Issue Page

Why Real Security

Robert Borosage — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:02:05 -0500

The events of September 11, 2001 etched the threat of jihadist terrorists into our collective memory. It was not the first act of terror aimed at Americans nor is it likely to be the last. Its zealous perpetrators, though, may not be the most destructive threat we face.

Global pandemics will take more victims. From Hurricane Katrina to California wildfires, catastrophic climate change is likely to wreak widespread destruction. Our unprecedented global indebtedness and growing manufacturing deficit are a far greater threat to our economic security.

Yet 9/11 proved that the threat posed by the violent extremists is real and present—and must be met. But rather than focus on that problem, the United States is mired in an occupation of Iraq that is worsening the terrorist threat and damaging our ability to respond to the other security concerns we face.

The Challenge

Chris Rasmussen — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:02:04 -0500

On that terrible day, the world stood united with us. Americans rallied to support their president. The pursuit of bin Laden and al Qaeda and the invasion in Afghanistan received international support. We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship in Iraq. Potential terrorists have been hunted, detained and killed in countries across the world. But Americans are less secure.

The president’s war of “choice” in Iraq has been a costly debacle. Allies have been alienated. Hatred of America in the Muslim world has reached an unprecedented height. Bin Laden is still loose, and terrorist networks have metastasized, recruiting over the web and building adherents among Muslims inflamed by the U.S. occupation in Iraq. We have traduced our own principles in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Pentagon studies warn that our military is stretched thin, with recruitment difficult and retirements of key veterans rising. Generals on the ground report there is no military strategy for victory in Iraq, and the threat from Iran grows every day. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission gives the administration failing grades on vital areas of homeland security. Corruption and cronyism sabotage reconstruction in Iraq as much as it affects emergency response at home. The American people and the Iraqi people both want the U.S. to leave Iraq, but the president refuses to go.

In the midst of this debacle, other emerging, real security concerns are recklessly slighted—the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, loose nukes, catastrophic climate change, global pandemics, unsustainable trade and financial imbalances, the growing divide of rich and poor in a world of global communications. The United States needs a new approach to our national security.

Conservative Failure

Chris Rasmussen — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:02:03 -0500

President Bush says that 9/11 changed everything and gave him a new mission. The administration announced a new national security strategy of military unilateralism and proclaimed a doctrine of preventive war. From now on, the United States would attack "before the threat has formed." The thousands of stateless terrorists, with their grim, extremist ideology, were inflated to a global threat equivalent to communism at the height of the Cold War. The test case of this doctrine was Iraq—even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and was a target of bin Laden's. Iraq was weak and strategically located. In a "shock and awe" display of overwhelming force, the United States would topple the dictator and quickly make way for a democratic, secular government that would be a catalytic force for political change in the region.

This doctrine—elaborated even before September 11th by the neoconservative ideologues that populated the Bush national security team—got it wrong. Schooled in the Cold War, Bush’s men—Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, even Powell—focused on rogue states instead of the actual threat posed by decentralized, stateless terrorists. They assumed that military power was the answer and scorned the alliances, intelligence cooperation, political diplomatic initiatives and economic assistance vital to stopping terrorists and isolating them from the larger circles of Muslims. At home, the president's political advisors turned the war on terror into a partisan club—rolling out the Iraq vote in time for the off-year election. And rather than calling on the nation to sacrifice, the president pushed more tax breaks for the wealthy, while literally calling on Americans to go shopping.

In campaigning as a wartime president, Bush simply failed to address broader real security needs. He displayed remarkable passivity on the question of loose nukes and proliferation. There was no action on the need for energy independence and no leadership in correcting the unsustainable global trading imbalances that threaten worldwide depression. Global warming was met with purblind denial, and the threat of global pandemics received only belated recognition.

The Iraq debacle. The centerpiece of the Bush doctrine—and the expression of its failure—was the invasion of Iraq. Everything the administration told us about the war turned out to be wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was not allied to al Qaeda. We were not greeted as liberators. Iraqi oil would not pay for the reconstruction. The administration invaded without a plan for the occupation, scorning military advice that more troops on the ground were vital to securing the peace.

There are now no good options in Iraq. If we stay, we sacrifice more lives and billions of dollars more in occupying a country in the midst of sectarian civil war—with the most likely outcome a sectarian Shiite government allied with the mullahs in Iran. If we leave, the ensuing violence could create a failed state in the midst of the Persian Gulf.

The Progressive Solution

Chris Rasmussen — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:02:02 -0500

Progressives champion an America that leads collective efforts rather than going it alone. We are a global power with global interests. We have the strongest military in the world. But we have depleted our treasury, undermined our values and wasted the lives of thousands of young men and women trying to police the world ourselves. We need to return to the fundamental belief that military force is a last, not a first resort. We will defend ourselves when attack is imminent, but our security is best served by using the full range of U.S. influence proactively. We need to return to building alliances and investing in international law and institutions. We need to change course. First steps include the following.

