details are offered, the audience will get bored and turn away. As a result, news stories are simplified and polarized, to entice the viewer with sensational details and emotional debate. Once again, the facts of a story will rarely, if ever, be changed. But they may be packaged in such a way as to present a misleading image of actual events, if only to increase viewership and ratings. 1. Al Jazeera Al Jazeera is a cable television news station owned by the government and ruling family of Qatar. While many of its reporters and broadcasters were trained in the West and display a commitment to preserving high standards of journalistic integrity, Al Jazeera still has a reputation of being a mouthpiece for Islamist propaganda. A primary reason for this is the consistent practice of terrorist organizations of releasing video and audio-recorded statements first to Al Jazeera, which then releases them to other outlets worldwide. In fact, its first widespread international exposure came from the broadcast of a statement by Osama Bin Laden following 9/11 in which he assumed responsibility for and justified the attacks. Today, Al Jazeera operates a sports channel and a children&#39;s channel, in addition to its news outlet, and maintains numerous international bureaus. It is more independent than most other Arab media outlets, many of which serve only as mouthpieces for a local regime. However, the close relationship it enjoys with numerous terrorist organizations, its history of broadcasting justifications for attacks, and its frequent lack of criticism for radical activity render it a suspect news source. While it is watched by millions of viewers worldwide and enjoys widespread prestige, its actions are often antagonistic to American objectives. 2. American Newspapers and Television The American media is much more independent than that of most of the world. The government exerts little to no control over publishing and broadcasting, with minor exceptions for indecency and libel which are often difficult to prosecute or prove. Therefore, the content of the American newsmedia is largely determined by independent editorial staffs. Preserving the public trust is one of the primary incentives for journalists in these outlets to adhere to high standards of integrity and fairness and few, if any, national news organizations would deliberately risk the compromise of this trust to promote a particular agenda. However, an unwillingness to abandon cherished standards of integrity and truthfulness does not mean that news organizations are tools for supporting American policy. During World War II, the American media establishment, including print and television news as well as filmmakers, largely supported the American effort to defeat fascism. They wrote stories chronicling the many aspects of American sacrifice and highlighting the numerous victories achieved overseas. They displayed faith in the American mission. But the transformations in American society that began in the 1960&#39;s impacted news outlets as well. As the American people lost faith in the governments that gave them Vietnam, Watergate, and a faltering economy, the press assumed a similarly adversarial role in its dealings with the government. This was not a new phenomenon. The ability of a free press to hold those in power up to the light of public scrutiny has always been one of the greatest checks upon extreme government power in the United States. The difference, though, was that for the first time communications technology allowed American news stories to be broadcast throughout the world. What would have at one time been merely a domestic squabble, now became the political equivalent of airing one&#39;s own dirty laundry before the entire globe. And for a world in many cases predisposed to anti-Americanism, this only gave more ammunition to the portrayal of the United States as a hypocritical bully. This is the current state of the American press. It does an outstanding job of bringing faraway details to local populations and, for the most part, does an excellent job of meeting the high standards that it has set for itself. But because many reporters, publishers, and producers start from a position of mistrust in their dealings with the government, stories that are highly critical of government policy and intentions have become the norm, rather than the exception. The American press must preserve its time-honored tradition of exposing corruption and preventing betrayals of the public trust. But it must also understand that in a world such as ours, where information can reach the other side of the globe in less than a second, the image portrayed to our enemies and our friends of a nation that does not support its leaders, does not believe in its policy, and is stricken with domestic turmoil and disagreements, gives credence to a portrayal of the United States as the hypocrite, diminishing international prestige, encouraging anti-Americanism, and giving terrorists more hope for success every day. 3. Internet The Internet is fundamentally changing the way that people on opposite sides of the globe interact with one another and share information. It impacts the American war on terror in two primary ways. First, it facilitates the rapid dispersal of information and ideas without imposing any of the restrictions upon content that are normally associated with traditional media outlets. Someone reading the Washington Post or watching Fox News understands that this information comes with the seal of approval of a large, well-respected organization, with a great interest in preserving the trust of its audience. While occasionally false information is inadvertently included in even the most well-respected news outlet, this is the exception, rather than the rule, and is generally followed by a public apology and extensive self-scrutiny. By contrast, the Internet is so accessible to individuals worldwide and requires only a minimum of expertise and investment to become a comfortable user, that anyone can put information online and give it the appearance and the sound of truth. The result is the proliferation of rumors and half-truths, many of which are repeated so frequently as to sound