Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Fighting Terrorists Not the Same as Fighting Terror

By
Christopher A. Preble

I have a new piece up this morning at CNN’s Global Public Square, co-authored with Mieke Eoyang of Third Way, making the case against an expanded Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Rather than thinking of new powers to hand over to the president, Congress should revisit the original rationale for the AUMF, and realize that, with the end of combat operations in Afghanistan by late 2014, such authorities are no longer required. In the future, should additional threats emerge that the president is unable to address without taking the country to war, then Congress can and should declare war, on an enemy, and with a clear end-goal in mind.

As it currently stands, the AUMF has become a catch-all for any U.S. government activities that can be cast as counterterrorism. It has allowed what should have been a small and achievable mission–killing or capturing those who planned the 9/11 attacks, and those who helped them, and degrading al Qaeda’s ability to carry out future such operations–to become a quixotic and unbounded global crusade, the longest war in the nation’s history, with no end in sight. One proposed revision would only compound this problem, making it easier for the president, this one or his successors, to expand the list of targets, and this war, at his or her discretion. So long as the nation remains on a war-footing, the government will always find new wars to fight. 

The GPS piece was written before the revelations of U.S. government surveillance of U.S. citizens’ phone records, and, perhaps, Internet usage. But the themes are connected: how does the U.S. government strike a balance between protecting the rights and liberties of American citizens, and securing those same citizens from physical harm, especially from individuals (i.e. terrorists) who use violence or the threat of violence against innocent people for political purposes? The American people, usually jealous of government intrusions in their private lives, have been far more tolerant of such intrusions over the past 12 years for a simple reason: they are scared. Indeed, they are terrified. Counterterrorism should address that psychological condition as much as it does the people that cause it. And we don’t need an expanded AUMF to do that.

The government has done an able job of rounding up terrorists and their accomplices; core al Qaeda has been practically eliminated, and its would-be successors are notably unsophisticated. The AUMF had little to do with that, with the important exception of those initial operations conducted in and around Afghanistan. The government has also collected, chiefly through traditional law-enforcement methods, an additional cohort of idiots, nitwits, and utter incompetents, many of whom were unlikely to harm even themselves, let alone innocent bystanders. The small likelihood that they might succeed has justified further extraordinary efforts, about which we now know a bit more. Again, such capabilities do not hinge on an AUMF.

By contrast, the government has done a terrible job of reducing people’s fears, and the context of the AUMF–reminding the public that we are at war–probably makes the problem worse. By and large, despite a few hopeful signs, we are still terrorizing ourselves. This was the overarching theme in a collection of essays that I edited with Jim Harper and Ben Friedman. The book was published nearly three years ago. Its message, unfortunately, still remains relevant today.

Topics: 
Foreign Policy and National Security, Law and Civil Liberties

Rising Religious Intolerance in Indonesia

By
Doug Bandow

Indonesia could become a significant Asia power and counterweight to China. It is the world’s most populous Islamic nation but sports a tolerant reputation.  Indonesians evicted the Suharto dictatorship and created a democratic and increasingly prosperous state. So far, the artificial country has successfully countered multiple secessionist pressures.

Perhaps even more important, Indonesians could encourage Islam to move in a more liberal direction. Muslims make up nearly 90 percent of the population, but Indonesia’s politics traditionally have been secular. In its new report, “In Religion’s Name: Abuses Against Religious Minorities in Indonesia,” Human Rights Watch noted that “Indonesia is rightly touted for its religious diversity and tolerance.”

Unfortunately, however, as in the Middle East, the end of dictatorship in Indonesia has loosed intolerant religious forces. The victims are many. Reported HRW: “Targets have included Ahmadis (the Ahmadihay), Baha’is, Christians, and Shias, among others.” Offenses include state discrimination and mob violence. 

