Thursday, January 31, 2013

21st Century Statecraft

I don't often watch TV news.  Today, however, I caught clips of the Senate confirmation hearings starring Chuck Hagel in the role of the nominee for Secretary of Defense.  A couple hours later I watched a live webcast of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's farewell address.  The two events served very different purposes, and yet both addressed a very similar topic; one that is causing politicians and citizens alike to fight, worry, and even do a little math.  The topic is that of America's role in the world today and in the future.  Not only do we all disagree on what that role should be, we worry given sequestration and debt whether we will even have the resources to implement a cohesive doctrine.

Hagel was grilled on specifics (notably his position on the surge in Iraq), but Republican objections are more broadly about Hagel's view of war, allies, and enemies.  Dissenters worry that he is too much of a dove for what should be a golden hawk pedestal.  The debate pressed the issue of how America should express its military might in halting the actions of enemies (Iran, Syria, etc.) and supporting the interests of its allies (Israel).  Many believe Hagel does not show adequate commitment to our allies, strength to our enemies, and willingness to use force.  Others, including myself, would be more than comfortable with a Secretary of Defense who is reluctant to engage in needless war and sees nuance between being a friend and being a yes-man.

Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton spoke on the subject of American leadership in the world.  She remains steadfast in the belief that America is the "indispensable nation" but while we will continue to lead, we must do so in different ways.  Clinton spoke of the various levers of power.  She urged us to get creative and make sure that we are pulling the right levers given the change occurring in the world.  After ensuring basic security, addressing the realities (and potential) of climate politics, economic injustices, the rights of women and girls, making a case for our values (as we did so well in the Cold War), and insisting on adherence to a common set of rules are all leading points on America's global agenda.  Our work is cut out for us.  We will have to use a combination of hard and soft power (read "smart power") to address the many challenges of tomorrow.  It can, however, be done and done in a way that promotes our interests and those of our allies, both old and new.

Whispers of decline, claims of heresy, and accusations of incompetence abound.  To those yelling in Congress about how we can't afford to revisit the role of the military, that we mustn't encourage regional actors to take leading roles in foreign conflicts, and that we must never engage with our enemies or critique our friends, I say that as the times change so should we.  We're not going anywhere; we can relax about that.  We, as ever, have the potential to be the world's leading force for peace and progress.  If I were to extrapolate and think of one point that Hagel and Clinton would both like to communicate, it's that as we grow older we should allow ourselves the confidence and the latitude to grow a little wiser too.



Wednesday, January 23, 2013

A Tale of Two Mandates

Check out my latest post reflecting on a moment in time in both Israeli and American politics:

http://blog.wiisisrael.com/2013/01/a-tale-of-two-mandates/


Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Zero Dark Screen

I read several articles and entertained several discussions before seeing Zero Dark Thirty.  The topics ping-ponged between the movie's depiction of torture, and the depiction of the female lead, to reflect on women in intelligence in general.  For this, I was prepared.

I was not prepared for the first couple minutes of the film, arguably the most powerful in the entire epic.  For all the controversy, no one discussed the very first "scene."  As the film  begins, the audience is met with a dark screen.  Instead of visuals, we are immersed in audio recordings of 9-1-1 calls from people in the World Trade Center Towers during the 9/11 attack.  I remember thinking how powerful it was to sit in a crowded theater full of people who survived, listening to others who didn't.

My friends all reacted differently to this introduction.  One of my friends objected outright to the use of such sensitive calls in such a public, dramatized fashion.  Part of me agreed with her, but part of me felt that the opening scene was necessary to tie the story together.  To ignite that fire within us that set us on the path to Bin Laden in the first place.

Just this morning I was accused of assessing U.S. national security endeavors in a vacuum, devoid of the ever-important long term context.  Maybe this is true.  How often we forget that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  American history is full of tales of detrimental foreign intervention that caused current suffering, or worse formed the enemies we face today.  Yet one of the most rewarding scenes in the film depicts American helicopters sneaking through the Pakistani skies ready to right the ultimate wrong, and halt progress on any future plans by the terrorist mastermind.

Which brings to light the challenge of counterterrorism.  It is simultaneously preemptive and reactionary.  Take Mali for example.  Should American powers intervene in order to quell a known terrorist presence?  Or should we opt out of intervention this time lest we make everything worse... again?   The torture debate also raises issues of short term gains versus long term setbacks.

The Israelis compare their counterterrorism efforts to attacking a production line, aiming for the beginning of the chain so as to halt the activities of the powerful and any workers standing downstream.  Ideally, it would be necessary to destroy the factory altogether.  True, Americans have been successful in eliminating key players.  But the game is still being played, in Mali, in Pakistan, and elsewhere.  In terms of the way forward, we have to do both.  We have to react to existing threats and we have to preempt new ones.  This will require action, reaction, and in some cases inaction.

The point is, principled, effective counterterrorist strategies that work in the short term and long term are possible.  We cannot lose sight of one or the other.  We cannot sacrifice safety in the short term to allow terrorist trends to disappear in the long term.  Likewise, we cannot sacrifice long term stability on the alter of vengence.

Unfortunately the fight against terrorism has to continue on multiple tracks and on multiple fronts so that we never again have to watch dark screens.