Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

What Would It Cost to Eliminate All Risk in the World?

I could not write that headline without chuckling to myself, but this is no laughing matter for some members of Congress. They are asking the Pentagon to describe what it would take to eliminate all risk in the world—or at least all the risks to the United States.

POLITICO’s “Morning Defense” reports that Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is calling on Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to return to the practice of submitting to Congress the list of “unfunded requirements” (i.e., all those things that the military services would want if they were unconstrained by budgets—and reality). Then-SecDef Bob Gates eliminated the practice in 2009.

“By not providing an unfunded requirements list,” Hunter wrote in a letter to Hagel, “the department and all of the service chiefs would be suggesting that the budget provides zero risk.”

POLITICO continues:

Hunter’s letter reminded Morning D of a memorable exchange Hunter had with Gates in 2011. Basically, Hunter asked Gates how much money he’d need to reduce U.S. national security risk to zero.

“If I had a trillion dollar budget, I’d still have unfunded requirements. The services would still be able to come up with a list of things they really need,” Gates replied.

Avoiding Hysteria about China

There has been a surge of inflammatory comments recently about China’s expansive territorial claims and abrasive behavior toward its neighbors.  Former Defense Department official Joseph Bosco asserts in an article in the National Interest Online that the United States and its allies need to draw a “big red line” in East Asia to warn Beijing against further adventurism. He urges the United States not only to reiterate and strengthen its backing for traditional allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines, but to forge new security ties with Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in the region that worry about Chinese expansionism.  Bosco emphasizes that it is crucial to eliminate any doubt whether the United States would move militarily to counter Chinese aggression, lest policy ambiguity lead to the same kind of miscalculation that produced North Korea’s attack on South Korea in 1950.

But Bosco and other anti-China hawks are mild compared to Philippines President Benigno Aquino in invoking nightmarish historical analogies. In an interview in the New York Times,Aquino argues that China’s territorial claims in the East China and South China seas reflect the same strategy as Nazi Germany’s claims in the late 1930s, and he warns world leaders not to coddle the aggressors in Beijing.  The world has to say “enough is enough,” he insists.  “Remember the Sudetenland was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War II.”

Bosco, Aquino, and others who adopt such strident views need to take some deep breaths.  They also need to consult a calendar.  It is 2014, not 1950, much less 1938-1939.  Beijing’s leaders are hardly pleasant democrats, but neither are they the equivalent of Kim Il-Sung, Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, or Adolf Hitler.  Today’s China appears to be a revisionist power—one seeking to alter East Asia’s strategic and economic landscape to Beijing’s advantage whenever possible.  But such behavior is still a far cry from the actions of the murderous revisionist powers that did not care how their actions disrupted the international system and produced horrifically destructive wars.  Treating Beijing as though China is such a malignant power will only foster paranoia among the Chinese leadership elite and create the danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Invoking strained, if not preposterous, historical analogies has repeatedly gotten the United States into unnecessary wars.  Ho Chi Minh, Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein were all bad actors, but contrary to the shrill warnings of overwrought pundits and politicians, they did not pose a threat even remotely comparable to Hitler or Stalin.  Neither does the current regime in Beijing.  We need a sober, cautious approach, not hysteria, in dealing with China.

Hadley and Gates on Iraq

Former Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley took to the Wall Street Journal’s op ed pages last week to try to make the case that the Iraq war was worth fighting.

The particulars of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny are familiar: 

two wars against his neighbors resulting in about a million deaths; brutalization of his own people killing tens if not hundreds of thousands; use of poison gas against Iraqi Kurds; lifelong support for terrorism; open defiance of the U.N. Security Council…. 

Leaving Saddam in power would have badly undermined the credibility of the U.N. and the U.S. As Iran—Saddam’s mortal enemy—restarted its nuclear program after 2005, Saddam would have resuscitated his own, igniting a nuclear-arms race. Saddam would likely have intervened in the uprising against Syria’s Bashar Assad, fanning the sectarian conflict that now threatens much of the Middle East.

The removal of Saddam opened up a very different possibility: an Iraq in which Sunni, Shiites, Kurds, Christians and other minorities would work together to build a democratic and peaceful future…

Notably, Hadley does not repeat all of the claims made by others in the Bush administration in the run-up to the war.

For example, he does not allege that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda terrorists, including those individuals directly involved in the 9/11 attacks (recall Dick Cheney’s assertion that Mohamed Atta had met with “a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service” in Prague; Cheney subsequently denied making any such connections between Iraq and 9/11). Instead, Hadley explains that al Qaeda took advantage of the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the invasion and overthrow of Hussein.

