The All Too Familiar Presidential Question

A Familiar Presidential Question – once again, an American President will have to decide the role intervention and preemption play in American foreign policy

-Christopher Carroll

 

This year, President Obama will have to do exactly what he seems to heartily dislike. Soon he will have to re-examine the role America and the America military are going to play in the Syrian conflict. In doing so, he will once again signal the place intervention and preemptive action hold in American foreign policy. The results will have far reaching implications for Syria, Iran and the entire Middle East.

Just two days ago in off-record remarks made to Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), John McCain (R – A.Z.) and about a dozen members of Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry voiced skepticism that the Obama administrations Syria policy is working.

In what Jennifer Psaki, Secretary of State Kerry’s spokesman, deemed a “mischaracterization” of Kerry’s remarks, Senators McCain and Graham welcomed Mr. Kerry’s determination that chemical weapons removal was being “slow-rolled.” The two Senators have long been frustrated with the Obama foreign policy in Syria and believe that an increased military presence is required to bring an end to the ongoing humanitarian crises.

Kerry’s statements, explains Ms. Psaki, are in line with administration policy. “No one in this administration thinks we’re doing enough until the humanitarian crisis has been solved and the civil war ended.”

 The Geneva negotiations have as of yet proved fruitless. “We haven’t achieved anything,” explained U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. The stakes, however, are high. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 100,000 people have been killed, with nine million Syrians forced to flee from their homes and a recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggests that regions in the country are becoming a center of radical extremism and a potential threat” to the United States.

****

President Obama’s policy has been widely criticized since pronouncing two and a half years ago that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Now, with his Secretary of State, prominent members of the Senate, and senior members of the national intelligence community raising the alarm, Mr. Obama could soon be forced to make new decisions.

In 2014, an American President will once again be forced to decide the role intervention and preemption will play in American foreign policy. Syrian  rebels, President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin  will wait as the future of American intervention is determined. Meanwhile, Iran and the Middle East will watch for signs of the future of American pre-emptive action.

Will President Obama’s aversion for the neo-conservative policies of the Bush administration, coupled with his seeming preference for Jeffersonian foreign policy, give way to calls for action from members of his own Cabinet and Senate? Time will tell.

Killin’em Softly – a breakthrough in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program could change the international calculus in the Middle East

Killin’em Softly – a breakthrough in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program could change the international calculus in the Middle East  

 -Christopher Carroll

It seems that a team of international and Iranian negotiators are nearing a breakthrough in talks to temporarily halt Iran’s nuclear development program. For some, the news has been received with cautious optimism. For others, including some in Congress and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, the news foretells a bad future for American Middle-East policy.

However, if a deal can be reached and some sanctions lifted, Iranian relations with the world and with the United States may finally begin to improve. “For the first time in nearly a decade,” an administration official told the New York Times, “we are getting close to a first step that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from advancing and roll it back in key areas.”

Talks between Iran and what is now known as the P5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N Security Council plus Germany, are scheduled to resume next week in Geneva where a possible compromise to temporarily halt Iran’s nuclear program will be discussed. The hope is that a six month freeze of the Iranian program would grant international negotiators additional time to reach a permanent agreement with Tehran.

Talks will certainly revolve around Iranian insistence that the international community acknowledge their right to enrich uranium, a right that the United States asserts does not exist. Furthermore, any deal to relax economic sanctions would have to be accompanied by Iranian compliance with strict restrictions upon their program. Benyamin Netanyahu and Congress, however, fear that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are giving up too much.

Congressmen on both sides of the isle, including Senator Robert Menendez (D. – NJ), the Democratic Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham (R. – S.C), have expressed doubt over the President’s progress and desire to impose new sanctions on Iran.

As Senator Menendez explains in an Op.-Ed. for USA Today, rather than reduce sanctions, some in congress believe that “tougher sanctions will serve as an incentive for Iran to verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is similarly upset, charging that the potential deal being brokered by U.S  negotiators is “a bad and dangerous deal,” that will bring trouble “to a theater near you,” presumably the United States.

