Daniel Morgan Center for National Security
Daniel Morgan's a relative unknown, but key General during the American Revolution. He was critical to the success of two vitally important American victories: Saratoga and Cowpens. Morgan raised and led a regiment of riflemen from Virginia. The rifle they used was a key factor in these successes and was, in may ways, a unique American capability in warfighting at the time. Morgan is emblematic of adapting technology to enhance military power and superior leadership.
The so called Global War on Terrorism, the War on Islamic Extremism or whatever you want to call it is NOT about terrorism and counter-terrorism. At it's core, it is not even an armed conflict. Rather it is a conflict over how societies choose to organize and govern themselves. The violent portion of this conflict is simply the most visible aspect and is arguably a symptom of the underlying conflict. There are areas in European cities now over which the governments have little or no functional sovereignty and are governed by Sharia Law. This observation is not an indictment on immigration in general or Islam, rather it is directly relevant to a state's ability to remain sovereign within its borders and to maintain its form of government and culture. Mass immigration of the kind seen in Europe is potentially just as much a security issue as armed soldiers violating a state's borders.
National Security is a complex topic that involves strategies, resources, capabilities and execution. It is far more than simply fielding and deploying an effective military force. The military force is really only the visible tip of national security. For example, consider climate change. Now that topic is hotly debated, but for the moment assume that climates are changing and this change will have an impact. This could well trigger migrations as people leave areas that are severely impacted by the change. What is the national security impact? Most like likely these people would not come in armed assault as happened in many historical migrations. However, what are the impacts of having a massive migration arrive at the US borders? The issues involve assimilation, border security, costs, and a plethora of others. If the issues are too much to handle, what happens to the republic? It's not a military threat, but still a potential threat to the welfare of the republic. The obvious task of national security is to maintain sovereignty. However, it goes deeper than that. It's really to ensure that we have a republic that can, in the words of the constitution, "... provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
Hyper spending on the visible military threat could leave the republic vulnerable to equally dangerous non-military threats that could endanger the liberty and prosperity. Like the tree with its interconnected roots and branches, nothing stands in isolation on national security. Responsible leaders in a republic must take a holistic view of threats to the republic regardless of source and incorporate them into the strategic assessment and prudently allocate resources to address them depending upon risk and impact. The diagrams below show a complete view of how the republic is sustained and specific view of the security portion.
Consider the Ottoman Empire conquest of Byzantium. After their military victory, the Ottomans effectively destroyed the Byzantine civilization and the Christian religion in the area and replaced it with their culture and religion. While harsh, this was nothing new for either the spread of Islam or history in general. As a result Anatolia is now a completely Turkish/Islamic state and culture with little or no Greek/Christian elements.
Now, consider a hypothetic scenario in 2070 in France. Between declining French/Christian birthrates and expanding Islamic birthrates and steadily increasing migration, the Islamic population is a significant majority and through their electoral power controls the French government. They declare Islam the state religion, implement Sharia Law and outlaw Christianity.
Whether by military or cultural conquest the two outcomes are effectively the same. At what point does migration become asymmetric warfare?
Two other examples may shed some additional insight and take away the specific Islamic cast to the example above.
The Saxons invaded Britain after the Romans left. They essentially destroyed the Celtic culture and sovereignty outside of Wales and a few other remote areas. They settled England and made it their own...until the Normans invaded in 1066. The Norman conquest, however, was subtly different. The two cultures and religions were not that different and eventually the two merged.
European immigrants came to the New World and through migration and military conquest effectively destroyed the sovereignty and culture of the indigenous people. The remnants were collected onto reservations where the had a limited form of sovereignty and remnants of their culture.
Marx once wrote that "capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction". There may be a corollary: "democracy sows the seeds of its own destruction". Marx's comment was economically based; The corollary is socially based. If a society treats all cultures and values as valid and extends citizenship and voting to all, could it wind up like our hypothetical situation above?
While so far this hasn't been proven out, we can't say what the future holds and trends do not look good. However, when the economic and the social come together, perhaps they will prove out. Perhaps, in mathematic terms, Marx's statement is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. That is, as long as a culture remains strong and relatively homogenous economic conditions will not pull it apart. But if the social conditions change, perhaps the two in combination create the necessary and sufficient conditions.
Historically, the strength of the republic was the ability to assimilate waves of new immigrants and assimilate them in the great melting pot. The republic absorbed elements of immigrant culture and adapted. But overall, the expectations was the immigrants were to adapt and to conform to the overall culture and to become Americans. But what happens when a new wave comes determined to keep their own culture and values and to force the existing culture to conform to them?