Support for SecDef's empowerment via sec. 363

[Don Zweifel <zweifel@chapman.edu>]

Perhaps this is a point where we need to draw the line on any action
that significantly impacts defense preparedness, especially when it may
eventually place national security in jepardy.

The Office of the Secy of Defense (OSD), the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff)
and the C-in-C (Commander in Chief) when acting in that capacity, have a
direct responsibility to our citizenry to maintain the peace through
sufficient maintenance of our ready reaction forces. They must be capable 
of responding instantaneously to any crisis scenario that could create
regional and/or global destablization. 

Shouldn't we place enough trust in our SecDef to promulgate accurate and
equitable judgments as to what constitutes a detrimental impact on force
readiness and an adequate level of training? Any attempt to usurp or
attenuate this newly augmented authority calls to mind a basic tenant of
unwritten military doctrine, i.e., "Civilians meddling excessively in
matters miitary usually end up as too many cooks spoiling the broth."

A case in point being the Carter administration's successful attempt at
eviscerating or gutting our armed forces so effectively that we became
incapable of responding in any significant way to the 444-day occupation
of our embassy in Tehran.*

The People on the other hand, have an inalienable right to fully expect
prompt and thorough remediation and restoration efforts at all
contaminated military and DOE sites. We, however, have no right to demand
immediate clean-up and reversion to civilian control if it adversely
affects our ability to exercise force deployments in a timely manner.

Force readiness is our nation's sine qua non or absolute prerequisite.
Don't we need to maintain our credibility as a viable world power?
If not then expect us to take a back seat in any future global
deliberations affecting the status quo. 

The environment should be protected at practically all costs but shouldn't
we factor in other crucial details into the equation, such as whether we
wish to remain a superpower or not? This is actually what it ostensibly
boils down to.

Do you take issue with this premise or concur?

* Occupation began on 4 Nov. 1979

 Don Zweifel