-
“Fediting 101”
June 13, 2013 | 1 comment
-
National Security and the Difficult Debate
June 10, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Just Because I’m Paranoid…
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Mitt Romney’s recent revelation that a nuclear Iran — not Russia — is the United States’ “number one national security threat,” got me thinking…first of all, if the former governor makes it all the way to the Oval Office, his stacking chart of security priorities is in desperate need of a revamp. And secondly, why do we cling, endlessly, to the antiquated notion of threats, as posed by states?
Ages ago, I compiled a list of the top ten state threats to American interests, both at home and abroad. In hindsight, it was a silly, pedantic exercise that ignored a simple reality: states, themselves, no longer pose the primary security threat to this country. Foreign governments will sponsor terror organizations, mobilize militant clients, or project their power through proxies. But focusing our attention squarely on state actors flouts those forces most willing and able to do us harm.
It’s no secret why Romney said what he did. The tough-talking campaign tour hit the road fueled on political diatribe to win Jewish voters in swing states like Florida and secure a Christian evangelical base that remains cool to his candidacy. To his campaign’s credit, once he quit London, Romney said all the right things for all the right people.
As I’ve written before, if we’re being honest, there isn’t much separating Romney’s foreign policy platform from President Obama’s plan-in-action — invectives aimed at Russia and Iran, aside. Over at Real Clear Politics, Calvin Woodward does a nice job breaking down the relevant differences, minute as they may be. But his list speaks to the question I posed from the jump…why stick to states when we’ve got all sorts of new threats to respond to?
For the record, I think we can safely agree that the principal danger facing the United States is radicalized, or militant, Islamic terrorism. Recognizing that’s a terrifically imprecise heading for a vastly divergent security menace, I do digress…
Moving forward in this campaign — in an election year that won’t emphasize foreign policy — I think it’s important that both candidates remember that states’ monopoly on the use of force has been reduced to a well-worn archaism. If I were to re-compile a list of actual security threats to American interests, I’d make a couple adjustments.
Our economic security is constantly threatened by foreign governments and multinationals which infiltrate America’s tech networks to steal trade secrets and erode homegrown comparative advantage. Organizations such as Anonymous and Wikileaks have published vast troves of U.S. diplomatic papers that exposed America’s complicity with corrupt regimes and troubling information about the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. These exposures helped stir the false dawn of Arab Spring that toppled tyrants and fell pharaohs.
But not all threats are quite so ethereal.
Shortly after publication of the 2010 National Security Strategy, President Obama rebuked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her suggestion that the narco-violence had reached a level of “insurgency.” His unwillingness to accept the physical proximity of this increasingly ominous security crisis on our border suggests an inability to compose an immediate, comprehensive plan to avoid the failure of our neighbor and ally to the south. The discussion of Mexico’s security should leave all options on the table lest we wind up with a failed state parading as a narco-republic on our southern border.
Moreover, if the strength of our Union depends upon economic institutions as the “bedrock of sustainable national growth, prosperity and influence,” it seems odd that neither the president nor Romney has seriously emphasized the national security implications of a debt that tops out at $15 trillion.
More to follow on this topic of multivariate security threats that don’t come in “state” shapes and sizes…
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/02/reminding-romney-re-national-s
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- Of Weiner and Women
- A World Turned Right Side Up
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
mike 3/505| 8.2.12 @ 3:16PM
Reid,
You may be correct, but it is too complex/strategic of an issue for "campaigning." "Terrorism," "Cyberthreats," "Multi-Nationals," are all too ephemeral to "sound bite," during a rapid campaign. The best guy Newt Gingrich) to even have a shot at bringing that conversation to the public, was ridiculed for being a "space cadet." The conversation needs to take place, but not during the election.
Regards,
Mike
mike 3/505| 8.2.12 @ 3:16PM
Edit Button Please.
Libertyinfinite| 8.2.12 @ 3:53PM
Romney spends money better than he does anything else. You have to watch him & listen to what he says. He has promised to be lax on our borders.
His plans will only benefit the rich, those making a million dollars or more a year. This trip abroad was too obvious a set up of costume conservatism. Sure, it "fired up the base" but I bet real conservatives are moving further away from Romney.
The thing is no one in America really likes either one of these guys. The left isn't all that crazy about obama either, in case no one has noticed.
