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…
