This speech was part of a panel sponsored by the
Future of Freedom Foundation,
Campaign for Liberty and
the Ladies of Liberty Alliance
(LOLA) held on February 20th at the 2010 CPAC. The panel presentation
was titled "Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on
Terror."
American Military Policy and
the War on Terrorism
by Karen Kwiatkowski
The phrase "war on terror" has been used to
justify trillions of dollars in spending, hundreds of thousands of new
government positions, and thousands of new government contracts. At the
same time, the "war on terror" has produced very little in
terms of new technology or enhanced security, has vastly increased the
degree of national centralization, and has created many new permanent
trees and branches in the gnarled world of federal and state
institutions.
The Congressional Research Service reported in September 2009 the cost of
the
"
War on Terror" since 9/11 at almost one trillion dollars. But
they looked only at the cost of the three military operations launched in
response to 9/11. They counted only the war in Afghanistan (9 years
running), the war in Iraq (7 years running), and the overall effort to
secure US military installations around the world – not our borders at
home, but our forward deployed empire.
While it is very costly, in both dollars and in terms of rule of law, the
war on terror is not a real war, in the sense that conservatives
understand it. Yes, our nation was assaulted, and on 9/11, our nation was
undefended and vulnerable. Our very expensive armed forces and our very
expensive intelligence apparatus failed to prevent or to predict what
happened on 9/11. A conservative reaction would have been to assess the
situation from the perspective of what we had done or not done, as much
as to seek to avenge the attack. A wise and thoughtful response would
have been to unleash a criminal investigation, at home and
internationally, and to pursue the perpetrators, as we examine the
institutional failures and policies that made our country vulnerable.
Instead, even though we had a so-called conservative president, we did
not proceed as conservatives. We did not hold accountable or fire anyone
in our government, or our defense and intelligence institutions. We did
not closely examine our own foreign policy or our extensive intelligence
and military activities overseas, particularly the Middle East. We did
not even devote sufficient time and energy to investigating the crimes
committed and the people behind those crimes. Instead, our so-called
conservative president, with the backing of so-called conservative
people, reacted pretty much as that other party we have been rightfully
criticizing here at this conference.
What we are talking about today is our reaction to 9/11 – because that is
really what the war on terror has been – a reaction, not a strategy.
This reaction, like most poorly thought-out reactions, has been anything
but conservative.
Furthermore, it has led to conditions and changes in this country that
are anything but those a true conservative would desire or hope for:
Massive growth in spending, new permanent and centralized government
institutions, and worst of all, an incredibly stupid militarization of
the pursuit of terror.
It is the stupidity in the strategy that I want to briefly review. And to
do this, no one here needs to understand the least bit about military
history, tactics and strategy. You do not need to know about the Chinese
general Sun Tzu, because apparently no one leading the Pentagon is
reading him.
Sun Tzu understood that understatement and deception is necessary in war.
He said, "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be
extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can
be the director of the opponent's fate."
Instead, our approach has been to almost randomly identify countries and
governments and very publicly, go after them. The only mystery of our
military and foreign policy since 2001 is in the minds of the American
people, who do not understand why the war isn’t won yet, and why the
enemy seems to be expanding, getting smarter, and hating us more.
Sun Tzu said, "If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are
certain to be in peril." He was right about that – but in fact you
wouldn’t know it from the obscene confidence and outright idiocy put out
by the Pentagon, and eagerly embraced by two presidents, one a so-called
conservative, the other, a left-wing socialist.
We – as conservatives – ought to care about getting back to an old kind
of normal – not creating a new normal of unconstitutional government,
unsupportable debt, and endless war. We should want victory in the
"War on Terror" but understand that victory must include a
return to small government republicanism. Sun Tzu wrote, "He who
knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious."
But as I said, those creating, pursuing, advertising and selling the
so-called War on Terror have not read Sun Tzu, and cannot be bothered.
Von Clausewitz is another strategist we study in the military finishing
schools. One thing Clausewitz knew, that conservatives also know – is
that, "The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment
that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the
kind of war on which they are embarking." But instead, we are still
debating the question of "What is this war on terror?" More and
more we are asking, why isn’t it working, and when will it end.
