Opening Arguments
Unbearable Security
There is an old yarn about two men being chased by a bear.
Trying to keep America safe, free, and prosperous by picking the next danger of the day—is just plain stupid. The right answer is to focus on building a nation that is strong and competitive—and then we’ll be able to out run, out compete, out fight, and out last anything that comes along.
Lemming Security
Washington wants to worry about the danger of the day - competing with China, taming Iraq, reacting to Russia, reassuring skittish global financial markets. Sure, the next president will need to deal with these. But if the White House sets its national security priorities by lurching from one crisis to the next, there will be no priorities beyond the morning headlines on CNN.
On the flip side, some in Washington want to pick which problems to address and ignore others (usually the ones they pick are the ones that best fit their ideology…and their answer to meeting the preferred challenges turn out to be exactly how they want to handle the threat and cost exactly what they are willing to spend). This amounts to playing Russian roulette with national security. We have done this through out our history….and we often lose (remember The Maine, Pearl Harbor, Just Cause, Desert Storm, and 9/11 to name a few occasions when we wound-up fighting enemies at times and places we did not expect).
Washington whipsaws back and forth between Manichean extremes (worrying about today’s headlines or fixating on watching out for burglars while the house is on fire).
It is just idiotic to sit in Washington and try to play Nostradamus.
We Have Met the Enemy
In short, the real danger is us. The greatest proliferation threat to human existence is not weapons of mass destruction, but policymakers with mass disruption on their mind - officials who would label every matter, from avoiding bird flu to procuring fresh water, a “national security” issue.
To make matters more confusing, international organizations such as the United Nations have created terms such as “human security,” arguing for a collective responsibility to keep people free from want and fear. The problem with that approach is the tendency, in dealing with security interests, to centralize power and decision-making and restrain individual freedoms and free markets. It also justifies military solutions for everything from dealing with AIDS to oil.
Making every global challenge a security issue trumps free markets and limits personal freedoms. The concept of national security needs to be put back in the box, reserved for moments of peril in dealing with people (either states or non-states) who threaten through the use of violence to take away the political freedoms that governments are supposed to protect. We need to put an end to national-security proliferation.
"Real" Security
Rather than fixating on threats we ought to be focusing on expanding our capacity to keep the nation safe, free, and prosperous regardless of the enemies that rise up against us. What would we should be asking ourselves is what we can do to advance that agenda.
Second, we need to keep the nation strong. Unless Washington adopts an unashamedly pro-competitive agenda in the near term, America will cease to be a first-rate global competitor in the long term. Not even the most competitive liberal democracy can hope to overcome a government that works against the best interests of its citizens. It would be like world-class sprinters who tie their own shoelaces together.
Sustaining America's competitive edge is a vital part of ensuring a successful national security. Nobody respects a loser. Promoting free trade, educating the U.S. workforce, unshackling innovation, and investment are key to keeping this a nation a force to be reckoned with.
Opposing view: CAP Argument
Rebuttal to Opening Arguments: Priorities for National Security
I think the Nina Hachigian post is a great example of exactly the wrong approach to take national security. As a way of rebuttal, I would say, "read my post." I did not know what Nina was going to write when I drafted my comments, but my comments were directed at refuting exactly the kinds of things she proposes—treating every world problem as a national security issue.
I am not suggesting that we ignore climate change, poverty, pandemics, or any other global issues. I am just arguing let us not treat them as national security problems. There are concrete steps to address global issues like these including:
Poverty, corruption, and lack of civil society. Traditional aid programs don't work. In fact, they are horrible instruments that usually line the pockets of everyone but the people that they are intended to serve. Much better would be to pursue innovations like the Millennium Challenge Account—a new and innovative means of providing foreign assistance.
Pandemics. Better to treat the threat of communicable diseases like a disease rather than an enemy. The best tool is "health diplomacy" coordinating programs on a bilateral basis. The work being done to combat "TB" offers some good examples.
Those issues aside, national security should be people who are trying to kill us and destroy our way of life—people who have both the intent and capacity to stop the "heart beat" of the nation. That could include both state and non-state groups.
We could write out endless laundry lists of who these people are and debate the priority, but odds are we would get it exactly wrong.
It also makes no sense to distinguish between "conventional" threats," like enemy armies and "unconventional" threats like cyber attacks and terrorism. Unconventional enemies can you use military means. Bin Laden has publicized his interest in getting nuclear weapons. Conventional forces can make unconventional attacks. Russia conducted cyberwarfare, as well as a conventional invasion of Georgia.