As I explained in my new column on American Spectator online:

HRW pointed to the use of blasphemy and conversion laws “to impose criminal penalties on members of religious minorities in violation of their rights to freedom of religion and expression.”  Such abuses are common in Pakistan, where violent jihadist sentiments are strong.  All religious minorities, as well as atheists, are at risk.

Expansive state control gives government many other avenues for discrimination if not persecution. HRW reported: “state discrimination on the basis of religion extends beyond the building of churches, mosques, and temples. Various government regulations discriminate against religious minorities, ranging from the provision of ID cards, birth and marriage certificates, and access to other government services.”

For instance, officials refuse to register marriages if the government doesn’t recognize the religion of one of the parties.  Without registration children are not issued birth certificates listing both parents.  National ID cards are required, but sometimes cannot be obtained without choosing among five officially recognized religions.  Refusing to list a religion can lead to charges of atheism and blasphemy.

The worst problem may be the government’s failure to protect religious minorities from violence. Such attacks are becoming more frequent. I have visited a church and Bible school destroyed by mobs, as well as a church that was bombed. In none of these cases was anyone ever punished. 

Indonesia could become a regional and even global leader. However, to do so, it needs to protect the lives and liberties of all of its citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Topics: 
Foreign Policy and National Security, General, Law and Civil Liberties

Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping Chart the Future of U.S.-China Relations

By
Doug Bandow

As the 1970s dawned, the People’s Republic of China was a closed, forbidding society. Then came the famed opening to the West. Reforms unleashed the creativity of the Chinese people, causing the PRC to go from isolated backwater to emerging giant; which is changing the international order. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping is meeting President Barack Obama in California this week. Much is at stake in their administrations forging a working relationship.

As I explained in my latest Forbes online column:

There is abundant cause for misunderstanding and disagreement across a range of issues. Treating each other as adversaries, as advocated by some in both countries, would be disastrous. Neither nation, nor Asia and the world, would benefit from conflict between the two.  In contrast, much could be achieved if the world’s superpower and incipient superpower develop a cooperative relationship.

Chinese officials with whom I spoke last week in Beijing spoke of a new “great power relationship” to reshape ties between Beijing and Washington.  Despite obvious differences in important areas, Liu Jieyi, Vice Minister of the Communist Party’s International Department, rightly argued that “there are many issues where we have common interests and common responsibilities.” What sets today apart from the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union is the fact that current differences don’t constitute “structural and irreconcilable conflicts and problems,” in Liu’s words.

That doesn’t mean the gaps separating the two countries on questions ranging from human rights to security policy are small. Obviously, it is easier to call for cooperation than to practice it. 

Nevertheless, there is no necessity for conflict. Peace requires cooperation when possible and accommodation when necessary. That means the willingness on both sides to negotiate and compromise. Most critical is to avoid the temptation to treat the other side as an enemy, which could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even Americans should celebrate in China’s “rise,” which has raised countless numbers of people out of poverty. But there are legitimate reasons why other nations worry about China’s dramatic entry into the world system

The U.S. and China must find a way to work together not only for themselves, but also for the rest of Asia and the world. The most important relationship in coming years will be that between America and China. We all must make it a century of cooperation rather than confrontation.

Topics: 
Foreign Policy and National Security, General, Government and Politics

The Pentagon as a Jobs Program, Part 3

By
Tad DeHaven

A couple of months ago, I cited the example of upgraded Abrams tanks being shoved down the Pentagon’s throat by certain members of Congress because tank production = jobs back in the district. I followed that up with some historical background on congressional Pentagon pork-barreling that is discussed in former Reagan budget director David Stockman’s new book. Yesterday, a Wall Street Journal article on congressional resistance to reprioritizing military spending provided a new example:  

The battle over the Global Hawk is emblematic of the difficulty the Pentagon faces in trying to reduce its inventory while shifting its focus from the ground war in Afghanistan to emerging threats elsewhere.  

