Today's Question Category Archive: Security

What do you think of President Obama's plan for a leaner military?

Posted at 5:00 AM on January 6, 2012 by Eric Ringham (70 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government, Security

President Obama laid out his vision Thursday for a leaner military more reliant on sea and air power. While his strategy would be aimed at maintaining overall military superiority, it would no longer require that the United States be prepared to fight two ground wars simultaneously. Today's Question: What do you think of President Obama's plan for a leaner military?

Comment on this post

What principles should limit the FBI's surveillance powers?

Posted at 5:00 AM on June 15, 2011 by Eric Ringham (16 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Security

The FBI has rewritten its own rules to give agents more leeway in investigating people who attract its attention. Critics say the new rules may open the door to abuse. Today's Question: What principles should limit the FBI's surveillance powers?

Comment on this post

Who do you think about on Memorial Day?

Posted at 5:00 AM on May 30, 2011 by Eric Ringham (12 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Security

Today is Memorial Day, a federal holiday dedicated to the memory of soldiers who have died in America's wars. Today's Question: Who do you think about on Memorial Day?

Comment on this post

How do you think Minnesota's gun laws should be reformed?

Posted at 5:00 AM on February 8, 2011 by Eric Ringham (59 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government, Security

A proposal working its way through the Legislature would eliminate the state's system of permits and background checks for gun purchases. Today's Question: How do you think Minnesota's gun laws should be reformed?

Comment on this post

Do you agree with the judge's ruling on "don't ask, don't tell"?

Posted at 5:00 AM on October 13, 2010 by Eric Ringham (23 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Politics/Government, Security

A federal judge in San Diego ruled the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional on Tuesday. Today's Question: Do you agree with the judge's ruling on "don't ask, don't tell"?

Comment on this post

How much confidence do you have in our system of justice?

Posted at 5:00 AM on August 9, 2010 by Eric Ringham (12 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Security

After Koua Fong Lee was released from prison last week, people close to his case said they had doubts all along about aspects of his original trial. Today's Question: How much confidence do you have in our system of justice?

Comment on this post

Should Americans hear directly what's on a general's mind?

Posted at 5:00 AM on June 23, 2010 by Eric Ringham (30 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government, Security

The commander in charge of the Afghanistan war is in trouble for being openly critical of the Obama administration. Today's Question: Should Americans hear directly what's on a general's mind?

Comment on this post

What should happen with the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Posted at 6:00 AM on October 13, 2009 by Eric Ringham (35 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Race/Gender, Security

President Obama recently repeated his promise to repeal the Clinton-era law concerning gays in the military. What should happen with the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Comments from the Public Insight Network:

It's a nasty reminder of Bill Clinton's decision to cave to idiot fundie opposition that should have gone away a long time ago. There is no reason to continue it one day longer. We're losing good people (including badly needed linguists) because no one in or out of uniform has the courage of character to confront mindless prejudices based on irrational religious misinterpretations of what is basically tribal anthropology. And I say this (a) as a confirmed heterosexual and (b) a 'Nam-era Army vet (and linguist). -Dick Schaaf, Apple Valley, MN

It should be removed entirely. Sexual orientation should not be part of the military's consideration for who serves the country. All orientations should be held to the military's standards for proper behavior, respect, etc. There shouldn't be some sort of discrimination on the basis of orientation, nor should there be an expectation that orientation is something to be kept quiet. -Cole Sarar, Minneapolis, MN

The policy should be repealed. The tendency to same sex attraction is a serious psychological issue and should not be treated as healthy. Individuals with other serious psychological issues, though otherwise physically healthy, would not be considered candidates for the military. The same rule should apply to homosexuals. -Mary Kratz, Stillwater, MN

To put it simply, the policy is unfair, impractical, and absurd in a country that professes to value basic freedoms and equality. I can understand the hesitancy for those who are acting on instruction provided by their church or more traditional upbringing, but the time for an acceptance of these irrational fears is past. Let them serve. Let them serve openly. And God bless them for their service to our country. -Brad White, Dellwood, MN

It should be eliminated and people should be able to serve regardless of sexual orientation. -Richard Rowan, St. Paul, MN