convincing simply by virtue of repetition. Secondly, the Internet is extremely useful as a networking tool. Individuals or groups with similar interests can share stories, knowledge, and encouragement even when they are half a world away. Terrorist organizations have already capitalized on this tool. It is no longer necessary for a young radical Islamist to travel to the Middle East or Africa to receive training as a terrorist when he can have access to most of the same information at his computer screen. No radical sympathizer needs to feel isolated and alone when he can communicate directly with like-minded supporters online, possibly even building upon these virtual relationships in person. Messages of inspiration and instruction from leaders such as Bin Laden himself no longer need to be broadcast over the public airwaves when they can be included on websites. The peculiarities of this form of communication and the related legislation make it extremely difficult for the authorities to locate such interaction and even more difficult for it to be stopped. 4. Foreign Press While the American press generally feels some legal and moral compunction to adhere to high standards of journalistic integrity and not to directly or outstandingly endanger American citizens, the foreign press often accepts no such restrictions. Foreign news outlets are frequently mouthpieces for local and national governments or particular political viewpoints. While the United States has its share of newspapers and magazines that explicitly and unquestioningly support a particular ideological orientation, these generally do not enjoy very large circulation. In other countries, however, such publications may have effective monopolies or may still have very large readership numbers. Due to their large numbers, these publications (and some similar broadcast stations, as well) are often considered to be unbiased and accurate sources of information in their particular countries. Even if the public is naturally skeptical of their content, in countries with one predominant, state-run newspaper, there may simply be no real competition, thus compounding the problems of complacency and bias. State-run papers can therefore manipulate their readers&#39; perceptions of American policy and intentions with virtually no challenge. Partisan papers can contribute to the existing bias of their readers, who may be content with reading information that supports their perception, rather than challenging it with another point of view. The inescapable reality of such publications, unfortunately, is that they are often operated by individuals with strongly anti-American ideologies and therefore contribute to the continued development of anti-Americanism abroad.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.49/default.asp</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Politics</title>
<link>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.50/default.asp</link>
<description><![CDATA[In the war against terrorism, well-meaning Americans of diverse political leanings can disagree about the tactics used. A vigorous national debate among individuals acting in good faith but with different perspectives can only strengthen the American effort. Not all Americans, however, act with the goal of defeating terrorism foremost in their minds. Some elected officials and political activists either do not realize or deliberately ignore the severity of the terrorist threat. Some believe that attacks on American targets, either at home or abroad, will help discredit current leaders and policies. Others think American policies abroad are unjust and believe acquiescence to terrorist demands would help purify American motivations and behavior. Some look at domestic problems, such as poverty and poor education, and believe these are simply more pressing issues. All of these individuals may believe they are acting in America&#39;s best interest and, in fact, many advocate legitimate and worthwhile policy objectives. However, if the United States is under attack, no other policies or programs can be carried out. Our priority must be to secure America first so we then have the time and ability to improve it, for we cannot achieve our goals in reverse. 1. Demonstrations Anti-war movements in the United States have always relied heavily upon demonstrations. The freedom to assemble is one of America&#39;s most important rights, protected by the Bill of Rights. But because very few restrictions are placed upon demonstrating groups, it is important to investigate the organization and objectives that motivate such events to help prevent social and political manipulation by hostile forces. For example, many of the anti-war demonstrations in the United States and abroad have been organized by International ANSWER and International Action, two groups with shared leadership and international organization capabilities. Together, they promote political action concerning a variety of issues, demonstrating against the World Trade Organization, capital punishment, and the Israeli "occupation" of Palestine, as well as organizing large demonstrations against the war in Iraq. They ally themselves with countries such as Cuba and Venezuela, led by notorious dictators, because of their high-profile opposition to American involvement in global affairs, and founder Ramsey Clark has been a public supporter of Slobodan Milosovic, imprisoned in the Hague for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The organizational and ideological ties between these groups and traditional anti-American, pro-Communist organizations should alert the American public to the ultimate intention behind their demonstrations. While many participants in these events are certainly motivated by an honest belief that American policies abroad are misguided, the driving forces behind them have a history of promoting policies that would lead to the ultimate demise of the American way of life and the erosion of American prominence worldwide. 