The National Security Policy (NSP) of the US should take its role as the global peacemaker very seriously. In reality, there is no real NSP because the allies of the US, particularly those who went out on a limb by supporting US causes, have effectively become part of their territory. The US has a moral obligation to include these allies inside their line of defense. Thus, NSP refers to a Nation far bigger than US territory as defined by geography.
Hence, an effective NSP for the US should be global and far reaching in scope in order to include those nations in their protection. The NSP must recognize this and it must, to coin the phrase, call a spade, a spade. The NSP must categorically define who is friend and foe. The distinction must be clear and there must be no fence sitting either.
Elsewhere in this article, it will be seen that the NSP is lacking in this area. It may have been tolerable if the problems were purely a question of ambiguity but what is happening is that some allies were almost thrown to the wolves, so to speak, in the name of appeasing some other nations whose agenda is both unclear and questionable at best.
Thus the NSP must seek to quickly identify the enemies of both the US and its international network of allies. Once identified, they must decisively render them powerless within a very narrow time frame. The fearsome new weapons available to terrorists today are very compact and discreet. A properly planned attack can be set up and deployed in minutes yet the carnage they can create is on such a massive scale that it would make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings seem like collateral damage.
Current state of the NSP
Before going on further with the critique, let’s deal with what the NSP is on paper, or in this case, what it says on the web via the statement of the Obama Administration on Homeland Security which has been posted on the official Whitehouse Website.
In the interest of brevity, enumerated below are the main objectives of the Obama Administration on Homeland Security :
1. Defeat Terrorism Worldwide
2. Prevent Nuclear Terrorism
3. Strengthen American Biosecurity
4. Protect Our Information Networks
5. Improve Intelligence Capacity and Protect Civil Liberties
6. Protect Americans from Terrorist Attacks and Natural Disasters
7. Protect Critical Infrastructure
8. Modernize America’s Aging Infrastructure
That, on paper, forms the core of what the NSP is for this administration. Now lets go on to see what has happened so far in reality.
Elements and Flaws of the NSP
Here are some developments, which are not an exhaustive list, but they serve as a reasonable indicator of the NSP’s nature in reality. These are elements that are flawed and in need of immediate attention.
The National Security Council
The composition of the National Security Council is an indication of the direction the NSP will take. Based on a recent report in the news,
An Executive order has been issued ordering the controversial closing of Guantanamo Bay. This order directs the closure of the facility within a year from the issuance of the order and it also directs that the detainees be relocated before the closure.
COMMENTS:
The administration has to address certain issues such as the fears of many that the closure of Guantanamo would bring feared terrorists onto American soil. The wounds of 911 are still fresh and the last thing many Americans need is to be told, that detained terrorists are now inside the very land they sought to destroy. In a report on CBS News, Republicans have voiced their concerns on this.
However, it must be pointed out that the gist of that article dealt mainly with the effects on the US alone. There was no mention of this clause in the Guantanamo Executive order which stated that transfer of the detainees to third countries should be studied. Now that becomes a matter of deep concern because in the light of the global economic crisis, these third countries may not have the resources needed to ensure the proper securing of these detainees which may result in a global security nightmare.
This is what is meant by America protecting its allies. When America sends terrorists to other countries because they do not feel secure having them on American soil, that sends a very bad message to these allies. If America cannot protect itself then how can they? Should this plan of action ever come to pass, it just might result in the allies banding together, sans the US, just to protect themselves, a chaotic situation at best.
Moreover, some quarters believe that the Guantanamo order is more of show than a true example of principle. This in view of the fact that the Obama administration had recently stressed that their Afghanistan detainment facility is both legal and will be maintained. This, despite the claim of some quarters, that the Afghanistan facility is much less hospitable than Guantanamo.
Discussions about this can be read here.
Executive orders have also been released on the manner and conduct of interrogations and detention.second dealt with interrogation and the venues thereof referring specifically to the CIA discontinuing the use of certain facilities as well as allowing ICRC access to the detainees. Also included in this batch is an executive order which directs the review of the detention of al-Marri.
