Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Republicans: Nothing Matters But the War

William Kristol, a top Republican strategist and editor of the Weekly Standard is pushing Democratic senator Joe Lieberman for vice president, on the strength of Lieberman’s full-throated support for the war without end. Pete Wehner, the leading intellectual in the Bush White House (OK, but still–that carries some weight in the Bush party), backs the idea in National Review. 

True, Lieberman is one of the few Americans still solidly behind Bush’s war. But that couldn’t be sufficient for Republicans to put him a heartbeat from the presidency, right? He must share Republican values on other issues, right?

Not really. As Robert Novak pointed out back when Republicans were endorsing Lieberman for reelection,

Lieberman followed the liberal line in opposing oil drilling in ANWR, Bush tax cuts, overtime pay reform, the energy bill, and bans on partial-birth abortion and same-sex marriage. Similarly, he voted in support of Roe vs. Wade and for banning assault weapons and bunker buster bombs. His only two pro-Bush votes were to fund the Iraq war and support missile defense (duplicating Sen. Hillary Clinton’s course on both).

Lieberman’s most recent ratings by the American Conservative Union were 7 percent in 2003, zero in 2004 and 8 percent in 2005.

I actually agree with him on a couple of those votes, though I wouldn’t expect that conservatives would. The National Taxpayers Union said that he voted with taxpayers 9 percent of the time in 2005, worse than Chris Dodd or Barbara Boxer. Maybe because of all the Republican love in 2006, he soared to a 15 percent rating.

In a previous speech, Lieberman called for a tax increase so that we could continue the war without “squeezing important domestic programs, as we have been doing”–his view of a period during which federal spending rose by one trillion dollars:

During the Second World War, our government raised taxes and we spent as much as 30 percent of our Gross Domestic Product to defeat fascism and Nazism. During the war in Korea, we raised taxes and spent fourteen percent of GDP on our military…Today, in the midst of a war against a brutal enemy in a dangerous world, we have cut taxes and are spending less than five percent of GDP to support our military…It is not an acceptable answer to push the sacrifice of this war against terrorism onto our children and grandchildren through deficit spending, as we have been doing. And it is not an acceptable answer to pay the costs of this war by squeezing important domestic programs, as we have been doing.

Only if you believe that continuing to support the war in Iraq outweighs all other issues combined–for the next five years–could a conservative reasonably support Joe Lieberman. And apparently some Republicans and conservatives are willing to toss aside his commitment to high taxes, higher spending, more regulation, and entitlement expansion in order to get a vice president firmly committed to long-term entanglement in Iraq.

I Gave You My Heart, You Gave Me a Pen

I’ve been a John Cusack fan since Sixteen Candles. Thus his recent unflattering comments about Cato kinda sting.

I think Cusack is a smart guy who has been misinformed. As Tom Firey notes, Cato scholars, like Cusack, are keenly interested in making it harder for Congress and the president to start wars. I recently offered a proposal for reforming veterans’ health care. One of the proposal’s main selling points, to my mind, is that it would force Congress to confront many of the costs of war that the current system hides.

I even agree with some of what Cusack said. Cato scholars certainly don’t have “any monopoly on insight into anything.” And I’m sure we come across poorly at times. 

But do Cato scholars really want, as Cusack has written,  ”the total liberation of corporations”? If I were really a corporate tool, would I have just penned an oped where I smeared the entire health care industry as a pack of “rent-seeking weasels”? 

If Cusack could see how poorly we get along with most corporations most of the time, he might give Cato another look.

First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All the Lawyers

Scholars argue about what Shakespeare’s famous line in Henry VI really means, but I prefer to think that the wise playwright understood that law is a protection for the people and a constraint on rapacious rulers. Which brings us to the situation in Pakistan, where President/General Musharraf must be contemplating Shakespeare’s proposition. The glamorous Benazir Bhutto gets the headlines, but the real conflict is between Musharraf and the judges and lawyers who uphold the rule of law.

The latest crisis began last March, when Musharraf suspended Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. The rest of the Supreme Court then reinstated the chief justice. After questions arose about the legitimacy of Musharraf’s reelection, the general suspended the constitution and brought lawyers into the streets.

Lawyers. In the streets. In suits, as a Washington Post essayist noted. It’s not the usual image of a revolution. The people leading the rebellion against Musharraf’s undemocratic rule are not embattled farmers, or sans-culottes, or proletarian mobs, or even Buddhist monks. They’re lawyers, people normally committed to quiet meetings, legal briefs, formal argument, and decisionmaking processes both judicial and judicious.

But as Husain Haqqani, a former adviser to three Pakistani prime ministers, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Pakistan’s burgeoning civil society, led by lawyers and encouraged by judges ousted from the Supreme Court, is refusing to be cowed. Protests are spreading despite thousands of arrests and the use of tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators. More than 1,700 attorneys have been jailed but still more are taking to the streets. University students have joined the lawyers, and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has vowed to violate a ban on public meetings by leading a rally on Friday.

There are a number of important reasons why Pakistan’s attorneys are leading the protests against Mr. Musharraf. They have a long tradition of activism for rule of law and human-rights issues. In 1968-69, the lawyers started the campaign that resulted in the ouster of Pakistan’s first military ruler, Field Marshal Ayub Khan. They also were at the forefront of the campaign against Mr. Zia-ul-Haq, whose 11-year military rule ended when he died in a 1988 plane crash.

