National Security is Government Security

Collectivistic government busybodies, whom we call "politicians," certainly think that, by keeping the United States mired in the Middle East, we will maintain our "national security." They also go on to say that the protection of "national security" is vital for the survival of our country. But what the collectivists refuse to acknowledge -- perhaps even to themselves -- is that national security is nothing more than a government construct for the purpose of covering up any political, militaristic, and illegal wrongdoings and defending the modern American Empire and its nation-state-building activities from its dissidents and critics during a time of war.

Presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ) epitomizes that mentality, especially given his comment on the national security issue during the CNN debate held at the Reagan Library on January 30. In his rejoinder to Anderson Cooper's question regarding his recent comment that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq for the next 100 years, he stated:

"[T]he point is that we need to protect America's national security interest. It's not a matter of presence. It's a matter of casualties.

"We are succeeding. We are succeeding. And I unequivocally put my career and my political fortunes on the line and unequivocally said we're going to support this surge. We're not going to talk about timetables or anything else; we're going to talk about winning and what's necessary to win."

"Protect America's national security interest"? Who is he kidding? What about Iraq's "national security interest," if there is indeed such a thing? Why should a politician like McCain be concerned about America's "national security interest," when the country does not have, nor has never had, a "national security interest"? After all, aren't we really talking about the U.S. federal government's "national security interest," not the United States' own "interest"?