However, the potential benefits of a deal cannot be overlooked and both Congress and the Israeli government are choosing the status quo over a potential Iranian resolution.

****

While sometimes effective, economic sanctions can only take American and international policy so far. As Joseph Nye explains in his book, The Future of Power, economic sanctions are generally only effective when “economic relations were great, sanctions were heavy, and the duration was limited.”

While the sanctions have certainly been heavy (a vast majority of the $100 billion of Iranian reserves are inaccessible due to international sanctions and the country’s oil exports have been slashed by over 50 percent) the negative repercussions of long-term economic sanctions will outweigh the benefits.

“Soft” power, a vague and overused term in academic political discussion, is becoming increasingly important in international politics. Military power does not hold the political sway it did in decades and centuries past. America must weigh the political costs of imposing its will in coercive military and economic manners. If the Iranian government is crippled as a result of international, and mainly U.S, sanctions, the people will grow to increasingly resent Americans and the West. This will only foster stronger Iranian desire to obtain nuclear weaponry, regardless of the havoc such desire wreaks on the economy.

In today’s world, where communication, culture and commerce can be exchanged instantaneously, the soft power a nation wields is as important as it’s military might. Convincing world powers that they want to do your bidding, rather than are made to do your bidding, is a much more effective form of power.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and the United States Congress are right to be cautious regarding Iran. We have been down this road before. Additionally, Prime Minister Netanyahu not only fears a nuclear-armed Iran, but another powerful economic and strategic competitor in the region. However, a potential diplomatic agreement cannot be ignored.

It will be up to international negotiators to ensure that appropriate enforceable restrictions are in place. However, until then, Congress and the international community should be careful with their public posturing. The fact that simply halting the Iranian program for six months is a priority and a potential breakthrough cannot be overlooked. They must be getting close to something.

Could a Phone Call Lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

The Power of a Phone Call: Could it lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

-Christopher Carroll

Though the country has grown accustomed to political conflict, strife and anger, conversation between foes is still possible; just not between domestic politicians.

It has been a tough time in Washington D.C. The government shutdown is entering it’s second week. The debt limit is expected to be reached October 17. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is widely known, has opened it’s insurance exchanges with a limp. Lost in the beavy of bad news in Washington, has been the progress seen in one of the most important international issues of the past decade. For the first time since the Carter administration, the Presidents of the United States of America and Iran spoke to each other.

The September 27th conversation took place by phone, President Obama from the Oval Office and President Hassan Rouhani from his car on the way to the airport following the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. It marked the first time since the 444 day Tehran Hostage crises three decades ago that leaders of the two countries had spoken to one another.

The conversation, which lasted fifteen minutes, included discussion of the most contentious divisions in Iranian-U.S relations. The two leaders, writes Peter Baker of the New York Times, agreed to accelerate talks “aimed at defusing the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.”  Presidents Obama and Rouhani also expressed their hope that a rapprochement between the two nations would transform the Middle East.

President Obama, in a statement to reporters after the call with President Rouhani, expressed cautious optimism, hoping that resolution of the nuclear issue, “obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual respect.”

The call came after a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif proved constructive. While President Obama had expressed a willingness to meet the Iranian President at a General Assembly luncheon, the Rouhani skipped the event, preferring to interact by phone to avoid political backlash at home. The fear that Islamic hardliners in Iran would provide political trouble in Iran seemed to fulfilled yesterday, when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed his disapproval of the conversation.

Here in America, the news has had a mixed reception. Advocates for closer relations are excited, believing, as Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund explains, that “it helped fundamentally change the course of Iranian – U.S relations.” Others are less optimistic, believing that rather than a shift in U.S – Iranian relations, it is rather a result of the economic sanctions placed on Iran. “The economic pain now is sufficient to oblige a telephone call, though not a face-to-face meeting,” explained Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to the Times

What cannot be denied, however, is that this news is a welcome change in America.