Hadley does not contend that Hussein had a functioning nuclear weapons program (in contrast to Condoleezza Rice’s warning that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”; or Bush’s famous “sixteen words” about Iraqi yellowcake), and Hadley’s prediction that Hussein would have restarted one after 2005 is purely speculative, and ignores the possibility that Iran restarted its program in response to the U.S. invasion.

Hadley’s bottom line, however, is the same as Cheney, Rice, and Bush’s: the war was worth fighting.

Offer Free Trade, Not Foreign Aid to Egypt

Egypt is racing toward dictatorship.  But Washington always has been more interested in maintaining influence than encouraging democracy or promoting development in Egypt.  That’s why the U.S. provided more than $75 billion in “aid” over the years. 

In fact, the cash bought little leverage.  Hosni Mubarak spent decades oppressing Egyptian citizens and persecuting Coptic Christians despite Washington’s contrary advice.  Israel’s military superiority, not America’s money, bought peace. 

Unfortunately, as elsewhere in the Third World, foreign “assistance” hindered economic development by effectively subsidizing Cairo’s inefficient dirigiste policies.  A decade ago the government finally decided to open the economy. 

Reforms including lower tariffs, enterprise privatizations, and regulation reductions.  Meredith Broadbent of the Center for Strategic and International Studies also cited corporate tax reductions and insurance regulation modernization. 

However, Egypt soon began to fall behind other reformers.  For instance, Broadbent pointed to the survival of “significant elements of a heavy-handed statist bureaucracy.”  The banking system was opaque, monopolistic, and inaccessible.  A joint report by the Carnegie Endowment and Legatum Institute cited the need to give poor Egyptians clear title to their property, reform the bankruptcy law, and reduce costs of opening, operating, and closing businesses.

Corruption was pervasive, with commerce dominated by cronyism and privilege.  The military controlled anywhere between 15 percent and 40 percent of the economy. 

The most serious economic hindrance was expensive consumer subsidies, particularly for food and fuel.  Most of the benefits did not go to those in most need.  Moreover, the cost today accounts for roughly a third of the government’s budget and 14 percent of Egypt’s GDP. 

Thus, even after the Mubarak reforms unemployment and inflation remained high while Cairo ran large deficits.  The situation worsened after the 2011 revolution.  Uncertainty and insecurity discouraged investment and the public deficit increased to 11 percent of GDP. 

The coup was another step backwards.  The government is focused on suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood and reconstituting old political and economic relationships.  Reported the Washington Post:  “now some businessmen and officials implicated in post-uprising corruption probes are again in positions of power and influence, including in the cabinet appointed last summer by the military.” 

The prime minister said the government plans to “rationalize” the subsidy, but economic reform appears to be a low priority.  In September the regime launched a “$4.2 billion program for “economic development and social justice,” the sort of big spending initiative which has not worked elsewhere.   

As I point out in my new National Interest article:

Military rule could offer a form of stability.  However, Gen. al-Sisi’s brutality, including the slaughter of Brotherhood protesters in Cairo in August, has encouraged increasingly violent opposition.  Policemen are regularly being killed, and both auto and suicide bombings are on the rise.

Such violence could frighten off investors and tourists. 

In this environment American financial assistance would be even more harmful than before.  The massive aid coming from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states—given purely for the political purpose of combating the Brotherhood—reduces any financial pressure on the regime to streamline economic policy. 

In contrast, freer trade would be a positive good.  Meredith Broadbent proposed negotiating a free trade agreement—previous talks left off in 2005—and updating the bilateral investment treaty.  The Institute for International Economics once projected that an FTA would increase Egypt’s GDP by three percent annually.

A new accord also would benefit U.S. firms which have been left at a disadvantage by the EU-Egyptian FTA.  Such agreements, Broadbent argued, “can serve as systemic tools to help pry open closed government regulatory processes.”

Absent an inclusive political process, Egypt likely faces an unstable and violent future.  However, economic reform also is necessary.  That is unlikely to come from lectures and money from foreign governments.  But the prospect of increased participation in international commerce would offer a far more powerful and direct incentive for action.  Washington should propose that the two governments free up investment and trade.

Thailand Votes as Thai Democracy Totters

Thailand has voted for the third time since the military staged a coup in 2006. The crony populists won again. The establishment thugs didn’t even compete.  The country is headed toward more and more dangerous political turmoil.

As I explain in my latest Forbes online column:

Thailand’s latest poll was triggered by PDRC mobs in Bangkok which sought to drive Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from office.  Although the protestors wear yellow, associated with the Thai monarchy, they are the modern equivalent of Benito Mussolini’s Black Shirts, who seized power through the infamous 1922 march on Rome.

The misnamed Democrat Party and its ally, the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), led by former DP deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban, then attempted to block Sunday’s vote. 