The Defense Department has sought to ground the fleet of 18 Global Hawk Block 30 drones, which has been used to conduct surveillance from Afghanistan to Libya. The Air Force says its piloted U-2 planes have better surveillance equipment for the job—and that ending the Global Hawk program can save $2.5 billion over the next four years.  

Lawmakers have not only rejected the Pentagon plans, but set aside $443 million to compel the Air Force to buy three more Global Hawks. On Tuesday, the Air Force said it is moving ahead with buying the drones even though it doesn’t want them. 

Northrop can rely on bipartisan support. The planes are built in the district represented by Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), who heads the Armed Services Committee, which will consider a plan to keep Global Hawk running through 2016.  

McKeon – who has issues with numbers when it comes to military spending – recently made news when it was discovered by Politico that a lobbying firm run by his brother and nephews is taking on military-related companies as clients. In a statement to Politico, McKeon said that “We are knowledgeable about the [ethics] rules involved and will be devout in our adherence to both the letter and the spirit of those rules.” Well, that’s good to hear. It’s worth noting, however, that when it comes to congressional ethics rules, the fox is guarding the henhouse. 

 

Topics: 
Foreign Policy and National Security, Tax and Budget Policy

The Defense Reform Consensus

By
Christopher A. Preble

Today at noon, a group of scholars from several different Washington think tanks will present a joint letter making the case for major reform within the defense establishment. The Wall Street Journal blog leaked some elements of the letter on Thursday, and the full text is now available online here.

The initiative is remarkable both for the names and affiliations of those who signed–from the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the Foreign Policy Initiative, to the liberal National Security Network and the Center for American Progress–and for the depth of its analysis. Although I will be unable to attend the meeting on Capitol Hill due to a schedule conflict, I am honored to be a signatory. It is a timely (indeed, long overdue) and important undertaking.

Specifically, the letter calls for closing “excess bases and facilities, [reexamining] the size and structure of the DoD civilian workforce, and [reforming] military compensation.”

The letter continues:

While we do not all agree on the best approach to reform in each case, we agree that if these issues are not addressed, they will gradually consume the defense budget from within. This will leave a smaller share of the budget to pay for the manning, training and equipping of our armed forces that make the U.S. military second to none.

I did not have a hand in drafting the letter, but I endorse it wholeheartedly. I have been concerned with all three of these issues for many years. Reducing the civilian workforce accounted for nearly nine percent ($105 billion) of the $1.2 trillion in savings that Benjamin Friedman and I estimated in our Policy Analysis published in September 2010. Ben and I also called for reducing overhead, including excess base capacity, and for reforming the calculation of military pay and benefits.

Other projects involving experts from a number of different think tanks have also taken aim at some of these issues. The report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force (SDTF), of which I was a member, called for reforming military compensation and health care, and reducing “command, support and infrastructure” commensurate with the other cuts outlined in the report.

Unlike the members of the SDTF, however, the participants in this latest effort do not agree that the Pentagon’s budget should be cut in the first place. The letter explains:

Those of us who have joined together in support of these efforts find ourselves with differing views on many other issues, including the proper level of defense spending and how that money can best be allocated. But we are all in strong agreement on the need to pursue these key reforms for a transforming military.

Here are a few other choice passages:

There is no shortage of useful ideas on how to begin addressing these pressing matters. The challenge has been getting Congress and the administration to admit change is required and take action.

[…]

None of these reforms will be easy, painless, or popular. But they are absolutely essential to maintaining a strong national defense over the long term. These smart and responsible initiatives should be undertaken by Pentagon and Congressional leaders regardless of the level of defense spending. While these reforms are necessary, they are not of themselves sufficient to meet the fiscal and strategic challenges the military currently faces.

As the letter states, it will be difficult to implement these recommendations. It cannot be seen as a partisan exercise; and it is not. Signatories include individuals who have served both Republicans and Democrats. There are liberals and conservatives (in addition to this one libertarian). I hope that this joint letter, and the subsequent events and articles that will flow from it, provides some much needed cover for members of Congress, and other experts within the policy community, to advocate for these sensible and long-overdue reforms.

