Obama’s national security dilemma
David Frum
In his last post, Shrum offered a very interesting 9/11 “might have been”:
Instead of a quick, heavy strike to destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, followed by a near term withdrawal, Bush shortchanged our forces there even as he magnified their mission. While he was obsessed with Iraq, a narco-terrorist sanctuary grew and flourished in Afghanistan and sprawled into Pakistan, where Bush was gulled into financing an “ally” whose intelligence agency has aided and abetted assaults against our forces as well as India. Today, the subcontinent teeters on the brink of conflict between two states with nuclear arsenals.
I hope Shrum won’t think it cheeky if I note that this was exactly the strategy that Donald Rumsfeld wanted to follow in Afghanistan.
But here was the problem: Withdraw rapidly from Afghanistan? OK—but that meant accepting precisely what Shrum would condemn, the relapse of Afghanistan into narco-terrorism.
Fight the relapse? OK again—but how to do that without Pakistani goodwill? And part of the price of that goodwill has been to pretend to believe Pakistan’s denials of involvement in terrorism.
So there’s the strategic conundrum.
Now the political conundrum:
In a very few days, Democrats assume responsibility for the national security of the United States. In opposition, they had the luxury of criticizing the Bush administration from every angle, without regard to consistency or even coherence. But to govern is to choose, and now Democrats must choose.
In Afghanistan, for example, the insurgency relies on two great sources of support: Pakistan and drug revenues. The U.S. could shut down much of that drug revenue by, for example, attacking poppy refining labs from the air. (These labs emit heat and so are very visible to aircraft.) But that would imply a big escalation in the U.S. role. It would surely lead to civilian casualties. And it would increase tensions with NATO allies who thought they were engaged in Afghan peacekeeping, not a militarized anti-drug campaign. In Pakistan, Democrats want to work with the new elected government.
But when pressed to deliver on anything important—from counter-proliferation to counter-terrorism to counter-corruption—elected Pakistani governments almost always disappoint. And after all, we don’t want the government to fall, do we?
Democrats profess enthusiasm and sympathy for terror-stricken democratic India. Yet almost everything the Indians want from the U.S. is perceived by Pakistan as threatening—and corrodes even further Pakistan’s never very remarkable cooperation. So: press ahead with the India relationship? Or grant Pakistan a veto?
Is Islamic extremism an ideology to be challenged—or an understandable expression of grievances that need to be appeased?
Do we prefer democracy—or the undemocratic but reasonably cooperative status quo in Egypt and the Gulf?
And if an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable, how precisely will Democrats thwart it, when every peaceful option has failed—and they themselves oppose the use of force against Iran? Or does “unacceptable” just mean “regrettable”? Or nothing at all?
The key to Barack Obama’s success to date has been the deft deployment of verbal formulas to reconcile contradictions. It will be interesting to see whether that trick works quite so well in real life.
Show: Oldest | Newest
18 Comments
Posted by Cogs, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 10:45 am Welcome to the real world Mr. P-E Obama.
Posted by Jan, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 11:39 am Here's the laughable part of this ridiculous "the sky is going to fall under Barack Obama" mentality: "And if an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable, how precisely will Democrats thwart it, when every peaceful option has failed—and they themselves oppose the use of force against Iran? Or does “unacceptable” just mean “regrettable”? Or nothing at all?" Since when does Congress have the authority to thwart a nuclear weapon in the hands of another nation? And... Every peaceful option has failed????? LOL! We haven't spoken to Iran since 1979. Do neo-cons support the use of US military force for EVERY problem on the face of the Earth? I believe the Constitution only gives our government the authority to DEFEND ourselves, not to OFFEND the rest of the planet. Loyal Bushies are nothing but fear-mongers and war-mongers, who condone torture, unwarranted wiretapping on US citizens, and the outing CIA operatives for political punishment. Good riddance to The Worst President Ever and his incompetent cronies.
Posted by TheBigHenry, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 11:48 am "In opposition, they had the luxury of criticizing the Bush administration from every angle, without regard to consistency or even coherence." Indeed. Moreover, they perfected the use of the passive voice, which anyone with any degree of intelligence recognizes as the voice that avoids responsibility for actions taken. For example, "The action was regrettable". Yes but, who was responsible for necessitating that action? No doubt, it was the ever-culpable evil President.
Posted by John, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 11:50 am Frum is reverting to neocon type I'm afraid. Obama is no more going to launch a war against Iran than Bush did because it would be totally idiotic. What all this means is that we are going to have to live with Iran as a nuclear power and react accordingly. We also have to find a solution to the issue which lies at the heart of Islamic terrorism. Namely the Palestinian situation where no matter how many bombs Israel drops on Gaza or Lebanon the strategic balance continues to tilt against her. The Neocon solutions to the problem which have bounced around between killing one's way to victory, ignoring the problem for the first four years of the Bush presidency, and for the past four years promises of a peace settlement by the end of the year, all having failed the US is going to have to reengage. Really these folks take the cake. They've spent the last eight years destroying America's reputation and diplomatic leverage and now they are screaming about why hasn't Obama come up with a solution.