Really - there is no need for it. We as a society should be more tolerant of the stuff going on in the world today in terms of relationships. If anything, a bigger responsibility of it all should fall on the parents and explaining in an open dialogue. And if they want to honor their country, then they should be allowed to do so without question to their sexual orientation. -Ali Elabbady, Roseville, MN

It should have never been signed or enacted in the first place. I am not saying that people should flaunt their sexuality. However, most military personnel do not go around saying to others "let me tell you about my sexual orientation." They want to be able to serve just as others, who picked this line of work. It is always interesting how those who constantly point fingers at those they deemed outsiders are the same people who are hypocrites. They cheat on their wives, abuse prescriptions drug and then have the audacity to stick their nose in places it does not belong. -Victoria Karpeh, Brooklyn Park, MN

It should go away. The reason given for the "Don't Ask" policy is that straight soldiers living in close quarters with gay soldiers will feel threatened or uncomfortable, but gay people have spent their teens changing and showering with their own genders in gym class and sleeping with their own genders on school trips. If anyone has learned to control their sexual urges in close quarters, it's gay people. The military should really be addressing straight men's inability to control their sexual urges- the incidence of men raping women is much higher in the military than in the general population. -Mark Wohlers, Minneapolis, MN

Dump it ASAP. Sixteen years ago DADT was a shaky first step towards equality, yes, but it was at least a shaky step forward. Times have changed; now polling data overwhelmingly show that Americansâ€" both inside and outside the militaryâ€" have gotten used to the idea of having GLBT individuals serving among those who do the Pentagon's bidding. Discharging highly and expensively trained personnel because of whom they love or lust is shameful, wasteful and, above all, tactically stupid. Ours is one of the few nations that hasn't accepted this reality. Why does "American exceptionalism" so often seem to come at the expense of social justice? -Bill Greuling, Minneapolis, MN

It is best described as silly. It was a compromise squeezed out of old myths and practices, and it has not served the institution well. It should go away. Sexual orientation should not be considered any more than race, religion or hair color. -Pat Krueger, St. Cloud, MN

Dump this stupid and hateful policy. Allow the military personnel who have been discriminated against be reinstated. People should be removed for good cause, not for who they are. -Margaret Catambay, Minneapolis, MN

"Don't ask, don't tell" simply needs to be abolished. The military has led the way o racial and gender integration. With eucation and clear policies the military can make an important contribution to American social development by following the leads of other Western nations for whom the open presence of homosexual soldiers in their armies has not proved to be a problem. Forcing homosexual soldiers into the closet has damaged good people and our military organizations in incalculable ways. It will take a unifed front and a firm resolve by leadership to make it happen, however -- getting to that point may be the biggest channel. -Ted Snyder, St. Paul, MN

It's my belief that the law should be repealed. This is not only a political battle but a generational struggle. The quest for equanimity in rights and responsibilities is an individualized process over the ages, and it's time for the newer generations to express politically their solutions for change. -Guthrie Horgan, Chaska, MN

Realistically and in all fairness, it should be repealed. On the other hand, it is a way to actually get out of the Military. -Mary Smith, Little Falls, MN

Eliminate it! Opposition to gays in the military is viewed by many from a religious perspective, while using the excuse of spoiling unit cohesiveness as their cover. As such, this is a matter of Separation of Church and State. Homophobia, like racism, is a divisive disease that festers, often with tragic outcomes. Gays are equally as capable and patriotic as the next guy. Knowing that so many of the world's famous we revere are, or were gay, makes "Don't ask don't tell" a mockery, not only of the Christian faith, but democracy and of ourselves as moral people. -Corinne Livesay, White Bear Lake, MN

The military has been a leader of reform, but not voluntarily in most cases. Beginning with President Truman, they have managed change, and there is no better place to do so. They have been behind the people in the case of gays, and it's time they caught up. Don't ask, Don't tell must be repealed. -Michael Kellett, Roseville. MN

This shameful relic of Republican pandering to their "base" of conservative fanatics has been damaging our reputation, our ethics and our military preparedness for so long, it's time to scuttle it before we get too close to another election and it turns into another issue for the Republicans to use. -Richard Johnston, New York, NY

