Progressive National Security: The What and the How

Progressives have a tremendous opportunity -- and a real challenge -- on national security this cycle. The public has decisively rejected the Bush administration's national security framework. But nothing in the public discourse gives non-expert Americans a clear understanding of what the alternatives might look like. What do they see in the media? Overwhelmingly militarized images of a world in chaos -- suicide bombers, cyclones, insurgencies -- where the US is usually the only actor portrayed responding.

Without the levers of executive power at their disposal, and a razor-thin margin in the Senate, progressives have thus far been unable to give the public a clear understanding of what we stand for on national security or how we would pursue national security goals differently. With this reality, and with national security at the center of the 2008 election, it is imperative for progressives to present a clear vision of what the alternative is, not only in order to roll back the failed policies of the past, but in order to lay out a coherent and pragmatic foreign policy framework for tomorrow.

One way to fill that gap is for progressives to begin setting out the core ideas that underlie our theory of national security -- and then share specific policy positions and critiques that show what those core ideas would mean, and how they would produce results different from what we have seen in recent years. The thinking behind this two-part approach is simple: there's a crying need for sophisticated, pragmatic, deep policy thinking that returns serious, non-hyped discussions of security issues to the public eye. The challenges we face -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, energy, to name just three -- have no magic solutions and will be with us for years to come. Yet there's also a need for clear-sighted, unadorned talk about why we make the choices we do and what kind of nation we want to be. That is a debate that is much less technical, but no less important, than the details of our policy in Pakistan's borderlands or how many gallons of alternative fuels we can produce by 2015. Everybody, however much or little time their lives give them to think about national security, can join a debate about what kind of country we want to be.

To that end, the National Security Network has developed and released a series of policy briefs, providing basic facts and a progressive narrative on foreign policy and national security. The analysis and recommendations form a comprehensive approach and provide a shorthand version of the best thinking and messaging -- an essential progressive foreign policy resource for the public, political leaders and activists.

Four core themes unite the briefs, which themselves examine eight policy areas--Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, the military, terrorism, energy. The four themes offer a simple, but profound foundation for a smarter, saner, progressive foreign policy approach.

Embrace core sources of American strength: For decades, our ability to ensure our security and promote our values rested on the global embrace of Americans, admiration of our democratic institutions, and a willingness to accept our leadership with the expectation that it would serve the global good. In the past seven years conservatives have squandered or ignored our most precious assets, and we need to reclaim them. Projecting America's core values abroad is key to reversing this and successfully implementing a sustainable progressive foreign policy.

Value our moral authority and credibility: Americans care deeply about our values and expect our leaders to reflect them. We must lead so that others will follow. In the absence of our moral authority and credibility, our allies won't send troops to Afghanistan, critical multilateral initiatives to address terrorism or reduce the threat of nuclear weapons will flounder, our business partners will no longer welcome our investments, and people struggling for freedom will no longer believe that we share their values. The restoration of our international prestige and global reputation establishes the foundation for an effectual foreign policy future.

Use all our tools -- tackle complex problems with smart, comprehensive solutions: Americans know instinctively that our lives are connected with the lives of others, and that we're at our best when we work with others to tackle the most difficult problems - tracking terrorists across borders, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, fighting diseases like smallpox and AIDS, and stopping global warming. Our political leaders must reflect these realities we know about ourselves, and should be expected to foster cooperation to serve our interests and values.

Demonstrate good stewardship of our military might -- respect and transform the military: Our mix of military capabilities must be rebalanced away from the structures of the last century and toward missions like counterterrorism, counter-insurgency, and homeland defense. America's greatest military asset is our men and women in uniform. Maintaining a strong volunteer military means meeting the needs of those who serve - better training and equipment for soldiers in the field, proper care for family members, and better health care for veterans. Strong national security should not be hindered by mismanagement and corruption. That means more stringent oversight on how money is spent, and better accountability.

As Americans across the country and in every walk of life examine with increased interest these critical issues this year, we believe this project forms a central piece of a new progressive foreign policy for America and fosters a fresh, progressive approach to national security. Our hope is that this revives advocacy and establishes a fundamental progressive education, providing a blueprint from which our nation can once again be a fair but firm presence in the world.

Comments

[batguano101]

Did you miss the 800 pound Gorilla?

