What I Want for Election Day – A Counter-Terror Strategy
It’s getting within a quarter or so of the first votes, so I thought I’d put in a few posts on what I, as a self-proclaimed moderate independent want for election day. I have to note that it doesn’t look thus far like I’m going to get it, but one can always wish, no?
The great weakness of our candidates, I believe, is that they lack any evidence of strategic thinking on dealing with terror. From one side we are hearing the “we’re in a war” beat, and we are told that we will go hunt terrorists for however long it takes and wherever they are hidden. What we are not told is how this strategy is ever to come to a close, or how the resources for such a strategy are to be provided.
On the other hand we have those who would pull out of [tag]Iraq[/tag]–an option devoutly to be desired in my view. At the same time, they haven’t laid out any long term plan that would substantially reduce or eliminate terrorism as a threat in the world. Iraq was a bad idea. Whether you are just plain anti-war, or simply prefer your wars to accomplish something, you can get on board with that. Incidentally, I would also like to see the withdrawal accompanied by an assessment of just what a foreign army can actually accomplish in Iraq, no matter how good that army is, and a measurement against that realistic standard. “Unified and democratic” isn’t likely to be on that list of potential objectives.
On the domestic front, it seems to me that we are in the business of kind of patching this or that element up haphazardly. What does a nation that is alert to [tag]terrorism[/tag], has the law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to detect such attacks, and can deal with the legal aftermath look like?
On the Republican side, it seems to me to look more and more like a terrorist state, where we just “trust” the executive branch of the government to do the right thing without any sort of accountability. More law enforcement is no good unless it is also smarter law enforcement. What will it be like to live in this country at the end of the process? I suspect that most of these candidates haven’t really thought about that. On the Democratic side, many candidates are interested in protecting our rights, but what precisely are they going to do instead?
I could suggest many things such as a large increase in the number of linguists and specialists in Middle Eastern culture in our government and intelligence agencies. Our current strategy and intelligence shows a great lack in that area. I’m not talking about a minor change–I’m talking about a massive increase. That is just one thing that I think is not being given the attention that it deserves. There are many others.
Do I personally have a strategy to propose? Not in detail, but then I’m not running for president. I can certainly tell you the key priorities of such a strategy.
- Military action limited to responses to attacks and search and destroy for specific terrorist targets. War is only a potential under the strict standards that require a short period of time and a clear improvement to result.
- Eliminate the option to prescribe a government for other countries. Let them figure it out, even if a dictatorship results. When the issue is genocide, respond with the international community, not unilaterally.
- Increase in law enforcement personnel and equipment. Much of the money being spent on Iraq would have been much better spent in this country. There are techniques and and technologies available to make travel much safer.
- Strong emphasis on intelligent intelligence.
- Education, education, education, both for personal safety and a better understanding of the world. We need a shift from a purely North-American/European emphasis in our historical and cultural education, to a greater inclusion of Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American material.
- Constant accountability. Nobody should be able to spend money, or more importantly kill people without having some responsible layers of accountability. Executive privilege and “state secrets” are being way overused. Some people may think this makes them safer, but instead it makes the agencies involved lazier, and less likely to pursue the highest probability activities.
I don’t want much, do I?
I’ll continue over the next few weeks with occasional posts on what I’d like to see in presidential and congressional candidates. Right now, I expect to be wearing a figurative clothespin on my nose when I go to the polls.
Two points:
First, I think you hit the jackpot with number 5. The seemingly total lack of actual understanding about the history of the rest of the world is both shocking and terrifying.
Second, I think your point number 2 is actually much more complicated — both practically and morally.
I will elaborate: I think you’re writing specifically about Iraq, but the are a number of other countries who’s governments are maintained with the assistance of the US military. I’m thinking specifically about Saudi Arabia. Without our support the monarchy in power would probably collapse, and for certain they would be replaced by the most radical and insidious group of Muslim extremist in the world. So do we let that happen?
I think the problem we’re facing — which we don’t ever really discuss — is how we, as a society, deal with the mistakes of our predecessors. This was the case with Iran, where our support of the Shah resulted in strengthened Islamic fundamentalism. There’s already been a lot of damage done by our support of bad governments, and it’s not clear to me that the damage can just be undone.
So while I want to agree with your point, I’m concerned that, as we’ve seen before, the replacement government we get is worse than what we started out with.
Indeed, Nima. It seems to me that the long term effect of outside meddling in the Middle East has usually been an even worse government than there was before. I expect the same to be true in Iraq. I wonder why you can’t relearn something of the isolationism lesson of the 1920’s and 1930’s, that it is better to let other people get on with their own lives. If you don’t stir up a wasps’ nest, they don’t sting you. Just go home and leave them alone.
I guess my problem with what you are suggesting is that I’m not nearly so certain that maintaining the current government in Saudi Arabia is a profitable venture for the United States. It would most likely be replaced by a Muslim fundamentalist regime which would change the nature of the Saudi regime how, precisely?
Of course, we could no longer base troops there in that case, but I don’t entirely see that as a down side. Of course we could see a cut off of oil supplies, which would be unpleasant, but I’m not entirely certain that wouldn’t be positive in the long term as well.
When I get around to posting on what I’d like to hear from a presidential or congressional candidate about energy, I will suggest that it would be a good thing in the long run for our oil prices to rise, forcing the more rapid development of alternative sources of energy and of better conservation programs. We should develop such things in any case for environmental reasons, but a bit of hardship at the gas pump would encourage faster development and deployment.
I find our support of the Saudi regime to be one of the more questionable moral policies in our foreign policy.
“I find our support of the Saudi regime to be one of the more questionable moral policies in our foreign policy.”
I completely agree, Henry, which is why I think this is such a dilemma. I think there are profound moral and practical implications to our current foreign policy. I also think, unfortunately, that fixing our foreign policy will has its own — possibly worse — moral and practical implications.
As for Saudi Arabia, I think you’ve outlined a best-case scenario. If a radical regime does take hold we can only hope that they cut off the oil supply. It is more likely that they would keep the oil flowing. Then, instead of going into the pockets of a corrupt monarchy that allows extremism to fester, it would be going directly into the hands of the extremists. I think from there forward it doesn’t get better — for the US or the people in the region (or probably the world).
My concern is that the corrupt governments in the Middle East have created an unwinnable proposition for us. I can’t see a way out.
I can see that we agree on the complexity, but the “better” path is hard to see. I guess it bothers me a great deal that we’re supporting what is a religious dictatorship in practical terms (for the average people) and a corrupt oligarchy otherwise.
But you are quite right that the answer is not quite so simple. I do believe, however, that our own prior interference has hindered, not helped, and that makes me tend in the direction of getting our hands off and letting other people make their decisions, even if they do so with guns. I’m not so naive as to believe that will be pretty. And it’s certainly a choice on which reasonable people can disagree. I disagree with myself sometimes all in the same day!
My concern is that the corrupt governments in the Middle East have created an unwinnable proposition for us. I cant see a way out.
Indeed, Nima, but it seems to me that the creator of the unwinnable proposition is not the Middle Eastern government but the US government itself.
There is also the question of whether “winning” in this case means that the result looks good to us (here in the US) or that it is what would be chosen by the people there. People have freely chosen fundamentalist Islamic regimes. It’s also fairly likely that the vote for the Palestinian parliament was fair, and Hamas was elected. We then got upset, but the U. S. government was front and center demanding a democratic vote.
“Free,” “democratic,” and “always does what we want it to do” are often going to be contradictory.
Your suggested policy is a good start, indeed.