Free Tipping Point: The War With China - the First Salvo (Dan Lenson Novels) by David Poyer Page A

necessary, it properly needs to come from the secretary of defense. Inasmuch as it concerns a conflict between our commitments to an ally, and relevant sections of UN treaty and international law, it should be studied at the highest political level.
    MRS. MACLAY . All right, thank you, Admiral. Dr. Szerenci: you represent that highest political level, as the national security adviser to the president. We would be glad to hear your opinion.
    DR. SZERENCI . With all due respect, ma’am, this is a question we are debating within the administration. I would not care to vouchsafe a personal opinion until we have had time to exercise due diligence and take legal counsel.
    However, I would like to point out that the very fact we are able to have a debate like this—to discuss whether the United States should exercise some sort of international police power, to abort or strike down any ballistic attack or counterattack, by whatever country—is a source of considerable deterrent effect.
    Deeper than this, however, lies a question of the limits of national power. Let’s move past whether this officer acted rightly or wrongly, to a broader issue. I have heard the idea advanced that if we have technology to prevent a strike, we are bound by international law to stop it, irrespective of its origin. Certain quarters are even calling this—to Captain Lenson’s outrage, I feel sure—the “Lenson Doctrine,” and calling for its adoption as policy.
    Though such a policy might be superficially appealing, I can hardly imagine a more dangerous course. It would place the United States in the position of an officer of the law on the most dangerous corners of the world, but without the legitimacy of that corner policeman. The only way to legitimize such a mission would be under the aegis of the United Nations; and this is unacceptable to large portions of our public. Also, many of our closest allies have or are developing such missile systems, for defensive purposes. Finally, it would require massive investments in equipment, sensors, and manpower. As the funding authority for our forces, Congress should tread especially carefully here.
    Thank you for the opportunity to state my position.
    MRS. MACLAY . Thank you, Dr. Szerenci. For the insight into geopolitical realities, and also for the reminder that we fund the armed forces.
    DR. SZERENCI . I apologize, ma’am.
    MRS. TREHERNE . Madam Chairman?
    MRS. MACLAY . The chair recognizes Congresswoman Treherne as a guest of the committee.
    Dan sat erect, skin prickling with a foretaste of storm. Treherne’s cheeks were flushed bright red. Her hair looked as if she hadn’t combed it. Niles beckoned an aide to his side and whispered into his ear. Szerenci sat frowning, twiddling a gold mechanical pencil.
    MRS. TREHERNE . It seems to me that an important part of all this is being left out. That is, does everyone realize certain things about this man—Lenson?
    MRS. MACLAY . Can the congresswoman please expand on her statement?
    MRS. TREHERNE . I will be happy to do so. I have known this … officer for many years, and frankly, I am astonished his likes are still tolerated in our armed forces. I’m sitting here listening to this list of his medals and all this praise, but the truth is, this man is a closet pacifist. He was closely associated with antiwar elements in this city, including the radical Dorothy Day House, home of the convicted saboteur Carl Haneghan and the Griffiss Four. How did such a man get promoted? Is the subcommittee going to take his anti-American activities into account?
    MR. PARKS . These are surprising allegations. If true, they are serious indeed.
    MRS. TREHERNE . They are both true and serious. They point to a dangerous penetration of peace elements, elements that desire the weakening and defeat of the United States, into our national defense. What exactly is Lenson advocating? I think Dr. Szerenci hit the nail on the head. Nothing less than