Remember the days when we had the SAC (Strategic Air Command) flying reconnaissance on a 24- hour basis to protect us from all enemies? It was based in Omaha Nebraska but covered the whole United States.

In the span of one lifetime, the State Department has reversed the friends and enemy list. For those who regard freedom as essential it is rather a distressing reversal. Japan, ever since World War II has not been allowed to build a military so US troops are there presumably as a protective force. North Korea recently lobbed a missile near Japan so maybe it is time this island prepared for their own defense

Our military is defending or peacekeeping all around the world.

We were lured into NATO 51 years ago along with other European "allies" to contain Russian expansion. A couple of years ago Germany was allowed to contribute troops to this organization. It will cost the US taxpayers $125 billion for NATO membership from 1998 to 2013. However the Clinton administration is low-balling the true costs. Much more money is needed to make US forces capable of defending all these NATO "sign - ups." Countries are anxious to be in NATO because of the funds they receive for joining.

Any country participating in NATO must be "solid, stable democracies." Nations that have a communist connection might still employ spies from that cold war era. This is irrelevant since our State Department embraces the communist Chinese who deploy spies in military and economic organizations throughout the US. Deciding what is and what isn’t a democracy around the world has hardly been consistent. It is more a matter of political correctness and economic importance to our multinational corporate interests than form of government that decides entry.

NATO changed from a defensive union against Russia to an offensive force in Kosovo. Interfering in the civil conflict in Yugoslavia became a necessity according to the NATO high command. As was the case in the Gulf War, most of the military and material were American although it was billed as a coordinated "NATO" involvement. Soldiers from England, France, Germany, the US and Russia now control zoned areas in Kosovo. Some of our soldiers returning from that country describe the terrible conditions that are exacerbated by the presence of NATO.

All the while we have been pouring money into NATO, whose purpose was to protect the US and western nations from Russia, our congress has been giving Russia funds through the International Monetary Fund, IMF.

The Orange County Register on September 4 stated that Energy Secretary Richardson (lately of Los Alamos corruption fame) was visiting Russia. Richardson was flattered that he was given a high-security trip to see 20 deteriorating Russian submarines at the Petropavlovsk naval base. Of course the reason he was so honored is because the Russians need to build a $200 million dry dock to store the radioactive nuclear fuel. The Russian navy wants the United States to assume half of the cost.

Richardson believes it won’t be easy to convince congress about spending for this worthy project. However "it makes sense to make this funding of the dry dock a priority."

So what is the purpose of NATO now? Why is congress funding it?

NATO is a product of the United Nations. Our military slides from the command of one to the other with some designated US military in between. Using NATO as a stepping stone we became less alarmed when later units were placed under UN jurisdiction.

This is just a small entry on what is to come.

The UN has different departments and the coordination between them is coming to fruition.

Many initiatives in the US and Canada begin with major think tanks or academia. Such is the case of a US War college report by Lt.-Col. Joseph Nunez. His report urges a joint military command under NAFTA (North America Free Trade agreement) trade partners Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

He also suggested we institute a North American peacekeeping force, with deputy command positions rotating between Canada and Mexico. The peacekeepers could be deployed anywhere needed without representing any one country and thus eliminate the fear of undue influence by the United States. This command would grow as more countries were admitted to the free trade agreement.

Nunez, a 22-year army veteran and former West Point instructor, said our relationship with Mexico is outdated and we need to move from bilateral agreements to a military organization.

Current revolutionary movements in Mexico, the report continued, " might jeopardize the viability of NAFTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas."

Questioned about whether he saw the joint command marching under one flag, Nunez replied---"what it achieves depends on the types of missions it is assigned."

This study carries a stamp saying it does not necessarily reflect the views of the US State Department.

The governments of Canada and Mexico requested a copy of the War college report, as did several US departments including state and defense.

Is it difficult to imagine this report’s plan on the State Department’s drawing board?

Our military’s job is no longer the protection of US borders. SAC is long gone. NAFTA’s free flow of people and goods is expected to encompass all countries in the Americas, Caribbean, and Africa.

Why do we need to have a Department of Defense? There is no US border to defend anymore.