****

While the talks between the two leaders certainly worries Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the willingness two converse is a good, and obviously important, step towards addressing serious concerns in relations between Iran and the U.S. The President who rode into the White House preaching the importance of conversation and compromise with allies and enemies alike, is exhibiting the foreign policy he called for. While his strategies have largely failed in the realm of domestic politics, it will hopefully lead to real progress in international politics. By being willing to engage in conversation with the international community, the President might yet again show a surprising deftness of hand in foreign policy; one he seems to lack in domestically.

The President should be cautious about the way he moves forward from here. He must not be willing to sell the farm too early and give too much in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. Doing so would not only allow a volatile country to arm itself with catastrophic weaponry, but would also undermine relations with Israel, still one of our most important allies, and could compromise moderate Iranian politicians in the Middle East, crippling any potential progress in negotiations. However, pursuing genuine conversation with Iran will send a message to the entire world that America is no longer going force it’s will on the world in back rooms, with the lights off and night vision goggles on. America is going to talk to it’s enemies and it’s allies, it’s neighbors, friends, and competitors, and work to not only ameliorate threats to American interests, but resolve the issues that face the worldwide community.

Americans that have grown used to political competition and conflict should take heart in the President’s actions and American politicians would do well to look toward the President’s example. Conversation between foes can become a conversation between colleagues.

The Path not Recently Traveled

The Path not Recently Traveled – Under President Obama’s leadership, American foreign policy is rejecting recent habits

-Christopher Carroll

As we delve deeper into President Obama’s second term, his vision for American military involvement abroad becomes more distinct. Following Saturday’s developments in the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations, it is clear the President Obama is leading America toward more restrained military involvement in American foreign policy.

Though it has been a back and forth month for Obama, it has been one consistently restrained in style. Just weeks ago, the President called on Congress to vote to approve military action against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons caché, a move that threw past presidential practice to the wind. Just days later, after it seemed clear that Congress would not approve such action, Russia and Syria suggested the possibility of putting the weapons under international control. These negotiations prompted Obama to ask Congress to delay the vote, fearful that Congressional refusal of military action would permanently cripple Secretary of State John Kerry in talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On Saturday, Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement that could bring Syrian chemical weapons under control and even begin destroying them in 2014. The diplomatic solution trumped the threat of military intervention.

If all goes according to plan, this is a victory for President Obama. Not only will Syrian weapons be accounted for and destroyed, but the Obama administration finds itself able to save face while not getting too close to the conflict. However, cancelling the Congressional vote on military action came at a cost; allowing members of Congress to avoid ownership of their opinions and making it nearly impossible to change course and use military force. The latter was a cost the President seems more than willing to pay. The former, is a shame.

****

Delaying the vote on Syrian action effectively made it impossible for President Obama to deploy American force if the deal is not adhered too.  Without a doubt, delaying the vote prevented the damage that would have been done if Congress rejected military action, however it did not preserve the President’s ability to deploy military personnel, a power he effectively abdicated to Congress. To do so, he would have to withstand seriously damaging himself domestically and the benefits the President gained by turning to Congress last week have now been entirely undercut before reaching their full potential.

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 -Christopher Carroll

A new age is dawning in American foreign policy. As Congress’ summer recess comes to a close, groundbreaking decisions can’t be made in Washington. President Obama’s decision to involve Congress in any military operations in Syria, is one with profound implications for Syria and one that will reverberate for generations in American policy.

****

A year after Obama’s famous “red-line” comments, the administration is now citing evidence that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons on their own people.

The announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry was immediately followed by wide speculation about the nature of U.S involvement in the conflict. Conjecture on the scope of military involvement ran rampant, especially given the United State’s shady intervention record recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and the David Cameron’s announcement that the parliament of the United Kingdom had voted down the possibility of U.K military involvement in Syria. Would Obama commit the United States’ military to difficult operations in an excruciatingly complex revolution without concrete goals and clear cut, comprehensive results? 

Obama, in an atypically shrewd act of political navigation, has relieved himself of enforcing his naive “red-line” comments. He has given Congress exactly what they are always clamoring for, more power and the final say in military efforts while simultaneously finding himself able to argue that he isn’t backing down. The President has saved himself from the attacks that surely were to follow his decision regardless of what is decided while providing Congress with what they have traditionally claimed they deserve.

