Presidents and national crises

Presidents and national crises

US reactions to Pearl Harbor and the September 11 crisis have shown that national mobilization under the leadership of a strong president is enormous. The totalitarian regimes surrounding the unwanted leaders are strong opponents, but American experience has shown that overwhelming limited powers can awaken the nation's extraordinary efforts to resist the threats to national security.

We are in danger if historical similarities recall the 1920s, the methods of Hitler, the coup of the Soviet Cold War and the Watergate darkness of President Nixon. Jon Meacham reminded us of American experiences in the upcoming national debates The Soul of America. In his report, he stressed the importance of the presidency in the challenges of courage, determination and integrity.

The purpose of this article is to extend Meacham's focus on the presidency as a good force by briefly reviewing its position in national emergencies. The aim is to clarify the risk of a lack of presidential leadership in cybercrime. We are very vulnerable if the leadership does not recognize or react to the crisis.
In a recent tweet, Michael Beschloss recalled that Harry Truman had signed the National Security Law on July 26, 1947. A National Security Council of Advisers was created to ensure rapid and rational processes for critical decisions by the president when there is no time for congressional talks. Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war, but Pearl Harbor and the dangers that followed the end of World War II made it clear that in case of a national emergency, immediate action by the President is required.

The surprise attack by Japanese forces against the US Navy Pearl Harbor has led to a sudden shift in public opinion to support the energetic leadership of Franklin Roosevelt. The nation's resources have been mobilized, and our industry could soon produce war weapons when powerful enemies could destroy them, as they were increasingly unable to replace their losses. But the idea of ??a surprise attack, which should have been discovered and counteracted, is pursued by our leaders. The National Security Council was a measure to counteract future surprise attacks.

Through the work of national security agencies, President Kennedy learned that Russian rockets had been secretly placed in Cuba in October 1962. Extortion or a stalking attack was prevented, with President Kennedy mobilizing national and world opinion to face the Soviet threat. The deliberations of the National Security Council and other consultants have led to options for action, with the president ceasing the parameters. Energetic teamwork led to resolute action by the president that solved the crisis without war. October 1962 is characterized by a victory of American courage, which is offset by strong considerations that prevent a nuclear war.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The truth about lies in politics

Image
The truth about lies in politics Recently, I have heard someone say that once we believe in a belief or a philosophy, our objectivity decreases badly. We no longer try to discern whether something we read or hear is true and correct, we simply accept any information that corroborates our belief. This can be seen in the policy. Unfortunately, it seems a common practice for politicians and members of Congress to put themselves first, to play political parties, to accept money from lobbyists and big donors in exchange for their votes, while showing little concern for things that are good for our country and taxpayers. When these politicians are set up, try to answer difficult questions or get something wrong or illegal, which is rarely responsible. For too many politicians, the lie seems to be second nature. The main supporters of many politicians hasten to accept the political leader's assertions as the truth and go forward even when the claim is clearly false. Nowadays, it s...
Read more

New policies required for public discussion

Image
New policies required for public discussion It does not matter if someone is a passionate supporter of President Trump or who can not agree with him on almost every problem or question, most would agree. We are currently experiencing very different moments in many ways. as just recently! The purpose of this article is not to support anyone, but to try to make America civil again so that Americans start talking to each other instead of meeting each other. We have had periods of considerable political discourse and disagreement, such as the civil rights parades of the 1950s and early 1960s, murders (especially of the 1960s), the anti-war movement of the 1960s, etc. ., presidential candidates, out of the United States, the political norm (as Goldwater and Wallace in the 1960s), the drama of the Nixon era, the Iranian Hostage crisis at the Carter era, the Russian antagonism in the Reagan era, the Clinton issues and the terror controversies of September 11 and the ugliness of racism, whic...
Read more

The media: Do traditional media use slander to control people?

Image
The media: Do traditional media use slander to control people? Before the advent of alternative media, the mainstream media had almost all the control. This meant that it was normal for most people to believe just about anything this source had published. Nowadays, thanks to the alternative media, this source no longer has the same control as in the past. But, while their influence on people has diminished in recent years, it would be a mistake to believe that its source is in danger. Old habits die hard รข € People of all ages are attentive to the mainstream media, just as there are some who are not. What has definitely given life a lifeline is the ease with which a person can consume what they sell using modern technology. As long as someone has a type of device, he can download everything this source says, no matter where it is. It is not necessary for someone to watch television or listen to the radio because it would have been necessary in the past to collect informati...
Read more