Principles and a progressive national security

The other day, Democracy Arsenal's Suzanne Nossel issued another one of those bullet point-esque posts, a variation on her "10 reasons why I'm right about x" posts (I never make it past three or four, myself). Anyway, the post showed again why she is a brilliant thinker, superb writer, and right more often than not. It also goes to show why progressive national security credibility remains an elusive hope more than anything. There were three prongs -- with subsequent amplifications -- to her own "modern day Truman Doctrine":

1. Exceptionalism
2. Use of force
3. Hegemony

Now most of these positions were taken to say, See! Neoconservatives don't own foreign policy! A necessary point to be sure, but not necessarily persuasive for the unconvinced. Foreign Affairs prose doesn't win elections. In a brief comment, I wrote:

If progressive-types want to start being electable on national security grounds, avoid the abstraction -- and for God's sake don't start out by making qualifications. All those things are very nice and reasonable, but maybe they should come after emphatically stating a core principle of any pertinent American foreign policy, which is:

Dead terrorists can't kill Americans.

Embrace it, and all else will follow.

Saying vaguely that, "we do favor the use of force to advance U.S. security and priority matters of national interest," isn't compelling, especially when followed by qualifiers and caveats. It's overly abstract. Those qualifiers and caveats are genuine, and typically correct; we need infinite subtlety to fight a global political war that is also a very violent one. But subtlety is for the foreign policy journals and strategists. America, Fuck Yeah! is for the campaign trail; so let's get it on.

At the heart of this, most Americans -- with good reason -- don't trust progressive-types to have the kind of capacity for ruthlessness to fight an indelibly ruthless enemy. They see them as the spawn of Vietnam protestors and indecisive, hyper-academic ruminators; and they are, for the most part, right. Post-9/11 sanctimony about American sins that supposedly "explained" those evil acts only reinforced the sense that these clueless Leftists are too involved with their own piety to comprehend a threat to their own survival. Who takes seriously people who don't have basic common sense? All this crap about "dialoguing" for a better world and red herrings about alienation and poverty succeeded only in profoundly missing the point. (Nossel's project has become overcoming this, however.)

So instead of rooting around finding ways to reconcile progressive values with national security-speak, first embrace a couple of core premises:

1. There are a group of fanatic killers who want to kill as many Americans as they can; and,
2. Dead terrorists can't kill Americans.

Internalize these premises. Believe in them. I have little doubt that progressivism can coexist with them; it's just a question of getting over bad universalizations about human goodness and political cause-and-effect that make one uncomfortable with the notion of killing bad guys. Even if you don't buy Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political, they -- in their own way -- do, which makes our debating the point rather a waste of time.

Is killing sufficient to solving the world's problems or making America secure? Hell no; which is when all those other bullet points and Top 10 lists come in to the picture. But it's necessary, and a damn fine place to start in communicating where you're coming from. In the end, the objective is annihilating the enemy; one way is by annihilating their existence, the other is by annihilating the relevance -- or salience -- of their religio-political agenda. These are not mutually exclusive.

In a response to Nossel, Michael Signer is starting to get at some of these issues. His post focuses on the "passion" of holding principles, rather than just crafting and uttering them. When one habitually retreats to abstract jargon and vague assertions, Americans inevitably begin to question not just your principles, but your attachment to them.

Comments

[Dan Nexon]

A valid point. I think I commented somewhere (America Abroad?) that these principles were somewhat opaque to those who don't know the IR/policy codes.

Nevertheless, I would be cautious about confusing the "think tank" aspect of the enterprise, which is more what TNSP is about, with the public relations side. I'd also caution TNSP to do the same. One has to formulate a new vision, and then sell it. The problems withe Dems is that they often give the appearance of working from the opposite direction, even when they're not.

[bernadene]

take all that you just said, put it in the mind of OBL, and you have made their case, exactly. see, might makes right, any stupid nincomepoop can use, even you. your studidity to your own safety, and own enlightened self interest, is stunning.

[Stygius]

Bernadene: I can't for the life of me translate your comment or its logic into anything comprehensible, although I'm guessing you're trying to hurt my feelings. Consider your message delivered.

Dan: I take your point. Part of it was also a response to CAP's "Integrated Power," which I think is a great piece of work, but also lacks what I'm trying to drive at. What I'm concerned with is that as these progressive national security projects take hold, and everyone is talking to each other and themselves in this vocabularly, it tends to refer to the importance of having and exercising military power, but only in the most abstract, non-specific ways. Not only is that not the way to build credibility with the public, but it is morally deflated as well. While some may object to the tone of triumphalist violence in my post, it at least confronts the problem directly, tangibly, and at least has a reference point for moral debate.

[Sean-Paul]

Styg,

You said: "What I'm concerned with is that as these progressive national security projects take hold, and everyone is talking to each other and themselves in this vocabularly, it tends to refer to the importance of having and exercising military power, but only in the most abstract, non-specific ways."

Ar eyou saying you are concerned that the National Security intellectuals make it more complicated than it needs be?

If so, then I think the solution lay with the pols, or somehwere in the nexus between policy, politics and rhetoric.

What needs to happen, in my opinion, is like you said, the pols need to "Embrace it, and all else will follow."

Once we find a pol who can articulate the message in an easy, palatable way, we will start winning elections.

And I think the polls are starting to listen. Maybe they've just peeped their heads up from under the desk after a bomb scare, but they are peeping up and taking some note. It'll take time and I don't hold much luck in '06. Hopefully, and I pray no tragedy befalls us before 06, it'll be a domestic politics election, that way we can prepare for 08! And then Clark will sweep all before him.