Posted by Mike, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 12:07 pm OK libs and PE Obama.... which scenario is in America's best interest? 1. Iran has a nuclear weapon and the ability to deliver and denotate it (or them) throughout the Middle East and maybe as far as Eastern Europe. or 2. America (either alone or with allies) takes military measures to eliminate (at best) or severeley degrade (at worst) Iran's capabilty to manufacture and/or deliver nuclear weapons. Time to choose. Although I fear that PE Obama is beginning to recognise that his self indulgent victorious campaign is more than about just BEING the President. I think that even he realizes that he is in WAAAAY over his head.
Posted by Don, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 12:33 pm In six months I predict that Uncle Obama will be giving fire side chats and, heaven forbid, there will be rumblings about that compassionate "neocon" in the oval office, dancing to visions of sugar plums. Even FDR needed a war of capacity destruction and demand management policies. A consummate pragmatist, after all Obama is beyond ideology: when did pragmatism cease being an ideology?
Posted by David E. Brown, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 1:42 pm Looking beyond human behavior to the reason for that behavior reveals many ways of addressing problematic behavior that are far more effective and positive than any response to the behavior itself, especially threats, or the use of force. The trick is to address the problem early enough so that it doesn't reach the point where force becomes our only option. Being pro-active in a positive fashion early enough for that to be effective always trumps the use of force. Every human behavior is a product of a desire to fill a perceived need. One of the most important needs is self-interest, of which feeling safe is perhaps the most important factor. For example, if Iran is building a nuclear weapon, it's hardly because they have nothing better to do with their resources. It's likely to be because they want it for self-protection, or for aggression against someone else, because they believe such aggression is in their best interest. If the rest of the world, and most particularly the US and Israel, can demonstrate in a manner that is credible to Iran, that we are not a threat to them, then their need for self-defense evaporates and they can divert those resources to bettering their society rather than simply protecting themselves. We don't have to emasculate ourselves in order to accomplish this purpose. What we do need to do is stop using threats and posturing in an attempt to dissuade them from feeling threatened, because that kind of methodology has at best a short-term effectiveness. Then if we can persuade them of the truth, which is that it's hardly in our interest to harm them, then they will feel less threatened. If, at the same time, we can persuade them that it's inherently not in their interest to harm others, they are far less likely to be aggressive. What's important about that process is that it be presented in a fashion that makes sense to them, not just to us we will not be effective in meeting that requirement until we both listen to, and understand their perspective. When it comes to interactions with others we Americans have a tendency to believe that if we are sincere, then the rest of the world should believe us. Unfortunately sincere professions of intent advanced in a language or manner not intelligible to our intended audience are worthless. So, for example, if I sincerely don't want to harm someone, but I announce that by saying to them, "I don't want to harm you, and it's not in my interest to harm you, and, if you don't believe me I will crush you," our audience might be forgiven if they don't have nearly the level of confidence in our denial of harmful intent as we might like. Looking beyond human behavior to the reason for that behavior reveals many ways of addressing problematic behavior that are far more effective and positive than any response to the behavior itself, especially threats, or the use, of force. The trick is to address the problem early enough so that it doesn't reach the point where force becomes our only option. Being pro-active in a positive fashion early enough for that to be effective always trumps the use of force. There are those whose situation is such that the threat they perceive emanates from another source than us. When we can persuade them that we will work with them to defuse that threat, because a threat to even one individual, let alone one nation, is a threat to all, then we might begin to make this a better world for all, and imagine what it might be like if we were all pulling together rather than attacking each other or defending ourselves against each other.
Posted by charliehorse, Thursday, January 1, 2009, 3:30 pm The amount of mind churning gibberish about proclaiming non-agression on Israel's part toward Iran, and then the clouds will part, the sun will shine and angels will sing "Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Man" in perfect harmony, is so....so.....full of wishful thinking, is all I can come up with, rather than spouting ($?**#>(&!). The Russians opposed us for a generation with weapons that would have rocked the world if they had ever been deployed. And these were a people who believed in the same GOD we revere. Now we find ourselves, along with Israel, in opposition with a people who will gladly welcome the death of their nation to attain their medievel religious tennents. The world needs to stop wishing that the Jewish State had been located in Florida, or Chile after WWII, or wherever else the mind can dream, and come to the reality that Israel is in Palistine, like it or lump it. Iran wants to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. Take them at their word, that's what they say out loud to anyone who will listen. Do The Math!! Now, unless some WIZZ-KID, somewhere, can figure how to keep this mix of "Drano" from hitting the bowl, we have a toxic mess. There is no "nice" solution as far as this professional political scientist can see, but how about the world lets Israel solve their own problem, let's say by spliting the residents of Gaza up into groups, and exiling them to the neighboring Islamic nations that offer no support for a solution to this mess. The Jewish people can then re-occupy the Gaza Strip, and make positive use of all that waterfront property. How much more can Israel be hated anyway? All their neighbors want them dead already, so what the heck, it's that or kill everyone in Gaza. The situation is a Gordian's Knot, and any historian knows how that problem was solved.
Post a Comment