The Sovereignty Solution tilts at inside-the-Beltway and Ivory Tower conventional wisdom in a major way.

Nothing deserves a more serious national debate than our collective security.   Washington owes us, the American people, a far more honest and apolitical appraisal of what our military is or is not capable of achieving in the world at large, while we – the American people – owe our Servicemen and women a policy and strategy that they can actually execute.

We wrote this book to try to stimulate that debate.

As one eminent, retired political scientist told us way back when: we don’t have International Relations union cards.  What he meant when he said that is because we are not political scientists, we’re not likely to be taken seriously by those who dominate the field.  At the same time, we suffer the double whammy of not being journalists.  We do not have friends in high media places who will help ensure our book gets good reviews in exchange for our being able to provide them their own good press one day.

Instead, we’re an anthropologist and two Special Forces officers.

One might think that would be sufficient – given where we’ve been and what we’ve seen over the past decade plus.  But apparently not.  Not today.  Not when, as one publisher wrote in response to our book proposal several years ago, we don’t already have national name recognition, meaning a built-in television audience.  She also lamented the fact that we weren’t making a more rabidly partisan argument.

But THAT, in our view, points to exactly what is wrong with how so many decision makers – whether in publishing houses, the media, academe, or Washington – regard national security.  It should never be treated as a partisan football.

That, too, is why we wrote the book – and why we want to see a serious debate take place in Washington.  It endangers all of us when national security is politicized.  This should be a far graver national security concern than it is.  So, if you care about the future, if you agree with us that something is wrong with our national strategy, please consider our argument.  Or if you disagree with our argument, at least help us force a more serious debate.

One other reason for the webpage: we want to keep adding fuel to the fire.  We come across articles and news items everyday that underscore the points we make in the book.  The book consists of 143 pages of text, with more than 60 pages of corroborating footnotes.  Here is where we plan to post more corroboration.

Here is where we will also point to what would no longer be news – or a crisis – or a festering problem – if only we lived in a Sovereignty Rules world.  Stay tuned.