Communitarian Letter #18
In this issue:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Question about nuclear terrorism
Plan Z for Iraq: Straws in the Wind
Terrorists are neither criminals nor soldiers
Democracy cannot lead
The importance of community for seniors
Book Reviews
Meeting Announcements
New Books
FREE copies of Security First
1. Question about nuclear terrorism
How seriously do you take the threat of terrorists employing weapons of mass destruction
that someone slipped them or they acquired in one way or another? Some argue that
nuclear terrorism is the number one danger to our security; that with poorly guarded
tactical nuclear weapons in Russia, the threat of an Islamist takeover of the government
of Pakistan, and dirty bombs made with radioactive material available in many parts of
the world, nuclear terrorism is what we should most concerned with. Others dismiss
these fears as very unlikely. For example, John Mueller, in Overblown: How Politicians
and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them,
argues that not only is the fear of nuclear terrorism exaggerated, but so too is the fear of
an al-Qaeda attack in America.
What say you? Send responses to comnet@gwu.edu. We’ll email the responses—or
excerpts from them—in the following days under the heading feedback.
2. Plan Z for Iraq: Straws in the Wind
Drawing on the works of Leslie Gelb, Senator Joseph Biden and others, we advanced the
idea of community-based security in Iraq. It would entail turning over security in most
parts to local militias rather than vainly trying to either turn them into forces with
national loyalty or killing them off. For the text of Plan Z, go to
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/documents/1035PlanZ.doc. Over the last few weeks several
promising, albeit very limited, developments have occurred which suggest this
community-based approach is workable.
“The U.S. military in Iraq is expanding its efforts to recruit and fund armed Sunni
residents as local protection forces in order to improve security and promote
reconciliation at the neighborhood level. Within the past month, the U.S. military in
charge of day-to-day operations in Iraq ordered subordinate units to step up creation of
the local forces, authorizing commanders to pay the fighters with U.S. emergency fund,
reward payments and other monies.” To continue reading, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702566.html
Since adopting community-based security with local Sunni leaders and groups in the
Babil province, attacks against U.S. and coalition forces have fallen by more than half.
This community-based approach has also been adopted in the Baghdad, Anbar and
Diyala provinces, with sheikhs called “security consultants” and their forces “concerned
citizens.” To read more, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302322.html
The community-based security approach is not without challenge. In Basra, where the
British forces have emphasized their interactions with the community and have sought to
empower local community leaders, insecurity and attacks against British forces have
continued, even in the face of a looming British troop drawdown. To read an assessment
of the situation, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2149638,00.html
3. Terrorists are neither criminals nor soldiers
Text posted on The Huffington Post on August 13, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/terrorists-are-neither-c_b_60193.html:
On July 29, The New York Times published an essay
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/books/review/Powert.html?ex=1187150400&en=2d0c347d4a33d4d8&ei=5070 in its Sunday Book
Review, the first half of which was dedicated to a political tirade. The byline
indicated that the author was a Harvard professor, evoking the image of an
independent scholar residing in the ivory tower of a major academic institution.
There was no hint that this particular professor also functions as a key foreign
policy adviser to a prominent presidential candidate. Nor did the Times indicate
whether the controversial position which the author struck in the essay is hers
alone or is also that of her candidate, for whom she often speaks and writes. The
essay argues that it is both morally wrong and politically dangerous to treat
terrorists as soldiers instead of subjecting them to the criminal justice system.
The Times is the primary newspaper of this country, setting norms for much of the
fourth estate within the United States and beyond. Its credibility is built on
meticulous journalism, as it publishes several corrections of the smallest mistakes
made the day before. It does not hide these corrections; they are typically found
on page A2. The paper has an ombudsperson for its readership. The Times
regularly publishes columns by conservatives despite having an editorial board
that is famously, shall we say, on the progressive side of things. In short, the
Times goes a long way to play fair.
