Democrats need to change the game if they hope to win the game: Rethinking the war on terror

In a recent speech, Hilary Clinton was arguing that she would be the better democratic nominee to defeat John McCain because of her years of experience of being tough on terrorists, no slouch about going to war, and willing to do whatever was necessary to keep our country safe. In other words, we should vote for her because she is more of a hawk than Obama. I find this highly problematic not only because it is completely buying into the Republican notion of foreign policy that centers around the politics of fear, imperial presidency, and utter disregard for the rule of law, but also because it reflects the absolute woeful lack of any kind of alternative. Other than Iraq, there is not much difference between the Democrats and Republicans in regards to foreign policy. I have yet to hear any substantive difference in regards to Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, torture, military tribunals, wiretapping, and FISA. As a matter of fact, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee just signed off on excusing waterboarding. By the way, he is a Democrat.

Foreign policy needs to be put front and center when it comes to the presidential elections and it is important that an alternative formulation be put out there now. If we don’t, then we are left with figuring out who can maintain the politics of fear the longest, who can be the most hawkish, and who is willing to sacrifice the most for the sake of ‘security’. If we don’t formulate a plan, there is no way to keep Hilary and/or Barack accountable, elect-able, and credible. We can’t beat the Republicans at their own game, and we shouldn’t want to beat them at their own game. And the time is ripe for a change. Between Bush’s historically low approval ratings and widespread dissatisfaction with the war, now is the time.

It is time to change up the political calculus that has emerged from this war on terror. The following is a starting off point. It is not ideal necessarily. I went for something that I think is an elect-able strategy.

1) Security can no longer be the trump card for torture. Yes, protecting our borders and keeping Americans safe are important, but it does not justify torture. We must eliminate the grey here. There are pragmatic reasons to eliminate torture, but I think it is important to center on the fact that torture is morally reprehensible and no ticking time bomb scenario can justify torturing a suspect. At some point, we must take a stand; we must insist that there is a line that we just will not cross. This should be an easy sell. We can evoke the nostalgic, patriotic image of America, as the beacon of hope, freedom and democracy. If we truly are the greatest nation of the world and we truly think every other country should emulate us, then let’s start acting like it. It is not enough to say we stand up for America. America needs to stand for something if we are to stand up for it.

2) Close Guantanamo Bay. It’s been 6 years and folks still haven’t gotten a trial. I say we give everybody left a trial. We can reassure the hawks by telling them that those they deem dangerous that were nevertheless found not-guilty will be placed under surveillance. (Let me reiterate: I am going for an elect-able foreign policy, not my ideal foreign policy) This is also an easy sell. One of the reasons why people hate us is because of Guantanamo Bay. At this point, Guantanamo Bay is hurting more than helping the war on terror. The international disgust that Guantanamo Bay has hit a tipping point and it is probably breeding more terrorists abroad than preventing terrorist attacks.

3) Beef up Congressional oversight. As the Bush administration is so keen on repeating, the war on terror involves a lot of intelligence gathering, confidentiality and planning. All of this is not conducive to transparency, publicity and democracy. But the war on terror is (supposedly) of paramount importance that demands our attention. Respecting for the moment the paramount importance of it, I think it is still possible to involve more people in the decision-making process. By people, I mean elected officials that serve in key Congressional committees. So far, the war on terror has been a one-man show. It needs to be opened up. Issues as important as these needs to be more inclusive, more deliberative, and more coordinated. If the war on terror calls for sacrificing civil liberties, spending trillions of dollars, and overhauling the judiciary branch, I don’t think it is too much to ask for some more people around the table. This is a harder sell, if only because it is not so clear cut. But I think the key here is coordination. Coordination is the key to waging a smart, effective war on terror. Coordination across branches, coordination across intelligence agencies, coordination across democracy. The more coordination, the more effective. The notion that threats alone justify a complete dismantling of government is ludicrous. We have to increase the bar of what constitutes a credible threat. The more credible the threat, the more legitimacy the government garners. And I think the only way credibility can be garnered is by getting buy-in from all the different branches, agencies, and departments. The more in-sync the government is, the more the public is assured that the actions taken are the necessary one. The first step in making the government more in-sync is beefing up congressional oversight. This is a baby step that respects the confidentiality that is (supposedly) needed to fight the war on terror, but an important step nonetheless.

Now some might argue that I make way too many accommodations to the basic premises of the war on terror. I don’t think so. The accommodations I have made are for pragmatic reasons. I think these three things are viable platforms by which the Democratic nominee can stand on and still win. But the key with all three points is that they are starting off points for more radical alternatives. All three points try and subvert the basic premises of the war on terror by succumbing the war on terror to its own logic. The first point is a subtle critique of the supremacy of security. What is there to secure if we don’t stand for anything? The second point is questioning the strategy of the war on terror. Locking people up indefinitely might actually be making the problem worse than better. The third point is questioning the long-term feasibility of the war on terror. The short-term strategy of the bush administration might actually be hindering longer term strategy for the war on terror. Not only are these elect-able goals, but I see them as possibly leading to even more radical possibilities. So it is a win-win. And again, if the Democratic candidate wants to beat John McCain, then they can’t try and beat him at his own game. They need to change the game, if they hope to win the game.