Priorities Are Necessary For Efficiency
“Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.”
-- General George S. Patton, Jr.
Now is the time for a renewed debate about what truly constitutes our national 'security' interests. As Hornberg and Clark point out:
The problem-as the works of theorists with perspectives as diverse as those of Macpherson (1962, 1977); Mayo (1960); Nozick (1974); Pateman (1970, 1979); and Rawls (1971, 1980) make clear-is that a number of the goals and conditions that collectively constitute the normative ends of democratic theory are in tension and conflict. Fundamental questions such as how should a democratic political system balance liberty with equality and the rights of the individual (and more recently, the group) with those of the community are long-standing and unresolved.
We must identify what the vital aspects of American life are, and then determine which are under threat and from what are they threatened. Will these vital aspects be defined by what makes us rich, keeps us safe, eases our consciences, or some combination of the three? Are we willing to sacrifice any of the above for one of the others? Since President Carter’s ignominious “Crisis of Confidence” speech of 1979, the preference has been seemingly obvious. Every threat identified in his speech was real. Every warning justified. What America took exception to was the solution. Raising taxes, leveling import quotas, slowing a slow economy and promising security at the expense of lowered expectations did not sit well with the American populace.vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” And the train ride that has marked American national security policy over the last three decades had begun. Is cheap gasoline truly a vital interest? Or, to hit more deeply, is our national ability to keep consuming more stuff a vital interest? It very well might be. This realization set in motion the Carter Doctrine. His statement merely months later in which he let the world know that: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the
After we define our vital interest we must prioritize which features of that identity are the most important and which threats are the most imminent. External threats grab the news,. President Eisenhower cautions of the 1961 ring true today. “We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” All must be weighed. but internal threats are often far more intractable and infinitely more subtle
During the Cold War the ever lurking menace of Communism answered this question for us. If the crimson tide swept across our shores it would take with it ‘our’ intellectual, economic,, and even physical freedoms. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were at stake: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness could have been no more. The Soviet Union. Do the threats of today give the “evil empire” a run for its money? Yes, the potential, nay even the likelihood of terrorist violence exists, but does the ‘new’ totalitarian ideology of radical Islam threaten our very identity? Does intolerance, murder, terror, enslavement, and repression in the Dar al-Islam threaten our, then how much is their removal worth? Should America’s priority,, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system?” Is this truly “the best way to provide enduring security for the American people?” The American people need to consciously ask themselves these questions, because the politicians on both sides of the aisle do not seem to be doing so. I am not writing to answer them, only to encourage their asking. religious had the indicted itself with its doctrine of worldwide revolution and had the military and ideological strength to make the threat palpable innate liberties? If they don’t be to “seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world?” Does “the fundamental character of regimes [matter] as much as the distribution of power among them” and should the goal of our statecraft be “to help create a world of democratic
The next election will probably not change America’s trajectory no matter the elected party. The current indignation about the decisions of the Bush administration do not lie in its choice of goals (i.e. forcefully encouraging democratic change in the international arena), but of implementation. Though obviously each candidate has a slightly different idea about the plan they would implement if elected the Democratic Party’s National Security Strategy, entitled "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World," outlines a ‘bold’ vision for how Democrats will lead on National Security. Replete with attacks on the manner in which the Bush administration failed in its promises (such as “Since [the Iraq invasion], inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americans as safe as we should be.”) the Democrats promise to, “Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars,” but offer no concrete steps toward changing foundational issues within our foreign policy. Instead we will “eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.” More importantly, to do this we will, “Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.” My joy runneth over for a policy of: “More of the same, only better!”
No matter how successful we are at achieving goals, if they are poorly chosen it is failure. That much is obvious. The second truth is that even achieving a beneficial objective can be inappropriate if it precludes the attainment of a more beneficial one. Opportunity cost may not be a popular determinant, but its beauty lays in its clarity not its charm. There truly is never a free lunch.
No comments:
Post a Comment