Build Your Own Platform - The War on Terror

(For details on the build your own platform project, please visit my outline in the Boston Tea Party Protests MSN group. And feel free to participate either here or over there.)

As a card carrying Republican, I’d like to see the Republican party do an about face on its approach to the War on Terror. The present overt, “we’re going to kick your ass” approach costs too many American lives, distances many of our allies from us, and foments more distrust and hatred among nations that already didn’t like us much.

There is no War on Terror any more than there ever was or is a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Such campaigns are destined to fail because the scope is much too broad.

The first victim in this about face on the War on Terrorism would be the Department of Homeland Security. Their three primary missions are prevent terrorism within the US, reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and “minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters”.

I quoted the last part directly from the Homeland Security’s website because it struck me funny. “Potential attacks” don’t cause any damage. Real attacks do. The Department’s own mission statement clearly illustrates its ineffectiveness not to mention its redundancy. Instead of creating a new department to handle what existing departments are supposed to be doing, we should be tightening, redefining, and coordinating the efforts of existing agencies to accomplish the same objectives. Preventing attacks, reducing our vulnerability, and minimizing damage is already the responsibility of the FBI, CIA, federal and state law enforcement, the military, and FEMA. More bureaucracy solves nothing.

The Patriot Act needs to be scrapped, or at least parts of it. The sections that help redefine the roles of our existing agencies to better coordinate intelligence sharing and communication should stay. Everything else should go.

Tightening our borders shouldn’t be physical barriers designed to keep Mexicans out because they don’t speak English. It should be more coordination between our law enforcement agencies and the Mexican and Canadian law enforcement agencies to better identify potential terrorist threats entering or exiting all three countries. Illegal immigration is another issue and shouldn’t be confused with our efforts against terrorism.

Identifying the terrorists’ funding sources should continue and the sources interrupted. Countries openly harboring terrorists or turning a blind eye to the activities within their border should be dealt with diplomatically. Effort should be made for them to take an active role in fighting terrorists within their borders. Isolating uncooperative nations from the world community both diplomatically and economically should be our first course of action. Our most effective tool to make this approach work effectively would be winning the trust and support of our allies. If we make the issue as important to them as we feel it is to us and make them the key players in the diplomatic battle, the fight is half over.

No country has a need for WMD. However, it is near impossible to convince any nation to scrap their WMD or shelve efforts to develop them as long as the major world powers have their own stockpiles. A moratorium should be placed on the development of any new weapons or increases in current stockpiles. For nations that currently have stockpiles, a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them should be in place and clearly promoted. Such a plan may reduce the incentive for other countries to develop their own weapons.

Military action against nations that harbor or aid terrorists or is perceived as a possible threat against the US or her allies should be a very last resort move only. Pre-emptive strikes against nations should never be an option. One thing we have that a terrorist nation doesn’t have is time and lots of it. With worldwide cooperation, sanctions can be at least somewhat effective and a rogue nation leashed to its localized influence. Only when its activities reach beyond its borders despite all diplomatic attempts and sanctions against it should military force be considered and only with a truly international coalition. The one exception – a direct attack on the US. Just as we would support one of our allies if it were attacked, we should expect support from our allies if we are attacked, but we don’t need their permission to protect ourselves.

Lastly, we must lead the way in preventing new terrorist-friendly countries from developing. An adopt-a-nation program needs to be developed. The major industrialized nations should be encouraged to adopt a poorer, developing nation and help them become a more stable, richer nation. The goals of the adopt-a-nation program would be to help nations fight poverty and raise the standard of living of the average citizen. This would be accomplished by bringing new agricultural techniques to the country, helping to build basic civil engineering projects like dams to provide irrigation and clean drinking water, building new schools, providing basic medical care and helping to build new hospitals and training new doctors and nurses, and aiding the country in developing the necessary economic infrastructures to ensure its own self-reliance.

Because of the potential for abuse and fraud by both the sponsoring nation and the leaders of the nation being helped, the world community should closely monitor the program, perhaps through the UN. Just like corporations that have all sorts of internal controls and audits to ensure their legit operation, the adopt-a-nation program could develop similar controls. For example, let’s say country A adopts country B. Both countries make quarterly reports to the UN detailing the money spent, projects built, and programs instituted. The reports can be reviewed by the other nations and other nations could step in and perform independent audits and make suggestions. If enough nations think there is something seriously going wrong with the program, they could vote to end the sponsorship by country A.

In effect, the adopt-a-nation program isn’t much different than what nations currently do on their own accord. The only difference is that there would now be a formalized program and countries that normally get neglected may actually get the help they need and, some day, may be in a position to join the world stage and take a bow.