End the occupation and let the new government take authority in Iraq. We have been in Iraq for longer than we fought World War II. Caught in a violent civil war, the Bush administration has no plan for victory. The president vows to keep troops there throughout his term in office. His only hope is that Iraqi forces will take over eventually, but those forces are torn into factions and are becoming drawn into the sectarian violence ripping the country apart.

Ironically, the vast majority of Iraqis, American soldiers and the American people all agree that the United States should begin to withdraw its forces and turn over authority to the Iraqis. We have rid them of a brutal dictator. Now Iraqis must decide what kind of country they will build.

Revive the coalition against al Qaeda. We must aggressively face the threat posed by stateless terrorists, but to do that we have to revive the broad international consensus against terrorism. This is more a war of legitimacy and ideas than of battalions and regiments. We need to isolate terrorists and separate them from the disaffected millions in the Muslim world. We should re-engage Muslim leadership in condemning the fanatics. The hunt for bin Laden should be stepped up. Our focus must be on stateless networks and cells—as likely to be located among the embittered in Spain, Germany or Britain as in Muslim countries. This requires intelligence cooperation and police work much more than military force. We need an aggressive alliance aimed at isolating terrorists and discrediting their tactics.

Make domestic security a mission not a morass. Provision for homeland security must not be business as usual. The era of cronies and corruption must end. We must invest the resources necessary to secure our borders and our ports. Homeland security funds should be distributed according to national priorities, not congressional pork and privilege. We have to stop catering to the industrial lobbies and require nuclear, chemical and other high-risk plants to implement comprehensive security programs. The 9/11 Commission recommendations should be adopted, and we should establish a new independent investigation of priority needs. We need effective leaders in charge of key intelligence and security agencies and a permanent investigative committee to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse and end the sweetheart contracts of crony companies like Halliburton.

Refocus on curbing weapon proliferation. We must curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and eliminate current stockpiles. We need to sustain cooperation with Russia to ensure that the “loose nukes” strewn through the states of the former Soviet Union are dismantled and protected. We need to maintain a global alliance against proliferation with Iran as an essential first test case. The United States and other nuclear powers should include themselves in the drive for nuclear disarmament as part of building the global consensus against these weapons.

Launch a concerted drive for energy independence. The drive for energy independence is an opportunity to mobilize U.S. science and technology, to invest in alternative energy and efficiency, and to create good jobs and new industries. It is also a national security imperative—we need to reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, turn around our trade imbalance, and seriously address global warming. See the New Energy section of this website.

Address emerging real security threats. We need to adjust our security budget to decrease funds wasted on Cold War weaponry and increase resources devoted to diplomacy, emergency relief, and disease prevention. And we should give emerging threats the attention they merit—from global warming to economic imbalances.

Make the United States a source of hope again. Progressives should reclaim the cause of human rights and democracy. We have both a moral and a strategic interest in making the United States a source of hope in the world. We should be leading the international community to respond to genocidal violence, as in Darfur. We should be leading the effort to eliminate preventable diseases. We should champion democracy but lead by the strength of our ideas not the force of our arms.

Recommit the U.S. to building international law and effective international alliances. Our military is unrivaled, but we have neither the resources nor the desire to police the world. As a global power, with allies, markets, investments and commitments in regions across the world, the United States has the largest interest in forging a world of law depending on legitimate international institutions, strong alliances and enduring cooperation. The United States will always defend itself, but our central goal should be to build a legitimate world order with expanding zones of peace. We grow more secure when we provide an example to the world of the blessings of democracy, liberty and law.

Elevator Speech

Chris Rasmussen — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:02:01 -0500

Real national security depends on protecting our interests, advancing our goals and values and prudent and realistic engagement with the threats we face. Military force is most important as a deterrent; we have the strongest fighting force in the world but our national interests are best secured when we lead the world toward greater cooperation not when we engage in conflict. But while it is important to stress the wider aspects of real national security, when American troops are engaged overseas discussions of national security will focus on prevailing against threats and securing the peace.

In discussing the Iraq War, the issue is U.S. security not Bush’s lies. Americans remain conflicted over whether withdrawing from Iraq will serve our security or erode it. Don’t hesitate to remind people that Bush got everything wrong, but the case for withdrawal cannot be made because Bush lied us into the war, or that it is costly, or even that it isn’t going well. The case must be about our future security—why getting out of Iraq serves our security and why staying only weakens it.

• Be strong and speak with conviction. Americans are looking for and deserve leaders who will level with them, tell them what they believe and state their case with conviction—not politicians who put their finger in the wind to see where the polls are then duck and dodge for fear that ideologues on the right will hammer them. Stand up. Level with Americans. Indict the administration that has driven us to a place where only bad choices remain, and make your case clearly.

• Indict the policy and support the troops. American soldiers have performed valiantly in Iraq in an occupation that their leaders did not plan for. We should honor and applaud their service, even as we indict the leaders that so misused them. This is an administration—led by men who have never served in the military—that has failed to provide the forces and equipment needed and failed to provide a plan for victory.

• Invoke the brass; reclaim the flag. Retired generals are criticizing the civilian leadership that has led the United States into this mess. For Americans, they have enormous credibility as nonpartisan, patriotic experts.