What national security should focus on is providing defense capabilities (that includes all the elements of national power including military force, economic measures, and diplomacy) to address a range of threats. Capabilities that will:
· Protect the homeland
· Maintain freedom of the seas
· Secure access to space and cyberspace
· Allow the United States to project military power to defend its interests.
Closing Arguments
- Building a robust complement of capabilities for the spectrum of missions the armed forces will face,
- Ensuring adequate funding for ongoing operations,
- Maintaining a trained and ready all-volunteer force,
- Preparing for the future, and
- Fundamentally reforming manpower and procurement policies.
To realize these goals, both the President and Congress must commit to a program that addresses the most pressing priorities: preparing, fielding, and sustaining the force.
The Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review rightly argued that America does not have the luxury of planning for one war alone. Enemies may challenge the U.S. through irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive means—or a combination of these— to deny or degrade traditional U.S. military advantages. The military's future challenges range from defeating terrorist networks to preventing the acquisition or use of weapons of mass destruction to preventing failed states.
At the same time, the United States cannot sacrifice its capacity to fight conventional conflicts. Indeed, unpreparedness makes conventional conflicts more, not less, likely. A great power that lacks the capacity to defend itself is not a great power. It is instead a target—an invitation to aggression.
Nor can America afford to ignore the classic components of deterrence. The age when only a great power could bring another great power to its knees is over. Any state and some non-state entities with a modicum of resources could field weapons, such as nuclear bombs, that could inflict heavy casualties and/or devastate the U.S. economy. The United States needs to maintain the means to limit all of these dangers.
Thus, what we need are national security instruments that can do lots of things.
Here is a short list of what we need.
- Rebuild ground forces. The Clinton-era cuts in manpower were imprudent. Ground forces should be restored to pre-1998 levels. Additional ground force needs should be based on balancing strategic requirements and manpower costs. In most cases, additional manpower needs should be met affordably by expanding the Reserve Components into a more sustainable and flexible operational Reserve.
- Preserve the all-volunteer force. All future military manpower requirements should be met by expanding the all-volunteer force. Conscription and any form of national service should be used only as a last resort in the most dire national emergencies.
- Expand the capabilities-based force. The armed forces should increase their capacity to respond to a wide range of missions, including post-conflict operations, counterinsurgency, and homeland defense, but not at the expense of the services' capacity to wage conventional warfare.
- Revitalize the strategic forces. The military should develop robust capabilities in missile defense, space-based operations, and cyber warfare.
- Develop next-generation platforms. The services should develop and field next-generation systems, such land vehicles, cruisers, and bombers.
- Exploit cutting-edge technology. The military will need new technologies (e.g., directed-energy weapons, unmanned combat aerial vehicles, and other robotic systems) that give it a significant competitive advantage over future adversaries.
- Maintain air supremacy. The U.S. military must retain the capability to dominate airspace in any theater, including space and cyberspace.
- Maintain the capacity to control sea-lanes and defeat anti-access strategies. Naval and Marine forces should concentrate on these core missions, while other maritime "constabulary" missions should increasingly be assigned to the Coast Guard.
About the Moderator
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
Further Research
To explore this issue further I started another knol on how to determine national security priorities and address them. That knol is How Government Thinks-Stinks.
Knol Foundation
Invite as author
Greetings
email knolfoundation@gmail
Freek de Man
Invite as author
Its always money
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Anonymous
Invite as author
Being "safe".
This doesn't mean "give in", it means "try to figure out your enemy". This means a combination of military and diplomatic means. When Bush went on screen and called the war a "crusade", he was essentially asking for more. This shows a clear lack of understanding needed to solve the problem at hand. The recent publication where Al-Quaida comments on a desire for McCain makes perfect sense for them. They can't defeat the US militarily. Their goal is to hemorrage the US as best they can, to keep the bleeding sores open. The invasion of Iraq was the best thing ever to happen to their cause.
This should be a lesson to us. We need to do everything we can to avoid presenting their cause as the right cause. We need to drive away their support. To do this we need to do a few things, and do them exceedingly well:
1) Ensure that all action we take is backed up. If we call someone a terrorist, make sure they are so by a common understanding of the term. Avoid any loaded terms one wishes to use, this is the war of hearts and minds. This is the real war we cannot lose. If we provide our enemies with recruits, we'll never "win".