The sympathies of Americans should be with the Pakistani people and the rule of law, not with any political player in the current struggle. It is not for the United States government to pick winners in Pakistan, but we should free ourselves of the belief that Musharraf is the only force capable of opposing radical Islamic terrorism in the country. Chief Justice Chaudhry, in Haqqani’s words, “has become a symbol of resistance to arbitrary rule — the man who refused to roll over and disappear, unlike earlier judges who cooperated with military rulers or simply went home when their conscience dictated otherwise.” He may one day be seen as the Joan of Arc or the George Washington of his country’s revival.

Haqqani writes, “Mr. Musharraf seems determined to put his own political survival before the rule of law — actions that warrant the label dictator. Pakistan’s attorneys, and increasingly the rest of its citizenry, seem equally determined to prevent this from happening.” Americans should wish them well.

Identity Systems Aren’t Good Security, and Other Lessons From the Chicago Airport Fake ID Story

AFP is reporting that more than a hundred people with false identification documents were given employee security passes to Chicago’s O’Hare airport.

This is a good opportunity to compare conventional wisdom to actual security wisdom.

CW: This was a breach of the airport’s security system.
W: This was definitely a breach of the airport’s identity system, but identity systems provide very little security. The airport’s security, already weak if it relied on workers’ identities, was little changed.

CW: “ ‘If we are to ensure public safety, we must know who has access to the secure areas of airports,’ said Patrick Fitzgerald, US attorney for the northern district of Illinois.”
W: Public safety can’t be ensured by knowing who has access to the secure areas of airports. Knowing who has access may protect against ordinary threats like theft, but not against the threats to aviation that we care about.

CW: “A fundamental component of airport safety is preventing the use of false identification badges and punishing those who commit or enable such violations.”
W: Preventing the use of false identification is a trivial component of airport safety. It’s a fundamental component of airport safety programs, which are mostly for show. Security expert Bruce Schneier calls them “security theater.”

CW: “Unauthorized workers employed at sensitive facilities such as airports, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, military bases, defense facilities and seaports pose a vulnerability which compromises the integrity of those key assets,’ US Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement.”
W: Authorized workers employed at sensitive facilities pose a vulnerability which compromises the integrity of those very same assets. If you want to prevent some kind of harm, you must make that harm difficult to cause, regardless of who may try.

Security is not easy.

Sensible Foreign Policies — and One that Just Doesn’t Make Sense

Over at the Partnership for a Secure America, I highlight three recent articles – by Justine Rosenthal, Barry Posen and Richard Betts, respectively – that advance the sensible proposition that the best way to restore balance to our foreign policy is to change the ends, not the means.

Specifically, all three articles make a compelling case for a new direction that is less dependent upon America acting as the world’s policeman; would expect and demand more of America’s allies; and would place fewer demands on our nation’s military.

This new strategy would enable us to reduce overall defense spending to pre-9/11 levels, a position supported by more than 4 in 10 Americans. As a Gallup Poll found earlier this year, “The percentage of Americans saying the government is spending too much on defense has increased by 11 points over the past year and is now at its highest level since 1990.” By contrast, only 20 percent believe that we should be spending more on the military.

The most direct and concise of the three, Rosenthal’s lead essay in The National Interest, makes a number of specific recommendations for what a new strategy would look like.

Of her several proposals, I would take strong issue with only one: Rosenthal calls for a concentrated national effort aimed at “creating alternate sources of energy.” I don’t see how this advances U.S. security, in general. We have very little to fear from the so-called oil weapon, as Eugene Gholz and Daryl Press argued earlier this year.

But even if one were to concede the dubious point that energy independence would make us safer, there are a number of other ways to achieve said independence that do not require a massive new Manhattan Project.

Rosenthal says, that “He who breaks the hydrocarbon monopoly rules the 21st century” – but technology is transferable. What is broken by one is available to all – for a price. Which explains why there are thousands of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists pursuing alternative energies. The UN Environment Program found that $70.9 billion was invested in renewables in 2006, a 43 percent increase over the previous year, and trends from the first quarter of 2007 showed still further growth.

That these investors would love to have taxpayer money to subsidize their efforts shouldn’t surprise anyone; that we would be gullible enough to do so is another matter entirely.

It may seem trite to point out that the market still functions with respect to the allocation of all other natural resources, from gold, to copper, to tin, but the “oil markets are different” mentality persists. Perhaps what we really need is a Manhattan Project to teach Americans the basics of economics, beginning with the laws of supply and demand?

“The Goal Is Not Getting Out”

That was the comment of J.D. Crouch, former Deputy National Security Adviser to President Bush, at a recent forum on Iraq at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Click here for Crouch’s longer comment, describing why “I’m not sure that leaving, in fact, completely, is where we will ultimately want to be.” A refreshing moment of candor.

What You Need to Know About Driver Licensing and Illegal Aliens

After 700 words of Sturm und Drang about lawsuits and partisan machinations over whether illegal aliens should be able to get drivers’ licenses, CNSNews.com reporter Fred Lucas quoted me briefly:

“Identification systems aren’t a good security tool,” Harper told Cybercast News Service. “Driver licensing isn’t a good tool for immigration control. It will just result in illegal immigrants driving without a license.”

That sums it up nicely. Just thought I’d share it.

(The story says that unlicensed driving dropped by a third when New Mexico de-linked driver licensing and immigration status. Actually, unlicensed driving dropped by two thirds, from 33% to 11%, lower than the national average.)