COMMENTS: This is a very delicate matter that challenges ethics and law. The desire to protect the human rights of detainees is commendable but it is also very clear that threats to National and Global security are on the fast track and there is not much leeway in the time that can be used to interrogate key personnel when there is a grave threat looming. Do you go and protect the rights of the individuals and allow their sinister plots to go on developing while the interrogation is ongoing? Or do you strip them of their rights in the name of saving thousands if not millions of innocent lives? Whose life do you save: The life of several terrorists or even one innocent life? Should those who seek to destroy the US even be allowed to seek protection under US laws? Or should those who operate outside the law be declared ineligible to seek protection from the law? These are very important questions that should have been considered before these orders were made. Our stand here is that the innocent law abiding deserves all the protection while the terrorist or would be terrorist do not deserve any.
U.N. Durban II Conference
The UN Durban II conference was a very controversial issue as far as the NSP was concerned. Initially the administration had expressed its need to be there to express dissent, “[T]o have a voice”, to quote a senior White house official.
But after receiving criticism about why they should support a seemingly anti-Semitic move, the Obama administration has since decided not to attend. Details of the administrations reversal can be found here.
COMMENTS: The recent turnaround of the US government in the Durban II matter lends itself to some concern too because the initial intention of attending the conference had some serious implications about US policy on Israel. The initial Durban conference had already made clear the direction that Durban II was to take. It was in fact supposed to put into action some of the resolutions made in Durban I . Some quarters feel that the Obama administration and its advisers may be just a bit naïve. Other quarters feel that it is in fact the direction that Obama actually wants to take. The links above will take you to articles that expound further on these arguments. Suffice it to say that the Israeli government will now probably think twice before putting themselves in the line supporting the US.
It’s far too easy to take potshots at the previous administrations policies and to seek popularity based on the platform that one will do things differently. But different does not mean better. While a promise to be different may appeal to those critical to the Bush administration, those whose thinking goes beyond their personal biases may see, that the global security scenario just might need something that is not that different.
A point that is lost on many is that the effectiveness of an NSP or Homeland Security is not determined by the changes that they see but on those things that they DO NOT see.
When NOTHING happens, then that could very well mean that America was able to defend and protect its citizens both domestic and global. There were many warnings on terrorism during the time of Bush and thankfully they did not come to pass. Some may maintain that those were propaganda while some others believe that America was able to gain the upper hand. Whatever the reason, what is important is that there were no 9/11 like scenarios.
If the citizenry was truly informed about the nature of the weapons of destruction that exist in the hands of those that wish to harm the US and its allies, then they would be thankful for each day that ends without casualties of bioterrorism, cyber-terrorism or outright nuclear terrorism.
But NSP will always be a large target for critics of the current American leadership. After all being the self-proclaimed policeman of the world, the truly effective NSP will be most unpopular with those who wish America harm. Thus those critics may very well be those who are in fact Americas enemies, or those that side with them.
With all the different groups that have an interest in the NCP, it cannot be expected to please all of them. After all, there is much money to be made in the name of defense spending but that topic, the economics of war, are for another article.
There is no such thing as a one size fits all policy and the best any administration can hope for is to ensure that their duty to protect the greater good will prevail over the interests of the few. And this policeman must realize that good rhetoric will not protect the world from terrorism. In this post 9/11 times, one cannot underestimate the dangers in and around the US.
The global policeman has a very daunting task given the continued operations of terrorists, the Middle East conflict and emerging threats from Asia, especially North Korea and China. Moreover, the conflicts have gone beyond borders because the specter of Bio-Terrorism and Cyber Terrorism have emerged as very real and deadly threats to the Western World.
A big part of the world depends on the US to protect them. The support of these allies was and still is essential to the US. So the NSP must protect these allies as one of their own, as though they were American citizens too. Global protection and rapid, decisive action must be key components of the NSP. The writing is on the wall again, much like it was before 9/11. But America let their guard down then and that must never happen again.