President Obama has already received the support for military action. House Speaker Boehner (R. – OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. – Va), and the Senate Foreign relations committee have all approved of combat operations. This does not mean that it’s passage in the House is a sure thing. Members of Congress will have to publicly state their positions on the Syrian conflict, something that many politicians have been hesitant to do. Some congressmen, fearful of war-weary public repercussions, are likely to buck their party leadership. Others, more fearful of how history will judge them if they don’t take action in Syria, are more likely to approve the limited U.S military engagement. President Obama, meanwhile, is sitting back in political safety, letting the chips fall where they may.

Obama’s decision to turn to congress has major consequences in the international arena both inside and outside Syria. French President Francois Hollande, who, in France, does not need parliamentary approval to use the military and who has already expressed his willingness to follow the U.S into military action, may find that he has few options following the U.K and U.S precedents, forcing him to allow French parliamentary involvement (a major decision given the poor support military intervention has among the French public) in decisions regarding French military engagement. Additionally, Israel and Iran are closely watching this new congressional trend in American military action. While Iran watches to see if a new American military paradigm has been born, Israel looks upon President Obama’s action with apprehension, fearing that this new trend may negatively influence American willingness to help them in potential conflicts over Iran’s nuclear power program. A potentially new trend in American military use will certainly change the playing field between these two countries as both wonder whether or not Americans will continue to readily expend blood and treasure on foreign soil.

****

The President’s decision has immense long term repercussions on the future of American foreign policy.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was meant to check the President’s ability to commit American military forces to armed conflict. Presidents are granted 60 days of military engagement plus 30 days of withdrawal from any action without Congressional approval. Unauthorized use of military personnel is technically against the law. However, that law has frequently been circumvented and even entirely ignored by presidents, making it now an accepted part of the “imperial presidency” that some feel endangers American structural integrity.

President Obama’s rejection of such action is shocking, all the more so given the lack of worldwide support for the Syrian opposition and worldwide pressure to act. Does this mean that there will never again be a Vietnam conflict or Iraq War disaster? Probably not. Does this mean the Iran/Contra affairs of the future will never again come to fruition? Hopefully. Will America, by deferring all military action to Congress, cease acting unilaterally in international crises? Doubtful. But rather than being remembered for budget and debt debates, Summer 2013 may be remembered for a shifting of government structure in Washington D.C.

Time will tell if we are indeed nearing the end of an era marked by American presidential military action. If this trend holds true, it will without a doubt be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Having entered office a constitutional lawyer and professor, the President has followed long, winding road through Nobel laurels and Wilsonian ideals. But, as he nears the close of his presidency, he seems to be becoming a Jeffersonian. The country and the world would best take note. American foreign policy is entering a new era.

Eric Holder Is Sending Mandatory Minimums to Death Row

Eric Holder Is Sending Mandatory Minimums to Death Row

-Christopher Carroll

Mandatory minimums finally seem to be on death row. Let’s hope they don’t languish there like so many other Americans.

In a speech given for the American Bar Association in San Francisco on Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that some non-violent drug offenders without affiliation with gangs and drug organizations, will not be subjected to the mandatory minimums that have characterized drug law enforcement since the mid-1980s.

Holder’s remarks were not ambiguous. After calling the criminal justice system “broken,” he explained that “with an outsized, unnecessarily large prison population, we need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate – not merely to warehouse and forget.”

“A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities,” continued Holder. “Many aspects of our criminal justice system actually exacerbate these problems rather than alleviate them,” he added.

Mandatory minimums were introduced to our judicial system in 1986 with the passage of the  Anti-Drug Abuse Act, a reaction to national outrage over widespread drug activity and violence in the country. Proponents of the law believe that harsh mandatory sentencing laws serve as a deterrent to breaking the law. Additionally, many believe that the “removal of a fact – the amount of drugs associated with a crime – that is so obviously relevant when considering blameworthiness and punishment,” runs contrary to standard disciplinary practices.