[Stygius]

This sounds somewhat Foucauldian, but with specialized/technical speak it holds -- I think what happens is that we fall into patterns of discourse that both shape content and quite frequently is more concerned with waging internal, dialectical combat, forgetting the reality and practices that it's supposed to be about. Complexity is one problem; oversimplification is another. Overall, it's an issue of imprecision.

Personally, I think it goes to electability -- but more importantly, it goes to electability because it is intuitively right.

But I'm trying to get across the idea that it's okay to talk about these things as a progressive, and accept them. Politics, policy, and living demands it! I think it can coexist with principles -- because some political demands are more important than what we desire, even if we desire a moralistic world organized by desirable principles.

I'm getting kicked out of the library here, so I'm sorry if my words aren't very clear.

[J.]

Stygius - I have to read Suzanne's post (not a huge fan of hers) but I have to say, isn't this message just a little simplistic and too similar to the Repub position? I mean, if we're going to show that we've got a better plan, it ought to be different. I don't believe that all terrorists want to kill Americans just because we've got a good society going here. Nor should killing them all be a desirable goal, because it never ends.

Believe me, I'm not being pacifist, but I would save your bullets for the campaign road. To reassure the intelligent people and overseas watchers, I would state that our goal is to support the international goal of reducing terrorism, and to take those measures required - both diplomatic and military - to "drain the swamp." But to boil it down to "kill em all and let Allah sort them out"? I don't know, it's too Arnold for me.

[Stygius]

I don't believe it is the plan, that's the whole idea.

It's not even a plan. It's merely one facet, a necessary component, of any broader strategy. It is not, of course, sufficient on its own. But who will trust someone to take on indirect, systemic solutions like "draining swamps" and all that unless they know them to be willing to take on direct, particular tasks as well?

All the neat ideas progressives have can coexist with this notion, even though it is aggressive. But that doesn't make you "just like" the Republicans. This idea that one is defined by being the anti-thesis of what you don't like is ultimately self-defeating. I reject the terms of that debate -- to me, all that matters is winning the War on Terrorism. I don't think George Bush has what it takes. So who does?

[Sean-Paul]

J, I too am not a big fan of Suzanne's, not becuase she isn't smart, she is! But because so much of what she says is so condescending. But I think you made my point for me in that Styg's idea is one for the campaign trail, not for policy. And that is OK!

You also said this, "I mean, if we're going to show that we've got a better plan, it ought to be different."

But I don't think we need to "show" a better plan, because we already have one. Ours is superior. We just needs pols that can articulate it better on the campaign trail. I hate that it needs to be this, but it needs to be sound-bite friendly. Yeah, that sucks, but that is the way it works.

Styg, I'll prolly post on this in the next day or so, it's relevant and important.

PS--I like CAP's "Intergrated Power," it's snappy and has some real potential.

[Stygius]

Fair enough. But at some point there is a nexus between policy and politics. I tend to think the more closely they are synthesized, the better. This idea that policy-making is best done in a political vacuum can lead to some serious, and unnecessary dissonance.

[Bill C]

In the spirit of "kill a commie for mommie", I've coined the phrase "kill a jihadi for daddy".

It stretches a little for the rhyme, but I think it works.

[Eaglespeak]

Styg:

Way to boil it down and leave off the sugar coating.

However, such plain speaking is "too simplistic" and "too Republican" (bwahaha!)- and could result in "progressive" canididates actually making sense. So I must discourage you from pushing this idea any further...

[Eaglespeak]

Whoops! I meant "candidates" (preview is my friend).

[James]

Ok, in my simplistic way of looking at things I think I can condense this down to something I can get my head around:

If you screw with us we're coming after you, and doing so is not only the right thing to do it's morally defensible.

Now if my interpretation of the crux of things falls basically down to that, I'm in total agreement. The problem with the current administration's way of going about this is how stupidly its gone about executing it.

When we diverted significant assets into Iraq and allowed al Qaeda to romp through the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan we sent the wrong message. We weren't focused on the ostensible threat, we weren't going after the terrorists who had indeed killed Americans so that they couldn't kill more Americans, we didn't have a lot of dead terrorists to show for our efforts, especially the main ones we wanted, and we've bogged ourselves down in a mess over scooping people out of a country whose government we supported before it got dumb with bin Laden. Instead we've incurred a $200 billion plus liability, nearly 1700 dead Americans and thousands more wounded, and an outcome we can't possibly foretell at this point, and in the end, for all the human and fiscal capital we've invested, we can quite possibly find ourselves having to live with a new Iraq that can just as likely be something we don't like than one that we do.

The problem with having the big guns and the ability to use them is ensuring you use them wisely and appropriately, and in my view, at this point, we've failed at this. So kickin' ass my well be an appropriate national policy, but not when it's the wrong ass or the easier temporary "feel good" ass. I believe we've yet a lot to learn before we can be quite as surgical, reasonable, and justified about how we go about taking care of terrorists, who rightly should be dead, as many of us like to think we currently are.

[slultlazy]

It is a member of the site.
[url=http://nemesto.imess.net/kar26120721.htm]Best Links[/url]

[bloonnar]

Your site has very much liked me. I shall necessarily tell about him to the friends.
http://victorgrundy.fatfreehost.com/jewelry8917.html> jewelry

[Speerevot]

Thanks for the interesting and informative site. That’s definitely what I’ve been looking for.
my http://rickeylyons.12gbfree.com/jewelry3534.html> jewelry siteslisst