In the past 20 years alone there have been:
- Physical threats to our country from terrorists
- Technological/hacking threats to government agencies, corporations, and citizens from China, Russia, and North Korea
- Intellectual property and patent theft from China and others
- Economic threats through currency manipulation from China
- Trade threats through restrictions and unequitable tariffs imposed by various nations
- Electoral threats through Russian and Iranian voting manipulation
The concept of self-defense is not new but as attacks have become less conventional over time, the US appears to have lost the willingness to call out and hold accountable those who attack our way of life. In one recent example, our answer to the increased hacking from Russia was to call out specific institutions which are off limits… THEY SHOULD ALL BE OFF LIMITS. In a parallel analogy, can anyone imagine a sexual harassment policy that tolerated anything greater than 0%? There must be no mixed message: the US will not tolerate those who attack our government, businesses, citizens, or way of life.
Common objections are likely centered on the delicate nature of foreign relations and the risk of getting into another cold war or worse yet a real war, but this theory is flawed for two reasons:
- This isn’t about unprovoked aggression or accidental incidents. This is about defending ourselves from intentional attacks on our way of life that are directly or indirectly (via inaction) endorsed by other nations.
- This principle isn’t unprecedented. Both China and Russia regularly take similarly aggressive positions for less drastic incidents (recent examples from China and Russia – or just Google “Russia threatens” or “China threatens”).
Reversing the trend and defending our nation is possible if we demand it from our politicians:
- Ensure funding is in place to both protect and defend our way of life.
- Demand our politicians engage global organizations to create a unified front against newly emerging threats.
- Prioritize clear expectations, transparency of findings, and appropriate action over global opinions.
