The Daily Clarity

The road to US National Security

With a new world order slowly shuffling into place after Obama’s inauguration, we have to consider the issue of sustainable national security. How does the US effectively combat the non-traditional forces that threaten it and its interests worldwide? With US troops slowly withdrawing from Iraq, and potentially shuffling into Afghanistan, what would it look like to win the supposed ‘War against Terror?’ The phrase, ‘War on Terror’, has of course been assigned to the history books along with Bush and Cheney. It was always a misnomer and a polarizing phrase, that carried an implication that such a war could be won, which in reality it couldn’t. Terrorism is ageless and cannot be eradicated. There will always be forces that are willing to use force and indiscriminate violence to achieve their objectives, whether they are political, religious, territorial, or cloaked in the form of religion. The US is in desperate need of a new security policy that will minimize the potential for threat and reduce the number of groups that seek to do the US harm.

It needs to be a dual strategy – both offensive and defensive. Had the money squandered on the Iraq war been more strategically applied, the US would be much closer to the end objectives. However, at this point there is a need to rip up the Bush-Cheney playbook and write a new one. The defense strategies are easy to conceive, but expensive and complex to implement. There are key strategic assets that need to be secured. Transport hubs – airlines, rail, freight, ports. There are activities that need to be intensely scrutinized – container freight by land, sea, and air. Border security – the porous and vulnerable borders need to be policed. It seems to be one of the worst kept national security secrets that there are active terrorist cells in Canada that threaten the US, and have access to a border that can be slipped over in multiple ways. The border with Mexico has received much more focus due to illegal immigration as it is politically more attractive to the electorate, but that border is weak too, as the Mexican drug cartels prove on a daily basis. Immigration control seems to be hit and miss in terms of its effectiveness. It catches some, but misses many that could do the US damage. The policies, procedures, and processes are moribund. It is mired in red tape and non-digital procedures that allow many loopholes. To upgrade it would be expensive, but it may be mower costly in the longer term not to. Visa restrictions and availability are inconsistent. Point of departure checks that lead to the US are often questionable. It is an area of risk and opportunity. It hasn’t appeared to be high on the propriety list, at least not in the US but is sure to have been a focus of planning fort their enemies.

There is a need for a much clearer nuclear policy, one that is transparent and equitable. There is a vital requirement to tighten the capacity for non-state groups to potentially gain access to nuclear ingredients. Some of the former Soviet Union countries have these things and security is not as rigid as it needs to be. There have been half-hearted efforts to locate all the ‘missing’ nuclear components, but it has been haphazard, unfocused and not a priority for a country mired in debt and two war fronts. There is a need to engage, review, and monitor some of the states that posses nuclear weapons. A recent air shipment between North Korea and Iran was halted in Indian air space at the last minute by US intelligence, but it was to close for comfort. The alleged illegal trafficking of such technology between Iran and Syria via Venezuela should be front and center in the US sights, but seems to get little attention. The opacity of nuclear weapon build up in certain states such as Pakistan, India, and Israel should give the US government concern. Each of those has affiliations, associations and ethnic groups that would love to gain access to a suitcase dirty nuke that could be directed at their enemies, or at the US.

Then there is the beleaguered US military, war weary and over-extended after long engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is being asked to do more with less. A strong military is a deterrent, but its overuse can lead to the creation of more foes than the reduction of them. Bush-Cheney preferred the use of war over law and that has left a legacy that the military is paying on their behalf. Any new play book will need to include a period of rest for the military to recharge. Afghanistan beckons, but more and more experts are concluding that this is not a war that can be won by traditional military means, and that there is a policing and ‘hearts and minds’ campaign there in preference to a full military engagement. History has shown that Afghanistan has less than kind to its past invaders and the new administration needs to be careful that it doesn’t break the back of the military in extending operations there, not fracture the fragile coalition involved in on the ground efforts. If there is a solution, in Afghanistan it will be diplomatically and politically derived in the longer term, and the commitment of forces in a ‘surge’ is highly unlikely to produce the same dividends as in Iraq.

This brings us to the biggest learning of the last 8 years, and the way forward to make progress in US efforts for peace and security. Security analysts are referring to the maxim of the new doctrine, as ‘do no harm’. Iraq was a prime example of the opposite approach, interference in a country where we had no legitimate cause, and creating an imbalance in existing arrangements of sufferance between Iran and Iraq, that has in part, created the Iranian regional ambition that the US is now forced to deal with…quickly. The principle of the ‘do no harm’ strategy is to not take unilateral action, either militarily or politically, that makes the US appear as enemy to states or interest groups, unless it is a real and urgent security threat. It means having open and transparent governance. It could preclude making a public statement on a position so as not to inflame the populace of another state, but still working diplomatically behind the scenes to achieve the desired objective. It references inclusiveness of negotiation, such as engaging the Middle East as a regional issue, talking to Syria and Iran without necessarily complying with all of their demands. The ‘do not harm’ approach sees the US not making unnecessary enemies as it pursues its international agenda.

The other aspects that are critical to US security are energy and the economy. A country with a weak economy is a country at risk. It cannot sustain its military forces, diplomatic efforts, economic aid or risk foreign markets through sanction. It is a country that dances to the tune of its overseas debtors. The Iraq War was not only a bungled foreign policy, it created, in part, the huge US debt load that hinders US relationships in the Middle East, China and Europe by making it play favorites with countries where it owes debts of monies or concessions. Structural economic reform is a vital to the long term security of the US as foreign policy changes. The US has another huge appetite and that is for energy. It consumes vastly more than it produces, and as a result is reliant on international players for supply. It is forced to interfere, barter with arms, and cut other political corners to feed its appetitive. This is another area of risk. Long term energy independence is critical economically and security-wise. This is a defense strategy equally as much as securing control of nuclear weaponry, points of egress and transportation hubs. The new Administration’s play book is in part dictated by the failure of the last one. Many of the priorities will be forced as a legacy of past policies. Continuance of the same direction will lead the US to live behind tall walls and in a constant state of fear. Whether the new Administration either realizes this or takes time to learn it, the result will be the same. Security in the misnamed war against terror is in the US hands, if and only if, they have the courage of convictions to actively manage the new global dynamic.