Putting Jason Bourne's kids through college

Foreign policy. Sound complicated? It shouldn't. My general philosophy is that outside the realm of physics every theory or course of action should be explicable to an eighth-grader in less than an hour. Which is why I seriously question our current policies of intricate economic protectionism, Faustian alliances (think Pakistan), and tendency to completely lose track of goals. I'll focus today on the specific issue of national security. My views consist largely of political isolationism (or at least non-favoritism) and not getting bogged down in appearances.

The goal of external national security is, in short, to avoid being blown up or invaded. This may seem like an oversimplification. It's not. National security consists of protecting our citizens from threats. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not consist of nation-building, spreading democracy, or keeping Russia happy. These may be stepping-stones, but they are not (or should not be) end objectives.

So, how do we keep ourselves from being blown up or invaded? I'll give you a hint: it does not involve mercy. We need to make the idea of attacking us so unpleasant that no organization or nation dares. Kim Jong Il would not be rattling his sabre if he thought we would turn him into gamy steak. Even if he were to manage a nuclear attack on, say, San Francisco, what are we going to do? Invade his country and then put it back together. Not the optimal case for ole' Kim, but, what with his frequent flier miles to China, ultimately more costly to us than to him. Now let's say that if he attacks any target on U.S. soil (including embassies) we send our B-2 fleet to flatten every house and bunker he's visited in the last five years followed by a few dozen angry Marines (or Jason Bourne) with instructions to make Kim Jong Il even shorter than he already is. Then we withdraw and let the situation stabilize. Imagine. Few Korean civilian casualties at our hands. No drawn-out campaign. No excessive expenditure of funds. Minimal number of U.S. soldiers put in harm's way. And the regime that replaces Kim's may be oppressive, but I guarantee it will be a lot less inclined to do anything foolish to us.

Why don't we do this already? I loved Ronald Reagan; he was a great president and a brilliant speaker, but his Executive Order 12333 makes about as much sense as fat-free cheese. This order prevents us from assassinating foreign leaders. We can bulldoze entire countries, capture their leaders, and later hang them, but we cannot hire a few professionals named Luigi to hit Saddam Hussein while he reclines on his private yacht. Am I saying we should just blow away anyone who is a potential threat? Of course not. What I am saying is that there needs to be a cheap, easy to enforce, and non-negotiable zero tolerance policy for those who attack our nation. No drawn out wars. No dealing with powers like Pakistan who would happy turn their guns the other direction. Quick, surgical strikes to the leadership of our enemies should they ever move against us.

National security is difficult, and, I admit, a bit more complex than I make it out to be. This does not exempt it from common sense. We are obligated to uphold our values, and I believe our values consist of (1) protecting our citizens and, when we fail, (2) punishing only those truly responsible for their deaths.