Topics: 
Foreign Policy and National Security

Did John McCain Provide Material Support for Syrian Terrorists?

By
Doug Bandow

One of the more far-reaching federal rules targets people who provide “material support” for terrorists. In principle, it’s hard to disagree with such an approach: terrorism is bad, so no one should support terrorists.

However, what does “material support” mean? You can go to jail for 10 years if convicted, so it would be nice to know what is prohibited.

There is more than a little nervousness in the non-governmental organization community over the rule’s reach. Warned the Center for Constitutional Rights, the law criminalizes “activities like distribution of literature, engaging in political advocacy, participating in peace conferences, training in human rights advocacy, and donating cash and humanitarian assistance, even when this type of support is intended only to promote lawful and non-violent activities. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court recently upheld the government’s broad reading of the statute to criminalize speech in the form of coordinated political advocacy.” Could I be imprisoned if I wrote a column on a group tagged as terrorist by Washington?

Unfortunately, the Washington authorities have routinely misused the concept. In separate context, the federal government denied refugee status to a teen deemed as providing “material support” for Colombian communist insurgents who murdered his parents because he was forced at gunpoint to bury some of their victims. A Liberian woman was deemed to have provided “material support” for guerrillas who had raped her because she was forced at gunpoint to cook for them. 

If the rest of us are vulnerable to extreme interpretations of the law, then lawmakers who approved the law should be subject to the same legal risks. Consider Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been campaigning for war in Syria, just as he previously promoted war most everywhere else around the globe.

During his recent visit to Syrian rebels, he would seem to have provided “material support” to terrorists. Reports Reuters:

Read the rest of this post »

Topics: 
Foreign Policy and National Security, General

Traversing Beijing: Whither the U.S.-China Relationship?

By
Doug Bandow

I’m in Beijing, having completed a brief conference on China’s development and U.S.-China relations.  The event was organized by the Communist Party’s International Department. Before our visit the department, which plays an important role in formulating China’s foreign policy, hosted a delegation from North Korea, the results of which were of great interest to the United States.

The American contingent contained people with a range of political views, but all agreed that it was imperative for the two nations to maintain good bilateral relations.  The existing super power must accommodate the rising regional, and potential global, power. 

My point of reference is the late 1800s, when Great Britain faced both the United States and Germany as rising powers.  Britain adjusted to the first, making America a friend and ally for decades to come.  Britain resisted the second, helping trigger two global wars.  Whatever the momentary disagreements and problems between the United States and China, the two governments must resolve their differences peacefully.

We finished our official sessions with a meeting with Wang Jiarui, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party Central Committee and Vice Chairman of the Chinese People’s Consultative Conference.  He promoted the idea of a new kind of relationship between great powers.  He was friendly, but demonstrated the gulf between United States and Chinese policy when he talked about North Korea. 

He reported favorably on Pyongyang’s recent mission to his country and viewed as positive the North’s promise to return to the Six Party Talks.  Alas, few in Washington expect any serious results from any new round of talks. 

Minister Wang also treated as equally provocative routine U.S.-South Korean military maneuvers in the South and the North’s recent flurry of promises to nuke the United States and South Korea.  Although the former are unnecessary—in fact, American forces should be brought home, since the Republic of Korea could defend itself—the operations reflect a history of North Korean aggression, advanced military deployments, and constant saber-rattling.  It is Pyongyang’s behavior that generates the allied response which Beijing criticizes.

The best chance of transforming the so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—or, at least, ending its nuclear ambitions—is closer cooperation between the United States, its allies, and China.  However, that would require Washington to address Beijing’s interests. Particularly, the United States needs to respond to China’s fear of a North Korean collapse and its opposition to a unified Korean nation allied with America.  Developing a strategy that might attract Chinese support will be the subject of my next Cato Policy Analysis.

Topics: 
Foreign Policy and National Security

Pages