The Thai political system is nominally democratic.  But the state typically was controlled by an elitist establishment, essentially a military-royalist-civil service-business-urban/upper class axis. 

That was overturned by the 2001 victory of telecommunications executive Thaksin Shinawatra, who followed the traditional political strategy of tax, tax, spend, spend, elect, elect.  Thaksin won another big victory in 2005, but the following year the so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy launched demonstrations to bring down his government.  The military then ousted him in a coup. 

The next election in 2007 was won by Thaksin’s successor party (though he remained in exile abroad).  But PAD soon launched a series of protests to shut down the government.  After the coalition collapsed, angry Thaksin supporters, called “Red Shirts”—dominated by the rural poor and middle-class—flooded into Bangkok.  The security agencies then killed scores of protestors and wounded thousands of others. 

However, Yingluck, Thaksin’s sister, won the 2011 election.  Last fall PAD relaunched itself as the PDRC and employed storm trooper tactics against her government, even threatening to seize the prime minister. 

Yingluck responded by calling an election, but that was the last thing the protestors wanted.  So the Thai Black Shirts proceeded to block candidate registrations and early voting and halt polling in several areas.

Thaksin embodies the worst of irresponsible populism, and Yingluck is widely viewed as Thaksin’s stand-in.  Worse, however, is Suthep, whose crowds evoke memories of fascist bullies which on election day even attacked Thais seeking to vote.  He called for a “people’s revolution” with an unelected “people’s council,” which he would get to fill, to “reform” election rules, which would guarantee his victory, before the next poll is held. 

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Yingluck was reelected.  But Suthep is determined to take power irrespective of his lack of popular support and the Black Shirts want to make the country ungovernable. 

Yingluck’s opponents may file charges of alleged electoral violations and urge the Election Commission to nullify the vote.  That could trigger violent demonstrations from the Red Shirts.  By blocking candidate registrations the Black Shirts prevented the poll from filling the required 95 percent of parliament’s seats, requiring by-elections before the body can open.

The opposition also may turn to the courts, which are hearing a number of highly political charges.  However, Red Shirt activists are unlikely to peacefully accept a judicial coup.

If all else fails, the Black Shirts are likely to take more radical steps to overthrow the new government.  Chaos in Bangkok might cause the military to stage another coup.  But the 2006 coup leader, Sonthi Boonyaratglin, warned that the military likely would face violent resistance from not just the Red Shirts but the “mass” of people.

In short, Thailand’s political future looks at best uncertain and at worst disastrous.  The only hope may be constitutional reform reducing central government power.  If Bangkok was less dominant and regions could chart their own course, the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts would have less incentive to battle to the political death.

Thaksin may be a blight upon Thai politics, but Suthep and his allies are a cancer.  Unfortunately, in Thailand democracy does not guarantee good government.  However, authoritarian, undemocratic rule would be far worse.  Suthep’s Black Shirts will bear the primary blame if their nation descends further into violence and disorder.

Dear America, I Saw You Naked

Politico has a hilarious, revolting, and insightful article, written by former Transportation Security Administration screener Jason Edward Harrington. It’s called “Dear America, I Saw You Naked.” The subhead: “And yes, we were laughing.”

Many of the images we gawked at were of overweight people, their every fold and dimple on full awful display. Piercings of every kind were visible. Women who’d had mastectomies were easy to discern—their chests showed up on our screens as dull, pixelated regions. Hernias appeared as bulging, blistery growths in the crotch area. Passengers were often caught off-guard by the X-Ray scan and so materialized on-screen in ridiculous, blurred poses—mouths agape, à la Edvard Munch. One of us in the I.O. room would occasionally identify a passenger as female, only to have the officers out on the checkpoint floor radio back that it was actually a man. All the old, crass stereotypes about race and genitalia size thrived on our secure government radio channels.

In July 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the TSA to conduct a formal rulemaking and take comments from the public on the use of strip-search machines at airports. TSA took 20 months to propose a two-sentence regulation, which, as we pointed out to the agency, is totally defective.

The comment period closed in June last year and we have waited another seven months, at this point, for a final rule. When it comes out, it can be challenged in court under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The evidence in the rulemaking docket shows that strip-search machines cost more in dollars, privacy, and dignity than they provide in security, which, as Harrington’s article again shows, is not very much: “We knew the full-body scanners didn’t work before they were even installed.”

Cato Scholars Respond to the 2014 State of the Union

Cato Institute scholars Alex Nowrasteh, Aaron Ross Powell, Trevor Burrus, Benjamin H. Friedman, Simon Lester, Neal McCluskey, Mark Calabria, Dan Mitchell, Justin Logan, Patrick J. Michaels, Walter Olson and Jim Harper respond to President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address.

Video produced by Caleb O. Brown, Austin Bragg and Lester Romero.