However, in a time marked by economic, racial and social inequality, Holder’s new stance is vital.

New policy will help reduce the length of prison sentences, which will have the effect of reducing the staggering rate and number of incarcerated people in the country. This will reduce costs, allowing vast sums of money to be diverted to other endeavors, whether they be education, healthcare, or tax breaks.

Additionally, by directing U.S attorneys across the country to develop “specific, locally tailored guidelines” for determining whether or not federal charges should be filed, Mr. Holder is encouraging local discretion in matters regarding the fate of members of communities. By returning sentencing to the discretion of judges and law enforcement officials, Holder is reserving jurisdiction, power and responsibility for those closest to disciplinary system. This reflects an extraordinarily fundamental American value, one where local officials, officers and policy-makers are more likely to know what is needed than are elected officials and experts in Washington D.C. We see the effectiveness of similar decision-making structures throughout history and the country: education policy is more effective when written by school boards, not Senators; emergency relief is faster when lead by local officials rather than monolithic organizations in D.C. By returning sentencing discretion to judges and allowing local district attorneys and law enforcement to set standards, Holder is leading the charge to reverse the public’s eroding sense of the moral credibility of their judicial system.

Lastly, and most importantly, mandatory minimum policy must be reformed because it unfairly treat minorities. In a paper submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Families Against Mandatory Minimums writes that “research has shown that certain policies and procedures in the criminal and juvenile justice systems have a disparate impact on the African American and Latino communities in the United States. Mandatory minimums systematically and disproportionately affect minority groups in this country.”

This is unacceptable, made even more so by the fact that it is doubtful that mandatory minimums serve has a major criminal deterrent. It is far more likely that the inequality that pushes people toward criminal action outweighs sentencing deterrents. Social, economic, educational, environmental, sexual and developmental inequalities serve as the overwhelming reasons for criminal activity in our society. Policies that prove to strengthen those inequalities only make matters worse, causing people to resent and reject the judicial system that is meant to protect them. People who fear that reforming mandatory minimums weakens society and disciplinary systems do not realize that they actually do the opposite. By removing a source of unequal treatment, Eric Holder is leading the charge towards making our streets safer, our liberties stronger, and the fabric of our society more certain.

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

-Christopher Carroll

It has been a busy couple of months for anyone who follows national security policy. This week has been no different. Yesterday, in a press conference, President Obama announced his plans to reform the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, opening the door for further scrutiny of the NSA’s practices. This follows a whirlwind of recent surveillance and security debates, starting with Edward Snowden’s disclosures and culminating with this week’s closure of 19 American embassies and diplomatic outposts. That whirlwind has gotten our politicians and citizens to finally start asking the right question: How much surveillance and security do we need and what are we willing to give up for it? The answer lies in how President Obama will gain the trust of those he governs.

****

On Tuesday, the State Department closed 19 embassies, including those in Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya, and ordered that all non-essential, non-emergency personnel be removed from Yemen. The order came following American intelligence suggested that Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor, and Nasir al-Wahishi, the leader of AQAP and a man believed to have been recently promoted to the second highest ranking official in the global organization, were planning a major attack.

The closure of the embassies has had mixed reception. House Homeland Security Committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tx.) called it a “very smart call” while Rep. Dutch Ruppersburger said it was based on a “very credible” threat, “based on intelligence.” Meanwhile, Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu-Bakr worried that the closures of U.S embassies was handing terrorists victories. NBC analyst and former director of the National Counterterrorism Center  Michael Lieter, criticized the State Department as well, claiming the threat is overblown “hyperbole,” coming from “reckless commentators or ill-informed or ill-spoken Hill folks,” said Leiter.

****

Regardless of whether or not the threat was appropriately responded to, the fact remains that American intelligence gathering practices have again been brought to the foreground.

American surveillance practices are by no means unique in the world. French newspaper Le Monde has reported has reported that the French DGSE has been collecting “meta-data” similar to the NSA’s PRISM program. Others, including former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker, allege that European nationals are more likely to be watched by their own government than Americans are from theirs.