Covert torture of US citizens to protect corruption is THE issue that determines the future of national security, and the Constitution.

Address it or ignore it: This is the pivot point of our form of Government.
If you ignore it you may have no politics to discuss, the form of government may change.

Author and fellow posters- do not skip the substance for rhetoric, beg the question, or practice denial.

This is laser beam application of the topic of the author above-
the future of national security in the USA.

When you define the problem, the answer is self evident.-

Ritual Abuse Trauma, covert torture (progressive mutilation) operations inside the USA targeting US citizens with Project Monarch- MKUltra strikes at the heart of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The sale of national security covert operations to enforce and protect corruption is the issue.

The election, peaceful transition of power, and to whom that authority and trust changes hands to is directly tied to the uses and misuses of national security today.

I for one prefer Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness- the Constitutional, lawful government the Republic was founded for.

National Security covert operations inside the USA are a threat to lawful Constitutional government.

Ritual Abuse Trauma (covert torture)- the Monarch Project (MKUltra) is that threat.
I personally am being subjected to this daily: I seek relief and restoration from it.

[burnt]

We can start by decorporatizing our national security and especially our military. Take the profit incentive out of war. Break up the marriage between military and industry. Protect, practice and enforce the rule of law. Shout down the strident war mongers. Reward and protect whistleblowers. Punish corruption with the stiffest possible consequences. Eliminate those practices that lead to torture. Limit lobbyist's access to government and Pentagon decision makers. Retire old guard military who fight changes needed to institute reform. Promote transparency in government. Prosecute law enforcement and security agency abuses. Use impeachment of all government employees as the tool it was meant to be. Provide real incentive for innovation and cost savings. Eliminate wasteful budgeting and spending practices. Support cost saving technology changes.... many, many more opportunities to provide national security while maintaining our Constitutional guarantees and do so cost effectively.

[tea in the harbor]

I beleive your take on the Democratic gains is wholly inacurate. While American voters are, indeed, rejecting Republicans, the dem gains are by default, not agreement! We have no other choice.
Our system is owned and operated by corporations who are interested only in advancing their agenda of rule by economic strangulation. They have quietly prosecuted a war on the American People and have, at this point, won every battle. They have usurped our retirement programs, reduced our wages, and denied millions healthcare. Neither party has slowed their attacks!
It is time that We the People join the battle!
I propose a new awakening of Patriotism. A Patriotism that says it is our duty to put that control in the hands of the people! Every time a purchase is made, we decide weather to empower a corporation or a fellow citizen! Consider the effect if we bought our food from the farmer, we strip away corporate profit, and our money goes to human needs instead. The same can be done with building, mantenace, and a host of other things. Hire PEOPLE, not companies, and we can buy our freedom back! People create wealth, corporations can only manipulate it!
Economic control is the guardian of freedom, that control belongs in the hands of the people! Our founders fought with guns, WE must fight with DOLLARS. Stewardship of freedom is the definition of Patriotism, are we up to the task?

[batguano101]

May 20, 2008

Today Ritual Abuse Trauma (RAT) is used against US citizens inside the USA by National Security.

RAT Is the targeting of a US citizen for whistle blowing with covert operations directed at the citizen for seeking redress to grievances.

The target is gassed daily, the residence entered, the target is "abused"- hair ripped out progressively, front teeth ground off top and bottom then stained, face/eyeli­ds/nose/ne­ck injected producing deep wrinkles, scaring, to progressively disfigure. The target is violated while gassed.

R.A.T. is "to get your attention".

Mail, emails, phone calls are hacked or blocked to block work and communication to seek relief.

The FBI says "prove it". Fabrication of justifications is easy using the target's computer, who then finds literally hundreds of email from Russia in Russian "returned". (I do not even know the Russian alphabet)

If you write Congressmen ( e.g. the Honorable John Lewis of Atlanta) "the ball is in your court" permanently.

Write the FBI, Senators, Committees with oversight, etc. and your email will be nonsense and unreadable garble, unlike what you sent.

Ritual Abuse Trauma, Group Stalking, vandalism daily, thefts daily, mutilations daily, violations daily is used through national security today to protect corruption.

This has got my attention-

R.A.T. is Un-American and Illegal, an attack on US citizens and the Constitution national security swore to "defend and protect from all enemies foreign and domestic".