2. Partisan Politics When faced with an immediate crisis, the elected officials of the United States tend to put aside their differences to form a collective front against adversity. Without such an external threat, however, they often revert to their instinctive tendency to jockey for position and influence with the American electorate. The struggle against Islamist terrorism is no different. Following 9/11, both members of Congress and the American public strongly supported their President, but this initial solidarity quickly eroded as debate began over the best way to fight the new war on terror. Once again, honest and well-intentioned disagreement over policy choices will generally lead to more successful policy selection and implementation. But when this debate devolves into partisan bickering rather than intellectual discussion, American policy suffers. If terrorists will not distinguish between civilians or soldiers, Christians or Muslims, adults or children in their attacks, they certainly will not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. We are all vulnerable and we must all hold ourselves and our legislators to a higher standard. Lawmakers should debate and they should learn from one another&#39;s ideas, but when faced with important decisions they must not allow a petty desire for revenge, a self-centered attempt to win the next election, or a vindictive assault upon a past or potential rival to derail the quest to make America safer. In turn, we as citizens must demand such noble behavior from our lawmakers and, in absence of contrary evidence, assume the best intentions for even those with whom we may disagree. 3. Political Action Groups Running for office in the United States is expensive. There is simply no way to avoid the high costs of travel, of paying staff, and of spreading a candidate&#39;s message. To cover these expenses, most candidates accept the support of political action groups, organizations developed to support candidates and policy initiatives that correspond with a group&#39;s particular objectives. Generally, these groups focus on only a handful, or even only one, policy goal and when their candidate gets elected, they expect to see progress made toward that goal. Adhering to campaign promises and remaining in touch with constituents&#39; needs and wants are two key elements to being a successful legislator. However, large-scale support from groups with powerful financial resources may distort a legislator&#39;s broader policy goals. We see in the United States the difficulty in passing energy legislation, because both oil companies and environmental groups contribute so much money to senators and representatives. Similar debates exist on nearly all subjects, including defense and homeland security. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, may strongly advocate against the Patriot Act while police and security groups may support it wholeheartedly. Political action groups may disrupt the war on terror in other ways beyond simply holding up or watering down specific legislation. In some cases, they may be so powerful financially or organizationally that their single-minded focus on issues other than defense may simply not leave adequate money or time for lawmakers to devote to security issues. In other instances, they may file lawsuits prohibiting the implementation of certain legislation or compelling certain action on the part of the government, such as the legal challenges to the detention at Guantanamo Bay of prisoners of war that ultimately resulted in the mandatory access of these individuals to legal council. Political action is an important element of freedom of speech in the United States, but when wielded unwisely or given too much deference by lawmakers, it can interfere with essential government policies. 4. The United Nations In the modern world, the consequences of war or ill-advised policy decisions can have an unparalleled impact upon people and resources. The United Nations offers a venue for the international community to discuss problems and find solutions that give consideration to the rights of all and help avoid rash decision-making. Unfortunately, its noble intentions have been largely destroyed by corrupt bureaucrats and a pervasive perception that it is merely a vehicle for less powerful nations to repay a history of perceived bullying. In an attempt at egalitarianism, all members of the United Nations General Assembly are given a single vote, regardless of resources or population. Many use this as a platform to rail against perceived injustices and to promote ideologically questionable worldviews. Far fewer than half of its members are democracies, giving substantial influence to dictators, despots, and rogue states. In the Security Council, the five permanent members (the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain, and France) are each given veto power over proposed resolutions, a means through which disagreeable states can prevent any action whatsoever. No respect whatsoever is accorded to the type of government, as democracies and autocracies are given equivalent moral standing. Beyond the structural flaws in the United Nations lies a deep-rooted corruption of personnel. Many nations use UN appointments as nepotistic rewards for family and friends of the leader who want an easy job, rather than filling these positions with idealistic and dedicated staffers committed to a better vision of the world. With the addition of widespread lack of oversight, the result is corruption at all levels from UN soldiers in the field who have been regularly accused of rape and theft to the highest levels of management. The recent Oil for Food scandal uncovered in the wake of the war in Iraq is but one example. In the most financially costly corruption scheme in the history of the world, a program designed to feed the Iraqi people while preventing the use of their oil revenue for nefarious purposes served only to enrich Saddam Hussein and UN bureaucrats. With these examples, it is clear that the purpose of the UN as a forum where disagreements can be resolved and decisions can be made is not being realized and it is instead all too often a tool by which corrupt leaders and diplomats enrich themselves at the expense of others.]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges/pageID.50/default.asp</guid>
</item>
</channel></rss>