Instead of Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz our strategy has been more
theatrics than tactics, and running on a script written by those who
stand to benefit from more government, and more government spending, than
those Americans who are fundamentally conservative and who in their
hearts, do value the Constitution – which is to say – the majority of
Americans.
From a Pentagon standpoint, it was fortunate that the Pentagon was one
of the 9/11 targets. Had the Pentagon not been targeted, and had it
emerged unscathed on 9/11, it is likely that serious questions would have
been asked about why the premier and best-funded military, with the best
and most highly funded intelligence agencies in the world, was a blind
paralyzed sitting duck on 9/11.
Instead, no serious or probing questions were asked about the
appropriateness of our massive military-industrial complex. After 9/11
the so-called conservatives in charge – instead of taking wise counsel –
did what any decent Democrat would do. They threw unlimited piles of
money at a largely undefined and misunderstood problem.
Some in the GOP are still wondering why the Tea Party movement evolved.
Didn’t people already have a conservative political party representing
their interests? Well, the GOP promotion of the war on terror using big
contracts and bigger government, trampling the constitution, all in the
name of fear and empire – none of this approach was conservative.
Beyond being anything but conservative, the war on terror as we have
conducted it since 2001 is simply not succeeding. In many of our overseas
battlefields, we are creating and growing new terrorists, and smarter
terrorists. We are increasingly exposing our own weaknesses in terms of
occupation and counterinsurgency, and even as we institutionally learn
from our mistakes, it is always too slow, always after the fact.
We – as conservatives, no less – seem to be supporting a vague and
extremely Clintonesque policy of global nation building. We keep hoping
that putting another one of our crooked guys in charge of a country will
work, and we keep hoping that military and economic blackmail can keep
the locals in line. That’s just idiotic.
It may be that our military policy is not designed to reduce terror at
all, but is instead simply designed to evolve hand-in-hand with the
so-called "war on terror," in order to maximize the opportunity
for growth of American intelligence and security institutions. Permanent
institutional growth.
Many predictions about the next decade have been made in the past weeks.
One thing not predicted for 2010 is a reduction of American forces, or
fewer American interferences and entanglements overseas. No one is
predicting the ending of America’s illegal wars, or even the ending of a
front in just one of the illegal wars.
Curiously, government spokesmen are aware that this is exactly what
Americans want, and are beginning to pander. Case in point is JCS
Chairman Admiral Mullen on
The Daily Show last month discussing how we are coming
out of Iraq in 18 months, and how the US military is 40% smaller than it
was at the end of the Cold War.
Mullen represents his case well, but unfortunately he was lying. He is
lying about leaving Iraq – even Obama has stated that a minimum of 50,000
American troops will permanently remain in that foreign country. He is
also lying about the size of the military.
In 1988, about a year before the end of the Cold War, a
Congressional Research Service chronology of military spending put
the DoD take at $451 billion (in 2005 dollars). In 2009, DoD got $10
billion more, with a budget of $460.5 billion (in 2005 dollars). The real
military budget in 2009 was larger, not smaller, than at the end of the
Cold War. But there’s more, namely the modern habit of funding any
actual wars the DoD may be fighting through
separate
supplemental Congressional appropriations and authorizations.
Admiral Mullen also mentioned on the Daily Show that our uniformed
military was smaller today than at the end of the Cold War. It’s true, we
do have about 750 thousand fewer troops than we did at the end of the
Cold War. However, for the past 20 years, we have been outsourcing all
kinds of formerly uniformed specialties and subspecialities. As one
conservative
economist correctly wonders,
"…was [the outsourcing] really about saving money? Or was it a way
to ramp up the effective size of the fighting force without having to
institute a draft or some other means of increase the size of the
military (e.g. increasing pay substantially)? And perhaps sending a few,
more than a few actually, bucks in certain directions?"
The future – especially the future for people who love and value American
liberty – is in danger. It is in danger in part because we did not
pursue, and are not today pursuing, a conservative approach to reducing
anti-American terrorism and ensuring the guilty were indeed punished for
their acts.