No, the things Romney promises to do, like spending on military (a benefit to the companies that supply materials, not a real move towards better defense of this nation), or amnesty, they all cost a boatload of money. & that in itself is a security threat. Romney has not got a clue how to really fix or even help America.
The guy who signed in government take over of health care & gay marriage is the leader of the right now? Really? The right is too scared to make coherent political decisions, is what it appears as, to the real world.
They think that if they put up enough smoke & mirrors, then the people will succumb. How wrong the right is today is a security threat.
The fact that romney will give the win of every fight to the left this time around by being who he is, is a security threat. Neither side has got a clue anymore. & full disclosure, I supported a conservative nominee, Senator Santorum. & advise the Tea Party to rise again.
aware| 8.3.12 @ 5:30AM
I don't understand how you can be so right about Romney and yet supported Santorum, who is a statist with the record to prove it. Not nearly as horrific as Romney I grant you, but he also has an embarrassingly obvious big(make that massive) government record.
Only one candidate had the undying hatred of ALL the Establishment.
Libertyinfinite| 8.3.12 @ 1:01PM
Who, Ron Paul? You are so proud of him that you can't even say his name in public? The guy who is a propagandist & spreads nothing but lies. The guy who is more liberal than obama. O.k. keep drinking the kool aid & good luck with that one.
aware| 8.3.12 @ 1:39PM
I support NO politicians, period. But it is a fact that Paul is hated by the entire Establishment. You ever wonder why?
You keep supporting blatant statists like Scamtorum and keep wondering why the grip gets tighter and tighter no matter how the "election" goes. At least Paul didn't kiss Bush's ass and support every single expansion of the State he proposed, like Scamtorum.
C Bowen | 8.2.12 @ 6:15PM
Romney is running to Obama's Left on Foreign Policy--just come out and say it.
Some serious analysis would include what State Department wants, and like the Department of Defense, the State Department is out-there Left.
Romney is running on State's activist agenda and to Obama's Left on Foreign policy.
We all sort of know why though, right?
Reggie Love| 8.2.12 @ 7:38PM
How the heck is he running to Obama's left?
Libertyinfinite| 8.3.12 @ 12:57PM
He is also planning on offering amnesty with rubio. & his plans for money have been found to only benefit those making a million dollars or more a year. He signed health care & gay marriage as governor too, but the right is too hard up to stop drinking the romney flavored kool-aid.
C Bowen | 8.3.12 @ 8:04PM
Romney wants to encourage more internationalism, working with globalists and radical Muslim proxies to topple regimes that have protected Christians. Clinton bombing Orthodox Serbians to help Muslims in Kosovo, George W. Bush bombing secular Saddam who protected Christians to make it safe for Islam--it should be pretty clear what the internationalist agenda is.
If folks like Mr. Smith would make it a little clearer, perhaps the obvious observations would become more obvious.
aware| 8.2.12 @ 6:55PM
Our economic security is constantly threatened by DOMESTIC governments way more than any foreign governments.
Face it Reid, it's a crappy choice at a crucial time.
Sean| 8.3.12 @ 12:29AM
Radical Islam is way down on my list of major threats to the USA.
1. Number one threat to the citizens of the US is our own government. Out of control spending, regulation and trampling of our rights.
2.Illegal immigration. Illegals have killed more Americans that radical Islam.
3. Leftist control of media and the courts. Who is afraid of Sharia law when we got Justice Ginsburg and her ilk running things?
Occam's Tool| 8.3.12 @ 10:49AM
Sean: wait til you experience Sharia law.
I happen to agree with you on Islamic terrorism and threat. I happen to disagree that turning Israel into a "joint" state, like you recommend, would help at all. I think that is deranged.
Sean| 8.3.12 @ 12:31PM
Good thing I am not endanger of experiencing Sharia law, but I am living under leftist law and I don't like it at all.
aware| 8.3.12 @ 1:51PM
The Muzzies are coming! The Muzzies are coming! You're just lucky Occam didn't accuse you of trying to make his daughter wear a burqa.
Occam's Tool| 8.3.12 @ 10:51AM
Sorry: the second sentence should read "Reid" as opposed to you. Reid wrote an article on a "one state solution" which is an Arabist suggestion. It is, as all Arabist suggestions are, moronic.
Teflon93 | 8.3.12 @ 12:19PM
Why then do terrorist organizations invariably seek harbor among nations friendly to their cause?
It is because they cannot exist without state sponsors. Read Mao's book on guerrilla warfare to know why.