My Dad, a physician, is a veteran of the Army medical corps. He served in the WWII Army of Occupation in Japan, and as a psychiatrist, he helped the troops cope with their own fear and grief at the sight of the devastation to Nagasaki and Hiroshima. My other Dad, a professor of electrical engineering, is a little older -- he served as a ship's engineer in the Pacific during WWII. My husband's father was an Air Force pilot in WWII. And my husband is a Vietnam veteran, an army platoon sergeant. I am a 52 yr old woman, never drafted, but all my menfolk, gay, straight, or bi, served proudly & with honor. That stupid law is bigotry. End it. -Karen Wills, Minneapolis, MN

I watched Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign Annual Dinner and was impressed by all the promises he made, including "I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that's my commitment to you." I support this commitment, but my concern is this: when LGBT members of the military are allowed to be open about their sexual orientations and gender identities, how will the military educate soldiers, protect the safety of LGBT soldiers, and otherwise prepare for this large-scale coming out? -Natalie Ehalt, Minneapolis, MN

The policy has hurt individuals who wanted to serve our country, causing them pain and depleting the pool of talent available to staff the armed services. Other countries have learned there is no need for a policy that increasingly looks dated and barbarous. -Steve Grooms, St. Paul, MN

Congress should immediately pass a law to allow every able bodied man and woman to serve in the armed forces of the United States. Why should such a large section of the population be prohibited from serving. Regardless of what they say gays and lesbians have always served in the military but in the closet. Why should someone have to hide and lie about themselves in order to serve in defense of our freedoms. I believe sexual orientation is determined at conception and nothing can be done to change that but you can be made to or chose to deny your sexual orientation but that doesn't change the fact that you are gay or lesbian and always will be. -Paul Moe, Minnetonka, MN

Share your reply in the comments: What should happen with the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Comment on this post

What would success in Afghanistan look like?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 20, 2009 by Anna Weggel (9 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Security

Recent polling finds U.S. public support for the war in Afghanistan at a historic low. And as Afghans prepared to vote in today's presidential election, U.S. casualties were mounting at a record rate. After nearly eight years of war, what would success in Afghanistan look like?

The question implies that military commanders have a clear mission assignment. An example is FDR's charge to Eisenhower "... to enter the continent of Europe and defeat all Axis forces." The commanders in Afghanistan have no such charge. Therefore there can be no answer to the question. Some pundits surmise that the objective of our presence in Afghanistan is to provide the means to enable the formation of a stable US ally in the region capable of providing for its own security. This is not a military objective but a political goal beyond the grasp of our military forces. -Irving Lerch, Washington D.C.

I spent a year in Afghanistan, mobilized with the National Guard to train Afghans to defend their country against the murderous Taliban. While I did see some combat, most of my missions were humanitarian in nature, passing out food, clothing, toys and school supplies to some of our planet's most desperately poor inhabitants. Success would mean some different values than most Afghans hold today, and a new understanding of words that aren't part of their current vocabulary, like due process and legal rights. -Jeffrey Courter, Flossmoor, IL

Success would, in my opinion, be where we see AFGHAN People fighting these terror-fundamentalists for themselves...This tyrannized Nation need to fight for themselves, and with the help of ourselves, and the many others there at this time, we could not help but be successful in this War. Without this, we cannot win. -Dan Wargo, Arcata CA

For me success in Afghanistan would be seeing enough political stability to encourage investment and economic development there. The Afghans might never have democracy as we Americans know it, but they should at least have the right to choose their leadership. Condaleeza Rice once said the U. S. had seen stability in the Middle East before, and that was not enough: the spread of democracy was more important in her eyes, but then the Bush administration got quite upset with the election of Hamas as the Palestinians' leadership. If something like this happens in Afghanistan, we should be prepared to live with it. -Martha Steger, Midlothian, VA

