Campaign Message 3

Our stickiest problem is the extent 

to which good jobs are tied to weapons development. 

Most important, these weapons may not be relevant 

to our national security. 

My sense is that war has changed. 

We have no way of realigning resources 

to accommodate this change. 

If we are looking at a new definition of war at all, 

it is behind super sealed closed doors 

and we are probably only including past warriors in the discussion. 

This is like the British Ministry maintaining it as top secret 

that their red uniforms make great targets 

in the New England woods 

and then holding Burgoyne personally responsible 

for the outcome at Saratoga. 

We need to open up the discussion of what war is 

and where in it are our best interests. 

This is too important to leave to the Pentagon, 

and certainly not to the various congressional committees 

which ensure chaos. 

Each state needs to be involved in the discussion 

and subsequent conclusions need to become 

the foundation for future planning. 

In the mean time, we need to transition jobs 

and their supporting resources 

to other more sensible things as soon as we are able to be sure 

their relevance to war has become obsolete. 

We are not very good at transitioning large segments 

of the workforce to new endeavors, 

especially in the public sector, 

but we know how to do it with minimum disruption 

to either the workers or to their output.