After 9/11 – a ruthless, tragic, terrible event, burned into our minds
and our hearts – the United States had alternatives. We could have, as we
had done in so many other cases of terrorism, pursued the criminals
through the system of law enforcement. This would have meant a slower
process, a process that would have been less emotional and less
political, and would have required international police and intelligence
cooperation. After 9/11, we had the sympathy of the world, and strong
offers and guarantees of their support. It would have taken time –
although in retrospect, this approach would have taken far less time,
less money and destroyed fewer lives and livelihoods than what we really
did. A conservative approach would have saved trillions of dollars. It
would have educated Americans on the rule of law and the Constitution,
rather than blinding them to it. And a conservative approach, because it
cares about history and culture and community, would have ensured that
Americans more deeply understood terrorism, and how to prevent it.
Instead, we are repeatedly lied to by our government, on everything, but
particularly on the real lack of success, the real cost and the extreme
risk of our ongoing and endless "War on Terror."
Rahm Emmanuel has famously said, "you never want to let a crisis go
to waste," and he is right, from a government’s standpoint. I hope
that from a conservative’s perspective, Rahm’s words are an abomination.
But in fact, looking at the policies of the Bush and Cheney
administration regarding terrorism, with Obama continuing them
enthusiastically, I am beginning to have doubts as to whether
conservatives in this country really understand what it means to be
conservative.
Had our government not seized the opportunity that the 9/11 crisis
presented, and had the Bush Administration spent that political capital
on a serious legal and criminal approach to catching and punishing the
9/11 terrorists – by now, almost nine years later – in the very worst
case scenario, we would be in the same place we are today. Lots of bad
guys picked up, some convicted in trials, others held with trials
pending. Certainly, many people would have been released, as we have done
with a good number of those who had been held without charge or evidence
in Guantanamo. Best case, this whole episode would be behind us, and the
money not spent on security might have gone to reduce the deficit or
support tax cuts.
Had we taken the conservative fork in the road back in 2001, we would not
have enraged other nations, insulted entire cultures, violated our own
Constitution and sacrificed on a bloody altar what we like to put forth
as American honor. We would be living in a world where our 1.4
trillion-dollar debt ceiling could be reduced, not raised. We would be
living in a world without an overgrown defense and intelligence
structure, with no blurring of lines between civilian law enforcement and
the military. We would be living in a world where, having not killed
women and children, not having interfered with the domestic politics and
trade policies of third-world countries in far away places, and having
not destroyed our onetime reputation as a free nation – we would be
clearly safer from terror aimed against us.
But the United States is led by a media and power elite that is, in fact,
not conservative. It is instead vested in doing exactly what it has been
doing, growing in power and increasing its take from the national till.
For these agencies, the war on terror is working just fine.
How might we, as conservatives today, really begin to fight terrorism?
First, get a Secretary of State who speaks for the founding father’s
preferred policy of free trade with all and entangling alliances with
none.
Second, if a secretary of war is required, appoint one who will make his
sole mission the security of the United States, rather than the security
and continued expansion of the defense industrial establishment.
Third, conservatives, of all people, have the responsibility to
understand both rule of law, and to understand our own American history,
both the good and the bad – and keep the light of freedom burning at
home. This means we have to be leading the charge at home to reduce our
illegal empire abroad for reasons both financial and constitutional.
Instead, of course, the Republican Party has become identified with big
government, empire, excess spending, and overpriced and counterproductive
defense strategy. As the American people wake up to this reality, they
will naturally reject the philosophy that is behind the modern GOP
approach.
If the GOP intends to remain relevant, it must deliver. The nearly
decade-long experiment in government growth called "the war on
terror" has been a cruel joke that history will rightfully blame on
the Republican Party. It’s not working, and conservatives – as well as
libertarians and independents and democrats – can all see that. But only
old-style conservatives and libertarians are truly in a position to offer
a reasonable alternative. And that alternative is to energize real
conservatism in our defensive strategy and foreign affairs, and to
rediscover the sound advice of Sun Tzu, von Clausewitz, and more than
ever, our founding fathers.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
