From the rumors of disenfranchised Russian soldiers selling suitcase-sized nuclear arms to the very real story of Pakistan's leading nuclear scientist selling secrets, it is becoming increasingly likely that weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of people who lack an appreciation for the American way. President Bush is well aware of this unfortunate truth and expressed the need for international action on the matter in yesterday's address. Bush outlined the need for increased missile-defense and sharing of intelligence on a greater international scale and said the United Nation's nuclear anti-proliferation group, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group - composed of 40 nuclear-producing countries - must do a better job of keeping weapons material out of the wrong hands.
To a point, the president is correct in his assessment. International cooperation is necessary in such uncertain times, and countries like Pakistan must continue steps to halt the flow of secrets out of their nations. But the comments also illustrate a continued ignorance on the administration's part as to whom the United States and, to a lesser extent, the free world are fighting against.
Modern warfare is not the country vs. country model that has dominated human history. Just as huge international corporations are becoming formidable international power brokers, the combatants in war are crossing borders and becoming more refined. America can scour the Earth searching for Osama bin Laden, using traditional warfare to search for the proverbial needle in a haystack, or it can refine its way of interpreting world events. In an earlier era, issues such as missile defense may have been important, but what good are conventional defenses against impotent conventional foes like North Korea and Iran when the real enemies are the terrorists who infiltrated those airplanes on that devastating day two and a half years ago?
International efforts should not be used to support lumbering traditional armies to shut down rusting warheads. Rather, the U.S. must convince the international community to allow this battle to be fought covertly and across borders. Otherwise, the United States will continue using flawed tools in a noble conflict.
United States House representatives are thought of highly enough by the voting populace to represent them in government, and the corporate world looks favorably on them as well. As soon as many representatives finish their service in Congress, big businesses approach them, showering them with job offers. Some former representatives become lobbyists. It is a logical fit; they know the political terrain, generally know the issues and carry sway with the current legislators. While somewhat unseemly, moves like this are commonplace in the political world.
Government ethics laws dictate that former members of Congress cannot be lobbyists for one year after leaving office. House members are allowed to discuss future employment while they still are in office and are discouraged but not prohibited from continuing to attend committees or discussions that could directly affect a future profession. Rep. W.J. Billy Tauzin, R-La., has fielded offers from several companies looking for his services after the end of his term next year. As Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he was offered jobs by drug companies and the movie industry, two business sectors on which his committee has a direct impact. Under mounting pressure, he resigned, citing health problems. Such instances of questionable ethical behavior have happened in the past, albeit less publicly. A health-insurance company offered former Rep. Bill Gradison, R-Ohio, a position right after his 1992 reelection. He resigned a few months later to take the job.
Congress as a whole must do more to change the status quo. Members of Congress surely have the right to seek gainful employment after their service, but to entertain job offers during a term sets a dangerous precedent that seriously affects credibility.
17 Archives