Obama’s speech marks just the latest turn of events. The Snowden disclosures and subsequent uproar that followed it, along with the criticism of the administration’s alarming prosecution of “leakers,” has forced the President to address the intelligence and security issue head on.

The President intends to make the nation’s surveillance policies more transparent. He proposed creating a public advocate, or ombudsman, charged with providing a barrier to any unnecessary erosion of privacy rights and the tightening of what is allowed by section 215 of the Patriot Act. These steps, he hopes, will help provide both Americans and the entire world with the ability to have “confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them,” said President Obama, as does “leadership around the world.” Will President Obama be able to gain that trust?

****

It will be very interesting to see whether these new proposals are effective and if they are even implemented at all. Some lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King (R – N.Y.) feel that the proposals are incredibly dangerous and, in the words of Rep. King, are “a monumental failure in presidential wartime leadership and responsibility.”

Transparency is always good in a democracy. The more transparent a program, the easier it is for both the implementers of the program and those affected by it know what is allowed and expected of them.  As was seen this week in As seen this week in Yemen, the world is more dangerous now than ever before. Like a snake in long grass, enemies and terrorists can strike unseen with incredible precision and power. The Atlantic Ocean is no longer the barrier that it was in 1772 or even 1942. There are now countless ways for a small group of individuals to wreak havoc on an entire nation half a world away. Though we outspend the entire world on defense, we are no safer than we were at any other time in our nation’s history. What are we willing to do to defend ourselves?

The President should be applauded for acknowledging the controversy surrounding these programs and for his desire to make them as transparent as possible. However, he and his administration must do a better job of communicating to the nation and the world what these programs accomplish. We need to know what has been done and, without compromising national secrets, how they have been done for one simple reason: trust. .

Trust is a trait that is impossibly difficult to attain and ridiculously easy to lose. The hyper-polarized nature of today’s politics and the unprecedented low-regard the nation has for Congress will not help President Obama gain trust, nor will the President’s poor policy communication skills, his inability to seem like one of the people or his lack of military service prior to his Presidency. Nevertheless, he must find a way to gain it so as to put the surveillance problems in his Presidency behind him. If Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower told the country that these programs were vital, the country would believe him and would stop asking questions. Obama needs to find a way to earn that trust.

The President bviously must do so without compromising the safety of our diplomats, soldiers or citizens. A public advocate is a good start and must be a person who is not only skeptical of the NSA in general but is also selected in a fashion that bestows public trust upon him or her. This will likely mean finding a person who dislikes both Congress and the President and is skeptical of government oversight and military power. Maybe this person is a former Supreme Court Justice. Maybe this person is nationally respected journalist.

Whomever is picked, maybe by finding the right person to protect the people, the President will gain the respect and trust of the people. Only then will he be able to tell those he governs that they can be safe in today’s dangerous world while retaining total privacy. Only then will he be able to tell the people they can have their cake and eat it too. Whether or not it is true won’t really matter.

The New Conflict Paradigm

The -foot ( m) diameter granite CIA seal in the lobby of the original headquarters building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New Conflict Paradigm – The standards and rules of conflict must change with the changing times

-Christopher Carroll

Today’s world is different. The security threats that our leaders are faced with are different. Enemies are different and more difficult to assess and address than ever before. There is a new security and conflict paradigm in our world, but the world has neglected to acknowledge it and avoided this obvious discussion. Until now.

Technological innovation has accelerated the transforming paradigm and is being utilized differently than ever before but the world’s accepted standards for addressing conflict have failed to keep pace. As a result, warfare and conflict resolution has devolved into legally questionable policies, lacking clear rights or wrongs and without structural oversight, comprehension or commonly accepted standards. The world’s (and our nation’s) rules and expectations of war have failed to evolve as the conflicts have, with the result that there are no longer rules or expectations to guide our latest practices.