Success in Afghanistan would mean people there would be free of the Medusa-like power of the Taliban. Success in Afghanistan would be the withdrawal of all foreign troops, and no more sad video feeds of young people from the US and our allies dying in sniper fire, or by bombs planted in the road to blow up any vehicle or being that travels along it. Success would be the realization that all of the Earth's people, would have the right to an education, to live a life free of tyranny from those that use murder and bloodshed to foment destruction upon those that do not follow their particular brand of living, Freedom. -Ann Flynt, Jackson, TN

Woman have their full rights, the Taliban are no longer a dominating force in the country and we are out of there. -John Catenacci, Onsted, MI

Let us back up to the late seventies before the US launched what would become the Taliban and Al Queda. After 40 years Afghan women no longer are sold, traded, or have their faces covered. Honor killings still happen, but are punished severely. The infant and maternal mortality rate is in the mid-range for impoverished countries, as opposed to being #1. Half of Afghanistan is UXO free, as opposed to 10%. Paved roads connect 70% of the population. Wells provide clean water. Sewage treatment is country wide. The rate of illiteracy is 10%. 80% of girls and 95% of boys are in school. The government is no more corrupt than the US. -Thomas Baxter, Tallahassee, FL

The Afghans would create their own form of governance (rather than a US democracy) and begin the process of creating basic infrastructure such as micro markets and trade, schools, masques, market areas, basic industry, police, and a viable military that could provide basic defense for the country. The Taliban would be neutralized though not necessarily eliminated completely. -Robert Rue, Peterborough, NH

For the US, a situation where the Taliban is not terrorizing Afghan citizens. They are very difficult to eliminate, so they need to be controlled. For the people, specifically women and children, the right to a real education and choice in marriage and dress. Also ability to divorce and obtain birth control. The key is real education, not soviet style education that teaches that the Soviets were the first to land on the moon for example. Education that teaches the basics of biology and other sciences. Access to the internet. -Susan Beane, Castle Rock, CO

If memory serves me, one of the consequences of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was the deliberate destruction of fruit trees. When food producing trees are routinely replanted and are able survive to maturity success has been achieved. -Judith Cichowicz, Las Vegas, NV

The term "eight years of war" immediately speaks to frustation with a war. If a war is worth being waged, the length of time the war will take is not the issue. The issue is the objective! Is it worthy of the time, material, and most of all the lives that will be spent. For me the Afghanistan War Objective should be, if it is not, to provide stability for the Government and its population to develop infastructure and institutions for a strong society to develop. Good, Positive, noble objectives take time and effort. Early withdrawal will just force us back to a less tenable situation that now exist. -James Essam, Beaverton, OR

We would have cleaned up the Terrorist threat and established peace with the Political group that we are determined to call "Terrorist". The poppy crop would have a market and additional item would have been added to it. If adding a pipeline would have helped their economic growth we would have responsibly helped to establish it. The Military Objective that has been started is a complete failure. We have used up our NATO currency like a bunch of nuts. When opportunity was opened, we followed the leadership of a complete idiot! Many American Generals were fired by the IDOT and the press let the action stay beyond the public' ears. -James Becker, Zebulon, NC

We should follow the time honored tradition of issuaing a proclamation that we have won the war and then leave immediately! This is basically how we got out of Viet Nam, another total quagmire, and it is the only way we will ever get out of Afghanistan. -Henry Bennett, Portland, OR

Turkey; no mullahs, no taliban, no theocracy, no beatings in the street, no acid thrown in girls faces and, last but not least, no warlords. Is that going to happen? No in our lifetimes... -Thomas Ronayne, Detroit, MI

Strictly speaking, the only reason we fougt the Taliban was because they could have given us Osama and they refused to. Our singular objective was and should remain Osama bin Laden. If he's now in Pakistan, then we no longer have a reason to be in Afghanistan. But, if we want to partake in a nation-building exercise, then there are lots of things we might seek to do. No more Taliban, or at least a Taliban that is a pathetic minority that most Afghans hate but no longer fear. A democracy with voter turn-out at least as high (low?) as ours. No more gender discrimination. A non-religious school system. That's a start. -Paul Caldwell, Durham, NC