[cam]

Your post reads like a religious manifesto instead of a serious attempt to engage the future. Try for some substance so we can get some traction.

[cam]

Be done with windy things and let the matter drop. Try for some substance, some traction.

Your post reads like a religious manifesto instead of a serious attempt to engage the future.

[ugad]

I am doubtful of your assumptions of “global embrace of Americans, admiration of our democratic institutions, and a willingness to accept our leadership with the expectation that it would serve the global good”… I think that a lot of countries in the world and especially in South America (starting with Chile) would not have that high of the opinion of US.
I agree that your proposals are much better than catastrophe that we have had in the last 8 years, but we will never establish any “progressive” foreign policy without answering two questions first:
1. Do we want, as citizens of US, to promote and support our country as world Empire, and as a consequence, support further militarization of every aspect of our lives, especially economy? (Just one fact, US has military bases in 63 countries throughout the world)
2. Are we going to accept principle of universality in our relationship with the world, i.e. apply same standards to ourselves as we ask from others?
Without having factual discussion along these two questions as a core, everything else is more or less wishful thinking.

[Zenobius]

Hmm,

I'm not so sure the rest of the world has ever thought that the US is by nature virtuous, and been willing to support it. It is true that back in the days of the American, we adapted and extended a number of English and Scottish ideas. These ideas, once separated from the US, have gone on to inspire a fair portion of the world. On the other hand, one need only look at the election of Hamas to realize that the US is not always wildly enthusiastic about the effects of spreading democracy.

Also, I'm not sure there is a unified progressive line on military policy. Suppose for the moment that we were not so tied down in Iraq and Aghanistan as to have no troops for anything else. Should we invade Myanmar? Some progressives would say yes, others would say no.

That said, the neo-cons have set a very low standard. Even a pragmatically based reluctance to attack other countries, based on the fact that wars are expensive in both lives and money, would be better than what we have now.

[noamjunior]

name ANY progressive advocating an invasion of Myanmar or get called out as a lying, con.

[PerryWhite]

Is there a timetable for shutting down the missle defense system?

[KHAAANNN]

You mean the one that cost 12 billion dollars and doesn't work?
That one? Yeah. We can't live without that.
Those "al-Qaida in Iraq" ICBM's will be falling on your head any minute now, that is if their massive Air Force and blue-water Navy don't do the job first.
What? They don't have any of those?
Well it must be the WMD's they got from Saddam then.
What? He didn't have any?
Well, then it must be ah.............THEY HATE OUR FREEDOMS!!!!!! Yeah! That's it!!!!
You can bring this country to it's knees with a screw driver and 5 seconds in an unguarded power sub-station anywhere on either coast. That is what they will attack us with, not nukes.

[LizM]

How about...YESTERDAY!?

[LizM]

The policy briefs you highlight should be required reading for all voters - though it would have been helpful if that reading had been done well before the caucuses in Iowa, but that’s all water under the bridge, now.

Speaking of which, there is another way for progressives to fill that gap and that is for progressives to finally, at long last, recognize who is the leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security with impeccable and unimpeachable credentials, and who has developed, over the course of the last three years, a viable and comprehensive strategy to promote a sustainable political settlement among the warring Iraqi factions based on federalism and the Iraqi constitution...a strategy which, by the way, has already received the support of an overwhelming and unprecedented majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress (it passed the Senate by an incredible vote of 75 - 23!), and has been unofficially endorsed by the permanent member of the UN Security Council, AND by most of Iraq’s sectarian leaders.

Of course, I speak of none other than Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. He has been ignored and dismissed by the media, electorate and his fellow foreign policy thinkers for far too long. It is high time to start paying very close attention to what Senator Biden is advocating on all of the very critical issues raised in this post.

[Lagrangian]

Biden was an early supporter of the Iraq invasion so I wouldn't exactly call his credentials impeccable or especially unimpeachable.

I did think of him briefly as someone whom Obama should consider for VP to compliment his undeniably minuscule foreign policy experience, then I remembered the famous "clean, articulate" gaffe. Probably wouldn't wash, politically.

[LizM]

Thanks very much for your reply.