Between drones, counter-terrorism policies and modern intelligence gathering, the country has long been overdue for debate about technology in warfare and security. The increasing reliance on drones that has been seen under the Obama administration, not to mention the killing of four American citizens overseas with those drones, has been the first catalyst of this discussion and has raised questions of who is responsible for the technology used in combat, what are the benefits and what are the costs, and what rules govern their use.

Drones

Drones have reduced the number of American deaths in the war on terror and for that reason, are largely viewed as a popular and highly useful tool by the military, CIA, and the Obama administration. The potential benefits that are brought to warfare by Drone technology cannot be denied, enabling American personnel to engage the enemy without risking American lives is an incredible luxury. Keeping American boots many miles from harm while our objectives are still achieved means fewer American deaths; good news for an American military effort and good for domestic policy and morale.

However, not all is sunny. The drones have resulted in many, highly publicized, civilian deaths (though how many fewer civilians would die if soldiers had been on the ground is a question debatable). Due to the difficulty of differentiating between a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time and an enemy combatant, the drone program, though using technology that is exact, is not as surgically precise as some would have use believe. Every innocent person killed is a tragedy and while an guiltless person can be freed from prison, the death of an innocent human being is irremediable and unequivocally unacceptable.

Counter-terrorism intelligence gathering

Today’s world poses more threats to our security than ever before. One person with a bomb made from materials bought at a hardware store poses a larger danger than many national armies. Unfriendly nations are either in possession of, or shortly will have, nuclear weapons at their disposal. Most terrifyingly of all, discarded, stolen, or purchased nuclear materials could at any time find there way into the hands of violent, borderless and irrational organizations.

We no longer need to fear one or two nations. No longer are we worried about our army standing up against that of another. We don’t fear the Soviets or any single army or country. We fear the lone wolf. We fear the ideologically minded fanatics. We fear those who can slip through the cracks, yet can in an instant wreak havoc on every aspect of our national fabric.

Technology has altered the standard surveillance and intelligence gathering practices that the world and Americans have grown used to. Rules have been stretched and in some recent instances have been crossed, but because there are no new laws to accommodate this new reality, our leadership and law enforcement have been entrusted with keeping us secure without knowing what they are empowered to do. Because our laws and standards are outdated, and because we have yet to have serious discussion about the future of world conflict, our citizenry, our rights, and our safety are simultaneously encroached upon.

Espionage

Technology has changed the meaning of spying  and the protection of the secrets of our nation, the assets of our corporations and the intellectual property of our citizenry. While our spies are being caught in Russia wearing wigs, Chinese spies are mining our institutions, departments and emails, looking for information that can be used to their military and economic advantage, all from the comfort of their own computer labs in Beijing.

Until we ask ourselves what regulations and standards we are willing to put into place so as to protect our data, use our data and attain the data of others, we will not be playing on a level field with other agencies and nations in the world. If we don’t address the question of data mining and theft, our security and economy will be constantly be vulnerable.

Clearly, the old rules no longer apply. New rules of warfare and security must be written, accepted and implemented. At the very least, we must acknowledge that the new standards are outside the purview of common and accepted practice. We must not apply the old standards to new phenomena; doing so is both naive and foolish. Our leaders must stop hiding behind courts, smokescreens and press releases and acknowledge that the changing times have resulted in the implementation of new technologies and policies.

But, at the same time, the world public must also acknowledge that things are changing. The world is more fragile and vulnerable than ever before. New laws must be written, new practices taken, new standards allowed and new rules implemented. Only by genuinely laying aside our habits and traditions will we be able to examine what works and what doesn’t. What we need to survive and what we don’t. What we will allow and what is antithetical to our societal standards.

The conflict and the danger that accompanies the world today, is an altogether different entity than has ever been seen in society before. The greatest enemy (and the one most likely to hurt us) is the enemy before unseen. It isn’t the army at the other end of the battlefield, nor is it the navy drifting in the sea nor is it the air force flying through the sky.  We, as a nation, will meet these dangers and challenges only if we can accept and comprehensively debate the necessary laws, standards and rules that must accompany that reality.