2) If we use military force, it needs to be swift, absolute and clearly declared. We need to say "we're going to do (some action)" and we do that. Nothing more, nothing less. I'd suggest reading "The Utility of Force" by General Sir Rupert Smith for an interesting view of modern warfare.
3) Assist the people in troubled regions, on their terms. Show them we're not devils, we're not someone you want to bomb, we're not someone you should fear at all. This'll take decades, but in the long run, I can't really see any other way to promote a safe existance.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Jeff Ferguson
Invite as author
We Our OurOFighting the Old Wars
On Sept 11, we dealt with the high jackers as we had for years, but the terrorists had changed the gameplan without warning us up front.
Right now we are continuing to prevent another Sept 11.
In a way I am sympathetic to what Mr. Carafono has to say, however, we are still not communicating with terrorists at any level. Just building a strong country is not enough, because the new enemies are not impressed by the same things weare impressed by. They have a totally different value system.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
MBP Lee
Invite as author
Do you know what the threat is?
Pat Henry
Invite as author
Loss of focus
I'd like to ask you if you have health insurance? If so do you realise to what extent that your premium subsidises the health care of obese and smokers? Do you do anything about this? No, you don't because you're delusional that a privately managed health care is more efficient than a government managed one.
If private management is more efficient why are so many private companies (banks, insurance auto industry) going with begging bowls to the government asking for bail out?
Also, do you have children with disabilities? No. If you do, you will realise how much the public school system and other tax-payer subsidised facilities are geared to help them. What would you have the parents of these kids do in the absence of these facilities?
Yes, a public health care system will be abused by fat, lazy people but let's not throw the baby of affordable health care for all out with the bathwater of these few.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
On top of that, you missed the point. Slow down and re read it, then, read it again. Then, THINK ABOUT IT. Slow down bud. I could see your knee jerk from here.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
ConsDemo
Invite as author
Carfano punts
Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review rightly argued that America does not have the luxury of planning for one war alone. Enemies may challenge the U.S. through irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive means—or a combination of these— to deny or degrade traditional U.S. military advantages. The military's future challenges range from defeating terrorist networks to preventing the acquisition or use of weapons of mass destruction to preventing failed states.
At the same time, the United States cannot sacrifice its capacity to fight conventional conflicts. Indeed, unpreparedness makes conventional conflicts more, not less, likely. A great power that lacks the capacity to defend itself is not a great power. It is instead a target—an invitation to aggression.
Nor can America afford to ignore the classic components of deterrence. The age when only a great power could bring another great power to its knees is over. Any state and some non-state entities with a modicum of resources could field weapons, such as nuclear bombs, that could inflict heavy casualties and/or devastate the U.S. economy. The United States needs to maintain the means to limit all of these dangers.
Simplistic proposals just to add more ground troops will not suffice. Indeed, no single capability—whether "boots on the ground" or satellites in space—will address all future challenges. A successful 10-year modernization of the military requires a comprehensive plan that demonstrates how the Pentagon will maintain adequate means to deal with threats across all four quadrants of conflict.
The military must not only be the right size for the long war against terrorism but also be capable of performing the appropriate tasks. The old adage that "every problem looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer" sums up many policymakers' approach to conflict. The Cold War military was a hammer, but a long war demands many more tools.
Expanding the toolbox will be difficult. "Transformation" was the Pentagon's popular exhortation after the Cold War. Few actually agreed on what the effort meant, but every general and admiral seemed to want some. An elementary definition of the term meant providing a new set of military capabilities fundamentally different from those used during the Cold War. The difficulty was deciding exactly what those capabilities would look like. Too often, the answers from the services were that many of the systems and platforms already under development to meet Cold War objectives were transformational and should therefore probably be paid for at the expense of some other service's budget.
More than a decade after the Cold War ended, the transformation rhetoric in the halls of the Pentagon finally appears to be shifting. Talk is moving away from change for the sake of change to transforming the military so that it can carry out the many missions that will be required in the 21st century. Appropriately, much effort is being spent on things that do not fit a single-service paradigm, such as ballistic missile defense, space operations, better information systems, more special operations forces, and unmanned aerial vehicles. These are the hallmarks of the new military coming out of the Pentagon, and the services should continue these important efforts.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Thank you for clearly defining your statements. Maybe now more can read and understand. Unfortunately, you went beyond the 7 second sound bite. So some may have fuzzed out and lost focus.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window