Our National Journey? Get Out A Map

Once again, Iraq and Afghanistan are making headlines nearly every day. But while most media attention focuses on car bombings and combat casualties, other disturbing events in the region are slipping through the news cycle almost unnoticed.

A short item that caught my attention on October 5th revealed that between 2002 and 2008, the US sent Pakistan $6.6 billion to help the Pakistani armed forces battle Islamic militants. But two US Army generals told the Associated Press that only $500 million was used for military aid and the rest was diverted "to the domestic economy and other causes, such as fighting India."

Think about that: Six billion dollars of our money vanished into the bureaucracy of then-president Pervez Musharraf with no auditing or other accountibility. I wonder how many other people saw the story? I found it on page A-12 in my local paper.

Later, on October 11th, I read a story on page A-14 about Baghdad residents who held a street march to demand improvements in public services. In the 7th paragraph was this fact: "Iraq was twice forced this year to slash it's budget, from $79 billion to $58.6 billion, because of falling oil prices." These kinds of dots are easy to connect. Budget shortfalls excacerbate infrastructure problems which fuel public discontent thus creating new opportunities for extremists to exploit.

I can describe our predicament in one sentence. It was spoken by President Harry Truman in late November of 1950. Having been informed that a full scale Chinese intervention was underway in Korea and UN forces were starting a massive retreat, the President met with his staff and said, "We've got a terrific situation on our hands." He knew the Chinese attack would create serious new problems for American defense strategy, diplomatic policy, and domestic politics, problems that would persist long after he left office.

If I had five minutes alone with President Obama, my suggestion would be to reach out quickly and communicate the importance of the big picture to the entire country. For one moment, put aside the debate over sending more troops into combat and talk about the long road ahead.

This is exactly what President Franklin Roosevelt did with a radio address on the evening of February 23rd, 1942. It was one of his most compelling "fireside chats," and prior to the event FDR put out the word that he wanted every person listening to have a map of the world on hand.

In her book No Ordinary Time, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin says the president told his speechwriters the maps were important because "I want to explain to the people something about geography--what our problem is and what the overall strategy of the war has to be."

For Mr. Obama, I'd suggest a special appearance on CNN's Situation Room, with maps displayed on every giant screen. Show us the vastness of territory that encompasses Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Then keep going west, through Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, and Algeria. Remind everyone that when longtime leaders such as Gaddafi and Mubarak pass on, the transition to new regimes may be difficult and dangerous, and create an entirely set of policy problems.

I'd also urge Mr. Obama to look directly into the camera and issue this challenge: "To all viewers between the ages of 18 and 34---how do you envision daily life in America fifteen years from now? Your generation will spend a long time dealing with the the fallout from events that will taking place on all those big maps in the near future."

During the Vietnam era, college campuses were part of an intense national debate about the war. But these days there are no "Teach-ins" and you never hear the term "student mobilization." The obvious reason for this difference is that young people these days aren't being drafted.

We can debate the pros and cons of military conscription endlessly. But no one can dispute that it was a powerful motivator in getting huge numbers of Americans to think seriously about US military commitments in Vietnam and throughout southeast Asia.

Conscription meant that millions of draft-eligible citizens, and their families, were directly connected to foreign policy decisions. When President Nixon ended the draft, that connection was broken.

I'm not calling for a reinstatement of the draft. But it would be great if someone figured out a way to bring back the collective energy of those years and focus it on a wide range of current issues. How long should we support combat operations in a foreign country? What are the limits of US military power in the Islamic world? How much money and manpower are we willing to expend in that region during the next ten or fifteen years?

Having said all this, I now realize we have TWO terrific situations on our hands. The first one encompasses myriad potential threats in a volitile region of the world. The second is this fact: too many Americans in every age group are unaware, or don't care, that the first situation even exists.