Protecting homeland security

Following the events of Sept. 11, the U. S. government has had a keen awareness of the risks posed by international terrorist groups, but it is divided over whether the military should be restructured in order to better respond to those threats. One major element of that dilemma has been the funding. With the Pentagon already engaged in expensive, armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries invaded by U. S.-led forces as part of the war on terrorism, many wonder whether the U. S. can afford to implement major reforms in its military ranks. Since there is no clear answer to that question, efforts to institute far-reaching structural and policy changes in the U. S. military have divided many within Congress, the Pentagon and the defense industry, which produces the equipment and weapons used by the U. S. military.
Supporters of military transformation include Bush, many prominent members of his administration, high-ranking officials in the Pentagon, members of Congress, and a number of firms within the defense industry. They collectively argue that, due to the war on terrorism, conditions are right for reforming the military for the 21st century. By investing in new weapons and communications technology, proponents contend, the military will be able to make its battlefield operations more efficient and accurate, improving overall preparedness.
Moreover, supporters of this idea insist that, presently, U. S. armed forces are out of date because they are currently designed to engage in a 20th-century model of warfare–one based on the nation’s military experience during the Cold War–rather than a 21st-century model focused on international terrorism and low-intensity guerrilla warfare. Modernizing the U. S. military will better prepare the nation’s troops and military planners to curb the security risks posed by terrorists and other insurgents during the coming years, they insist. According to Rumsfeld (24 November 2003), the general goal of military transformation is to ” bring the Defense Department out of the industrial age, and into the information age.”
Many supporters argue that some major divisions of the U. S. military, such as the Navy and the Air Force, are not as relevant as they once were in terms of safeguarding national security. For example, they say, Navy aircraft carriers are vulnerable to an enemy attack on the open seas and may provide only limited assistance to U. S. military efforts in landlocked areas. Backers also assert that many Air Force aircraft do not have the ability to fly long distances without refueling, making them a potential liability when battlegrounds unexpectedly emerge in areas of the world where the U. S. does not have a permanent military presence.
In order for us to counteract various threats in the Modern Age, protecting the U. S. Homeland security should go beyond all the threats of terrorism, biological-chemical warfare, and weapons of mass destruction. In 2015, I could visualize that the U. S. Homeland should be a safer place, where people could live peacefully. Being in a country that upholds peace and the well-being of its citizenry, it is only right the security of the whole nation should be a top priority. Also crucial about the war on terrorism, international cooperation is a prerequisite for its success. By 2015, the U. S. and other nations should have attained full cooperation with regards to their stand against all terrorist activities. All of these visions in 2015 will be useless without the cooperation of ordinary people. We should also be vigilant and continue to struggle for our nation to secure itself from all threats. However, we should not struggle to become invincible, but we should struggle to forge peace and become the beacons that will enlighten other nations to support our struggle with terrorism.