30 years, not 8. Can you imagine living through a 30 year war ? YES, to those who believe that 'success' must be defined from an Afghan perspective rather than a US military perspective. Social, economic and political development will be difficult; Afghanistan lost two generations of educated people. Rory Stewart (The Places in Between) offers an alternative to current policy: foreign troop reductions to 20,000 sufficient, he believes, to prevent Al Qaeda from operating in Afghanistan and a concomitant increase in development projects uncoupled from controlled efforts at 'state building'. Worth considering ? -Jo Shepherd, St. Paul, MN

Success would be when elections would not be handled by the CIA and the U.S. has dismantled military bases along the formerly (1990's) proposed pipeline route. Success would be if America learns that our knee jerk form of foreign policy has created more problems than it has solved. Absolute success would be if the American people realized that their paranoia has us spending ourselves into ruin by trying to control the world. Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires. Going by the military strategy of destroying a village in order to save it, maybe Afghanistan will in some way actually save America. -Rick Guerard, Oak Creek, WI

First, 'success' is a very subjective term--my opinion is probably very different than Afghanis view of success. I am currently reading A Thousand Splendid Suns by Hosseini, and this great book teaches you about three decades of war-torn Afghanistan and fictional characters living in it. Success to those characters would mean equal rights for women instead of Islamic law. The ability to walk down a street peacefully. Courts that BELIEVE the words of women are just as truthful as men. Changing the minds of Taliban militiamen to put down weapons and pick up a job. It means bringing an economy to a country that has been in a civil war for years. -Daniel Burazer, Mt. Holly, NC

Like the Afghanistan of the 60's, or of Greg Mortensen's dreams. One with schools for all, fruitful orchards, engaged artisans and business people, and free and fair elections. The first step is disarmament of the country - all sides. The second is infrastructure. And it all comes down to trust - in themselves, in us, in the rest of the world. Trust. -Stacy Plemmons, Fort Collins, CO

If it were not for Osama bin Laden who seems to be completely out of the news these days, we would not have any troops in Afghanistan today. Other countries such as Somalia are now emerging as sanctuaries for Osama. What are our goals for remaining in Afghanistan; what will it take for us to leave? -James Friedlander, Brunswick ME

The United States would realize that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan people and that we have no business there whatsoever and that the great game for oil is a pure disaster. the only way to peace is to give up war and end the use of oil. -Greg Gerritt, Providence, RI

There will be no definable "success" in Afghanistan just as there was no definable success in Vietnam or Iraq. Fighting terrorism using our military is playing a never-ending game of 'whack-a-mole' as we move from country to country in a futile attempt to stop ideas with bullets and bombs. Success over terrorism will only come about when Americans rejoin the world community as a true partner and stop efforts to mold other countries into our own image. -John Andreini, St. Louis Park, MN

Rule of law, sustained international trade and no safe havens for the Taliban or al-Qaeda. -Dana Haynes, Portland, OR

Success: a stable government (not necessarily a single central government, but a system most Afghans support) without militant Taliban domination, but possibly Taliban political participation. It would be nice if the government banned poppy/heroin growing & trafficking, and guaranteed women's rights, but that might be too much to hope for now. -Ronald Miller, Huntsville, AL

A stable government which is capable of defending itself. -Fred Green, Minneapolis, MN

Success for who? The US goals are a pipeline that bypasses Iran and a base from which to penetrate Central Asia. These are in no one's interest except for some western corporations. For the Pashtuns, success might be a nation of their own. The British-imposed Durand line put a third of them in Pakistan and the rest in Afghanistan. For people in general success would be for the US to leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later. The money wasted on war could be spent on health care at home. -Per Fagereng, Portland, OR

Success by military means is elusive to measure, as it's about perceptions and what people will tolerate their taxes being spent on. Clearly people will vigorously scrutinize health care reform, but NEVER the unquestioned trillions annually spent on America's military overall let alone its actions in Afghanistan & Iraq. (Basically at the expense of providing universal health care at home.) The Afghan contradiction? Spending on the war's fighting side is viewed as legitimate when a 'win' is in mind, but success really means winning the peace, transforming the place economically, politically & more. Sadly US voters are not so tolerant of this. -Bruce Dickson, Portland, OR

Share your reply in the comments: What would success in Afghanistan look like?

Comment on this post