Politics, national security, and homeland security

According to Clausewitz ‘War is the extension of politics by other means.” The problem faced by the US regarding the interrelationship between politics and national and homeland security is the need to protect ourselves (by way of achievable national and homeland security endeavors) from “enemies foreign and domestic” and to also refrain from and undertake political steps that will not just hold the violence at bay but bring about a resolution to the war. The debate itself will be contentious. Talk of resolution immediately brings to mind appeasement, an idea which naturally hardens political positions.

That is the crux of the relationship however because true homeland security requires the interjection of political resolution(s). Not taking such steps will lead to a never-ending, on again-off again conflict wherein the US will inevitably be struck by its enemies, be it tomorrow, next year or in twenty. Political discussions are particularly difficult -but not impossible- to engage in because the threat of WMD comes not so much from nation states but amorphous groups. To date, however, despite the discussion of various groups ranging from FARC to the IRA the threat to the US is demonstrably from one source, Al- Queda and its allies.

The outlook unfortunately is that the US political leadership, both governmental and not, is missing the boat. It is all well and good that the White House position states “We possess the determination and the resources to defeat our enemies and secure our homeland against the threats they pose” but it does not appear that there exists the political intelligence and the will to eliminate the basis for the war even if our “strategy will be adjusted and amended over time.” Since the current and questionable strategy involves only destroying the enemy “over there” (e.g. Irag) simply amending a poor strategy is not enough.

And there are other problems. High sounding principles for homeland security (“Require responsibility and accountability.” “Mobilize our entire society.” “Manage risk and allocate resources judiciously.” “Foster flexibility.” “Measure preparedness.” “Sustain efforts over the long term.” “Constrain government spending”) strain credulity under an even cursory examination. What citizen can take seriously a statement that calls for constrained spending when we have the biggest budget deficit in history and the current administration continues to spend billions on foreign and domestic spending. Or a call to mobilize our entire society when an uproar can ensue over Patriot Act measures that do not affect the majority of citizens and for those that are affected it is at most a minor inconvenience, nothing more. If this is considered ‘mobilizing’ society the truly hard political decisions to resolve the war are not likely to come easily. A good first step would be a reduction in rhetoric although eventually the decisions may be forced upon us after another terror attack.

There is a twinkling of understanding of the problem we face when we note from the Muslim perspective the problem of cultural pollution. There is no note of the full measure of resentment, however, that is leveled against the US from a host of US actions, not least of which is the recent US attempt to reorder the Muslim social order regarding gender roles.

An overly simplistic approach to the role of security and political issues does not inspire confidence. Of course, “[t]he first priority of homeland security [should be] to prevent terrorist attacks” but the White House position paper would hopefully have gone beyond basic nuts-and-bolts security discussions. That it does not and even makes contradictory statements such as the assertion that we need to watch out for Hizballah terror against the US homeland. The problem is that US policy calling for ‘democracy’ would, according to most observers, place Hizballah in control of the Lebanese government because the majority of people support that organization. So, which is it? Support for democracy or a face off against Hizballah? The White House does not say and any reasonable person would think it does not say because it does not know. Not a comforting thought.

Politics, national security, and homeland security are thus inevitably interrelated. Focusing on security (as the discussion and analysis has done to date) and either leaving out real politik or simply engaging in hegemonic politics will not be sufficient. Willingly or not all three will eventually require our country’s attention and engagement.

A Clash of Cultures

The original declaration of war made by Bin Laden from Afghanistan, although it has been reported by various media, has not received wide distribution.

After Bin Laden pays homage to Allah in the opening paragraphs he wastes no time in laying out his description of the enemy:

“It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the ZionistCrusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere[sic], Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in BosniaHerzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.”

The aftermath of 911 resulted in several broad declarations from the US media. Among them were the pronouncements that the Israel-Palestine conflict had nothing to do with the attacks. The announcement by Bin Laden in the 1996 would belie this statement. Another was that we were attacked because they hated our way of life. Nothing in Bin Laden’s pronouncement in 1996 supported this assumption while still another theme prevalent after 911, and which has now lost all currency, was that the hijackers were madmen.

Bin Laden does emphasize that the most recent and greatest aggression against Muslims was the presence of US troops and the ‘occupation of the land of the two Holy Places [Medina and Mecca] the foundation of the house of Islam…’.

The verbal attack on the United Nations for not allowing Muslims to defend themselves [presumably during the Bosnia-Herzegovina war] should have at least raised the possibility that the UN would be a target in Iraq.

Economics is also a part of the statement. Referring to Saudi Arabia in particular and the Islamic world in general Bin Laden says “Hundred of thousands of the unemployed graduates, who became the widest section of the society, were also affected ..[by ZionistCrusader alliance]” and that “[P]eople are fully concerned about their every day livings; every body talks about the deterioration of the economy, inflation, ever increasing debts and jails full of prisoners. ”.

Bin Laden also makes it clear that the retreats by the US after the Beirut marine barracks’ bombing and the Mogadishu atrocities emboldened Al Queda.

Irregardless of its religious underpinning, it is worth understanding Bin Laden’s statement. It is likely that the locations noted by Bin Laden as massacre sites are well known through the Islamic world but simply a geographic location to most Westerners. If the war is to be ‘won’ it is useful to understand their complaints, if only to rebut them.