The Consortium of Defense Analysts (CODA) is a group of U.S. and international military/security/defense and other professionals with a common interest, but not unanimity of opinions or beliefs, in identifying and analyzing threats to U.S. security. The members of CODA include (in alphabetical order):
- Patricia Chaffin, former administrative law judge.
- Gary Fairlie, Defence Materiel Organisation, Australia.
- Larry Frost, Esq., Lt. Col., U.S. Army (Ret.).
- Jay B. Gaskill, J.D., attorney-at-law; former public defender.
- A. James Gregor, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley.
- James Habermehl, Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force Reserve (Ret.).
- Takuma Hasegawa, M.A. – student at Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party school; co-author of “War and Remembrance: The View From Japan,” Democracy and Security 3:1 (January-April 2007), pp. 45-88.
- Mark S. McGrew, owner, Minc Oil Co.; member, Association of Former Intelligence Officers*.
- John Molloy, Chairman of the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition.
- Matthew Scillia, Col., U.S. Army.
- Ankur Shukla, 2004-2005 Indicorp Fellow, India; Public Health Adviser, US Department of Health and Human Services.
- Richard Thurston, Lt. Col., U.S. Army (Ret.).
- Robert K. Wilcox, author.
*The opinions expressed by Mark S. McGrew in his letters, blogs, events, speeches, newsletters, slides, papers, presentations, discussions, etc. are those of himself, and do not reflect the position of, or the endorsement by, the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, its members, officers, chapters, or board.
Statement of Problem:
America’s premier opponents are:
China is the first security risk not only because it is powerful and is becoming more so, internally it is a powder-keg with a slowing economy, the world’s most unequal wealth distribution, pandemic corruption, and riots and demonstrations that increase every year. Add to this already toxic mix the Communist Party’s and the populace’s irredentist nationalism that’s fueling China’s increasingly assertive stance over disputed territories in the East and South China Seas, and along the Sino-Indian border. Given the United States’ treaty obligations with Japan and South Korea, as well as our overall interests in Asia-Pacific, those territorial disputes do and will involve us.
Islam is the second risk because its theocratic ideology is utterly incompatible with Western civilization’s primacy on political democracy and individual rights and liberty. While violent jihadists are a fraction of global Islam, 1.2 billion of the world’s population are Muslim and explicitly or implicitly accept that doctrine, and thus are partly or largely motivated to act in accordance with that doctrine.
There is no agreement in the Consortium as to the identity of the third threat to U.S. security. Some candidates:
- Is it Russia, America’s main antagonist during the Cold War?
- Is it United Europe, as it increasingly becomes Islamicized in both population and culture, and so becomes part of Threat #2?
- Certainly a nuclear-armed bellicose North Korea poses a threat to South Korea and Japan and, in so doing, does concern and involve the U.S.
- A member of the Consortium proposes, with compelling logic, that U.S. politicians who work against America’s national interests are the foremost threat to U.S. security.
How should America engage, thwart and neutralize these threats?
To our readers and commenters:
If you threaten or incite violence, your comment will not be published because that’s a violation of the Terms of Service of this blog’s server, WordPress, which can lead to WordPress shutting down Consortium of Defense Analysts.
It is also a federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication containing a threat to injure the person of another, via the Internet and e-mail (as well as the telephone, beepers, and other means of communication). Should any reader of this blog threaten harm to our writers, we will report you and your IP address to the police.
Fair Use Disclaimer:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.