Where’s ‘Real Security’?

Where’s ‘Real Security’?

Instead of parroting the Republicans’ “tough” approach to national security, Democratic candidates should distinguish themselves from the Bush Administration by, for starters, setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq.


Despite the change in public attitudes driven by the acceleration of violence and chaos in Iraq, high-ranking Democrats continue to believe that a “tough” approach to national security is their best bet for winning elections. Because of this misconception, their recently released plan for “Real Security” fails to make the decisions needed to produce a smarter, more effective defense policy.

Rather than hedge their bets out of fear of being labeled “soft” on defense, Democrats should distinguish themselves from the Bush Administration by setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. They should also take a broader view of security, one promoting the notion that the government’s job is to protect its citizens from all major threats, whether they emanate from terrorism, epidemics, natural disasters, environmental degradation or entrenched poverty.

Instead, one of the most touted elements of the Democrats’ new plan is their pledge to “eliminate Osama bin Laden [and] destroy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda.”

This hawkish rhetoric has little chance of generating a successful policy. Al Qaeda is a loosely structured “network of networks” that can operate with or without Osama bin Laden. “Destroying” it is the wrong goal. A more realistic objective would be to render Al Qaeda irrelevant by addressing the political, ideological, economic and security concerns that allow it to attract new recruits. To its credit, the Democrats’ Real Security plan makes reference to these root causes of terrorism. But it contradicts itself by suggesting that Al Qaeda can somehow be wiped out as though it were a traditional military adversary.

One positive plank of the Democrats’ security platform is its commitment to lock up or destroy currently unsecured nuclear bomb-making materials by 2010. This approach, which is probably the most effective way to keep terrorist groups from acquiring the ingredients for a nuclear weapon or “dirty bomb,” would require nearly doubling current funding for this purpose, to $3 billion a year. That amounts to less than two weeks of the current cost of the Bush Administration’s war.

Another sound idea is the pledge to push for energy independence by promoting alternative fuels and greater energy efficiency. The stated goal is to limit our dependence on oil from “unstable regions,” but there is no mention of the most important reason to reduce use of fossil fuels–reducing the impact of global climate change. If the Democrats could articulate an energy investment plan that talks about how soon new technologies can make a difference in reducing our dependence on oil, they would be better positioned to underscore the hypocrisy of George W. Bush’s promise to end America’s “addiction” to oil.

The most striking aspect of the Real Security plan is what it leaves out. There is no talk of reducing the US nuclear arsenal. There is no position taken on whether the Democrats should renounce the use of force against North Korea or Iran. There is no suggestion to cut the military budget, which could reach $600 billion this year once the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taken into account. There are tens of billions of dollars’ worth of cold war-era relics in the military budget that have no legitimate strategic purpose and are ripe for elimination.

With the 2006 elections looming, it is unlikely that the Democratic leadership will change its official national security strategy in any significant way. But individual candidates can and should offer more progressive alternatives that can prevent conflicts as well as resolve them.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy