By Scott W. Winchell and Denise Simon
The M.A.S.T. Project - (Military Advisory and Strategy Team)
Stand Up America and a great many other constitutional conservative organizations are simply appalled by the lack of understanding about the most important issue facing the nation today – the fact that the economy and US foreign policy are integrally tied. To many people, the two issues are separate from each other and need to be dealt with independently; quite possibly, a fatal error.
In this campaign season for the Presidency, these two issues are at the forefront. Last night, the first debate focused upon domestic policies and by all accounts the challenger, Mitt Romney scored a resounding victory. Fortunately, more debates are scheduled to address foreign policy as well. The next Presidential debate is scheduled for October 16th, and like the Vice Presidential debate scheduled for next Thursday, the topic will be domestic and foreign policy.
The fact is, foreign and economic/domestic policy are not mutually exclusive by any means because the failure of one or both means the demise of our way of life – our security depends on both equally. Yes we have the most technologically advanced weaponry, employed by the most superior, well-trained troops in quantity and quality, but it is hamstrung by ham-handed foreign policy and politically active Pentagon elites.
Our economy also still leads the world, and how we fare means the success or failure of the world economy, but it too is being hamstrung by ham-handed domestic policy. The two candidates tackled one aspect last night, now, if handled correctly, the candidate who demonstrates a mastery of the integral nature of the two will succeed, not just in gathering votes, but more importantly, will correct the course of our ship of state and allow our economy to truly rebound.
The biggest threat to American security is a failed economy, and that failure, when married to the spate of foreign policy and diplomatic failures of the past three plus years means we are on the brink of complete collapse if we stay this course. Our status in the world will have collapsed, and our society will have followed suit.
The differences in philosophy between the candidates are oceans apart. The first of the two means proceeding with the status quo based on “getting your fair share”, from a re-distributive government bent on, at a minimum, equalizing our standing among nations. The second setting a course based on sound advice from people who have the type of experience that marries the two issues, where the nation will regain its necessary standing as the economic engine of the world. A stable environment supported by a state of peace through strength once again.
The question is therefore: do enough people in the electorate understand this? Do our two Presidential candidates understand this? The answer is a resounding no, at least emphatically on the left. The status quo candidate who “fundamentally transformed” our place in the pecking order of nations certainly does not desire America to lead, domestically or internationally. The challenger has demonstrated to the nation in the first debate that he already possesses a mastery of what it takes to revive this great economic engine, but does he have equally good advice and experience with its partner, foreign policy, and a strategic plan that will knit a new fabric of leading the world from the unraveling rag we are now using to clean up the mess?
Each campaign is advised by a slate of “experts”, most derived from two camps. On the left, the Chicago “thug-ocracy” rules, a group advised by a very well entrenched and intertwined core of Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, inextricably entwined with pro-Islamic fundamentalists who rule the day. On the right, we see advice arising from the usual cast of ‘belt-way’ insiders, woefully ignorant, yet arrogant in their understanding of the world stage. Yes they have business bona fides, and previous administration chops, but they lack one thing – mastery of the concept of victory. Of those advising the challenger, is there a true understanding of our disparate cultures? Is there the type of advice from leadership in our military and intelligence forces that not only understands the cultures of the many troubled zones of the world, but also understands the interconnectedness of the many players so artfully plying their cunning ways on the chessboard?
The right strives to identify with the conservatism and leadership demonstrated so well by Ronald Reagan who led our nation into prosperity through the policy of peace through strength. In that period of time there were true commanders and flag officers that knew how to lead and win. They were supported by members of the intelligence trade craft of yore, all successful because they were not constrained by lawyers and self-serving politicians. These men and women still thrive today, yet few listen – a fatal error compounded.
To offset these fatal errors, SUA proposes an advisory policy group called the MAST Project (Military Advisory and Strategy Team). This is a group of people who have demonstrated mastery for the Battle for America; understand the threat of radical Islam the failed Nation Building strategy under COIN, the forward strategy of Joint Strike Force Operations (The “Lily Pad” Strategy), and the experience in analyzing information and real-time intelligence and producing actionable strategies, tactics and foreign policy.
These people offer their advice and counsel at this most critical stage in American history. These people are from, or learned from the “Greatest Generation” and are here once again to save this great country.
These people are people of wisdom, experience, common sense, vibrancy, awareness, and are well-versed and supported by networks of intelligence professionals, economic titans, and patriotic self-sacrificing experts. Imagine the room populated by the following people and more:
A first task of MAST is to suggest the most experienced and the best of the best for Senior Cabinet positions and other key positions of the Romney administration.