President Obama VS. FVP Dick Cheney on national security.

As stated by Dick Cheney “half measures leave us half expose” as logically sound as this statement is, no one can fully understand it without questioning the attribute “measures”. Supposedly, the meaning of this statement lies within the parameter of many measures taken by Obama’s security team to protect us against terrorism. This statement also implies if half measures leaves us half expose than the opposite is the preferred alternative, which is “full measures”. But is they such a thing as “full measures.”

Perhaps, full measures are abstract attributes which are only relative to the administration who claim to have employed them. In order for full measures to have had merit, they shouldn’t be any penetration of terrorist attack that threatens our freedom when it is applied. If they are 1% chance that terrorist can infiltrate our measures, than whether or not we consider our measures full, it would not seem so if that 1% succeed. Since full measures would have foreseen every potential terrorist attack, than it reasonable to say under full measures, no attack would have been able to permeate our borders. This logic allows one to question the audacity of some who question the measures taken by this administration for ensuring our safety.

But is it really true that Obama's homeland security team has left us half expose? By accepting Cheney’s argument, we’re admitting that the current administration actions against terrorism have not been enough. As if to say, more is needed to be done, and until those measures have been met, we will forever remain half expose. Well, that’s not a pleasant thought to think about. But if that is so, what more is needed is a valid question to ask. And since Dick Cheney did not announced what had to be improved to secure our safety while keeping Guantanamo open, sort of left us contemplating whether or not we’re truly half expose.

We may never know whether or not we’ve been left half expose, because it’s not likely for homeland security to layout to the public all the measures they have taken to protect us against terrorism. Had they done that, not only would the security of this country be compromise, members of Al – Qaeda would have been able to applied what they have leaned to infiltrate our security measures. It would have also been meaningless and disadvantageous for the country as a whole. It’s always in the country’s best interest for any administration not to discus every measure taken to protect our citizens and territory. So how can Dick Cheney say that this administration has left us half exposed?

Since it’s not advisable for anyone to place all their eggs in one basket, it’s reasonable for them to have invested in other measures that are not known to our citizens. And since those measures would be top secret, it would not have been in our interest for President Obama to even mentioned or elaborate on them.

After all, that’s what national security entails, no one apart top members of security advisors should know what all these security measures are. And as the president stated “if he chooses to keep something secret, he will tell us why” This president has showed that he’s as concern with our safety as he is with upholding the value of our constitution. He said “we should make decisions base on foresight rather than fear”. Unlike the previous administration, our freedom of speech is not handing by a thread, instead its freefalling, going only against gravitational force. Having citizens of this country sharing their ideas on national security, is also a strength that can be use to help members of national security advisors makes better decisions. Like they say, "two heads is better than one", now think about a million heads. It feels comfortable to have a president who listens.

Although Dick Cheney oppose the president strategies employed to secure our borders, does not implied that he wishes that he fail, it simply signified an opposition marinated in good will. As stated by the president “even bringing together persons of good will can be difficult, the soldier and the lawyer can love this country with equal passion and yet reach very different conclusion on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm”. Dick Cheney loves his country with equal passion as many of us, but as you can see, his approach is very different than Obama’s.

It is never too late to make a difference. And since Cheney is our former vice president, one can argued, if he couldn’t keep us safe then why we should believe he can do it now. Well, sometime it’s when you no longer hold the throne you’re able to visualize what could have been done differently to secure our borders. We should not take is views to be meaningless, but instead an expression of concern deriving from good intent.

Tom Ridge who was the former secretary of home land security under George W. Bush, disagreed with both president Obama & Dick Cheney, but somehow no one has yet heard what this disagreements is about. The media has edited the part where he was about to speak, hopefully it gets played some time in the future. However, since TomRidge publicly disclaimed the notion that Obama’s security team has left America less safe, has to some extent strengthen Obama’s arguments against Cheney’s.

Regardless of what the disagreement could be, this administration has showed great concern with the current state of the economy, to the point where they will not let anything deter them from achieving their goal. And that is to bring the economy to a functioning condition where citizens can get back in the job market. This is not to say they prefer a better economy over the safety of our citizens, but they understand without financial means, the security of this country will bear the most fatigue. You can’t give priority to one and neglect the other, because if we’re not producing we’ll face with difficulties securing our safety. This is part of the reason why addressing the naval academy, president Obama said “I will only send you in harm ways if it’s absolutely necessary”. Wars equal money folks, and if we’re using it to fight wars that are not absolutely necessary, we’ll pay the consequence in other sectors that are just as important as the security of our people.

Likewise, it cost us more to detain detainees in Guantanamo than if we were to hold them in our cells. According to New York Times, the estimated cost for operating Guantanamo is about $90 - $118 million annually. And since we’re now faced with economic constraints, the best options would be to keep these detainees in our solitary confinement where their can be secure while costing us less to keep them captive.

National security is not a one way street, without our allies keeping a watchful eye, we are as expose as the naked cowboy in Time Square. This is why president Obama said “we’re building new partnership around the world to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qeada and its affiliate.” This effort to change the way we fight terrorism by building partnership to amplify our power is derived from this principle “Unity is what gives birth to change without it they can’t be no change.” Yes, that’s right folks, we can’t live in a world where no one likes us, it is our friends, our affiliates, and our allied that can help keep us safe. Obama brings hope to foreign policy and we are now experiencing it. We should not look at his action as being weak but instead strategically smart. He is aware of our weaknesses so for that reason, he takes minuscule steps to strengthen it to better secure our territory and citizens. We rather not live in fear, if we must fight to secure our citizens, we much prefer to do it without frighten them instead of using levels of scarcity such as code blue, red, and yellow.