I would just say that Senator Biden was most definitely not a supporter of this Iraq invasion. The record is very clear on that. Yes, he voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of US military force in Iraq UNDER CERTAIN AND CLEARLY DEFINED CONDITIONS WHICH PRESIDENT BUSH CHOSE NOT TO MEET. Contrary to popular belief, a vote in favor of that resolution was NOT the equivalent of a "vote for war". In other words, the AUMF continues to be one of the most misunderstood resolutions the US Senate has ever passed...in its history! At this late stage of the game, I am pretty much resigned to that fact and that it will not change.

As for the "gaffe"...I am sorry that you and so many others have bought into this media-driven national myth - hook, line, and sinker - about Senator Biden being prone to the verbal gaffe. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The media reaction, and the reaction expressed by certain leaders in this country, to the compliment that Senator Biden paid to Senator Obama is a classic case in point and speaks volumes to the lack of personal integrity and character of those leaders and does nothing to diminish the class act that is Joe Biden.

[magen]

Neo-CON's didn't even know what a Sunni or Shia was before going in.

"Let's just invade and NOT figure it all out once we're there. We can also install a friendly government that all the people of Iraq will think is illegitimate and hate. The American media won't inform the people, and American's are too stupid to figure out this robbery of their money anyway and don't even care."

We progressives can and will do better.

Yes we can.

[mike53]

"We progressives can and will do better."

Heard that before. Around 2006 I think.

[UnbiasView]

"Progressive" and "National Security" are 2 words that just don't mix, I would have titled it differently.

[Strywever]

That is, in your "unbiased" view . . . correct? Yet somehow we have managed to maintain national security (little n, little s) even when Democrats have been in power. Astonishing, isn't it?

[noamjunior]

Given the gramatically confused nonsense that you presnt in the post (national, security, and progressive are THREE WORDS, gomer ), I am sure you would have titled it differently.

[LouisPWu]

If Democrats enjoy a series of huge victories in November, and then DON'T DELIVER on the ECONOMY, FOREIGN POLICY, and AFFORDABLE ENERGY, they will be diminished to a footnote in history. Last chance, DEMS. Deliver or PERISH!

[UnbiasView]

Good luck on that, we see how congress is moving along right now.

[Strywever]

By your logic, then, the Republicans have now been diminished to a footnote in history. (And none to soon, I say!) They have trashed the economy, implemented incomprehensible foreign policy, and driven energy prices through the roof while resisting diminishment of our country's reliance on foreign energy sources. They have not delivered, and so they will indeed perish. . . . for at least as long as American's memories and attention spans hold up.

[Chinampas]

How are we going to diminish our country's reliance on foreign energy sources without opening new areas in the US for drilling? It will take a long time to develop an efficient system to produce fuel in an environmentally friendly way. It can't be done without a transition, and the transition will be dependent on oil. Corn is not the answer.

I don't know if it is true, but Dick Morris said that the US consumes the same amount of oil as it did during the Carter administration. This is a result of the advancements made in more efficient equipment. Progress is being made.

In the meantime we will be dependent on oil until our scientists and entreprenuers find a solution. So, let's get off the couch and begin more drilling projects in ANWAR as well as offshore. That will solve a lot of the energy problems we are currently facing in the US.

[noamjunior]

RIIIIIIGHT
they will forever go down in history as completely unable to dig the US out of the hole created by BUSH GOPers

[jmpurser]

Okay, first progressives don't have anything like a "razor-thin margin in the Senate". The Democrats do and if you think that equates to progressives then you've ignored 40 years of history on the topic.

Secondly I can agree that our nation has a "crying need for sophisticated, pragmatic, deep policy thinking that returns serious, non-hyped discussions of security issues to the public eye." but IMHO much of the public feels no such need. Them vs Us, Good vs Bad, the enemy of my enemy, better teh devil you know, and every other narrow minded, short term driven, cliche bound, spin friendly paving stone in the sure fire road to disaster (again) is all many of us want and anything BUT this is perceived as weak. Sad, horrific even, but that's who we are as a people and pretending otherwise doesn't help. So if you want this conversation without precipitating disaster then you have a long road of education to walk first.

Much of the rest I agree whole heartedly with and I wish more people talked like this. But consider my first two points as you think about where we are and how we're going to get to the goals in your post.

[GuyRC]

What is a southern democrat? A republican that wants to win an election.