Therefore it was particularly surprising to find that the Sunday Book Review
identified Samantha Power, author of the essay in question, only as a Harvard
professor. I greatly admire Professor Power’s courage and passion. She regularly
risked her life to report directly from the war zone in Bosnia. Her book The
Problem from Hell is a very powerful condemnation of the superpowers that
could have stopped genocides, but chose to ignore them. She is a relentless
champion of human rights from her Harvard perch. However, between 2005 and
2006 she took a year-long leave to work with Senator Obama. Although she has
since returned to Harvard, she continues to serve as a key foreign policy adviser
in his campaign. Just days after the publication of the book review essay, when
Obama’s foreign policy statements came under fire in the aftermath of the
Youtube debate, Power issued an extensive memo to the press defending her
candidate’s call to meet with “evil” heads of states. The readers of her New York
Times essay would not only have benefited from knowing where she is coming
from, but would also be keen to learn whether in this case she was speaking for
herself or, again, for Barack Obama.
The essay suffers from a particular sort of failure which is typical of political
campaigns but which academics usually avoid; namely, the essay reduces the
world into a simple black and white dichotomy. The essay argues, as many others
have, that calling for a ‘war on terrorism’ is a glaring policy error, and that instead
terrorists ought to be viewed as criminals. We are told that a counterterrorism
strategy that treats the terrorists as soldiers (which is implied by the call for a
“war on terrorism”) encourages policies which trample on rights—of terrorists as
well as of many others—while glorifying the terrorists as warriors and also
violating international law. Regular police methods and the courts, Power implies,
are the preferred way to deal with terrorists, a claim echoed by Britain’s new
Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who recently states that “terrorism is not a cause;
it is a crime.”
As I see it, both images—along with the strategies, tactics and laws they invoke—
are misleading. It is best to follow political science in this matter and view
terrorists as a distinct category. (Granted, calling them ‘non state actors’ is a
particularly infelicitous term, too open-ended as well as awkward.) Unlike bona
fide soldiers, terrorists do not wear uniforms indicating which government is
responsible for their acts. And they frequently and easily pass themselves off as
civilians, imposing unique and heavy burdens on those who must fight them. But
it does not follow that terrorists are best treated as criminals.
Typically, criminals do not set out to terrorize a nation, change its policies or
replace its regime. Above all, criminals do not aspire to use weapons of mass
destruction and do not use suicide as a tactic in pursuit of some shared collective
goal. Because the threat posed by terrorists is particularly severe, and because
terrorists -- especially suicide bombers -- cannot be deterred by post hoc
punishments, curbing terrorism requires a different approach than law
enforcement. The first goal in dealing with terrorists must be prevention, not
prosecution after the act has been committed—which is the way society limits
criminality.
Once we get away from merely trying to score debating points and begin to look
for just and effective counterterrorism policies, we find that terrorists are best
treated as a distinct group. They are surely entitled to basic human rights, as all
human beings are. However, we cannot allow them full access to all the evidence
against them, which criminals are entitled to, without creating unacceptable
security risks. (I favor allowing terrorists to choose among lawyers who have
security clearance, allowing these lawyers to see the government’s evidence but
not its sources and methods). Terrorists should not be detained endlessly without
being charged in a court of law, but the government should have a right to hold
them longer than regular criminals, to allow time for finding their partners before
it is disclosed that they have been captured.
One may well differ about these details but agree that it makes little sense to treat
terrorists as either soldiers or criminals. At issue is not a matter of neat
classifications, but ways to maintain the institutions of a free society while
protecting it from devastating terrorist attacks.
For other blog postings, see:
“The Best Way to Cheat, continued”—
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/17/104349/407
“The Best Way to Cheat”— http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/13/133137/545
“Obama, an opportunistic hawk?”— http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitaietzioni/obama-an-opportunistic-h_b_59645.html
“Support the AK”— http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/support-theak_b_57112.html
4. Democracy cannot lead
In many situations, basic security must be established before the complex and slow
process of democracy building has a prayer. This is one of our main concepts and the
central theme of Security First. The vital importance of security seems to hold not only
for Iraq and Afghanistan, but also for the Palestinians. Free parliamentary elections in
2006 resulted in the victory of Hamas candidates, creating a year of political chaos and
conflict, culminating in the seizure of Gaza by Hamas in 2007. This has prompted
Shlomo Avineri, a leading political scientist, to argue that the conflict between
Palestinians cannot be solved with another election, but can only be resolved with a
strong governing authority that can provide security, public services and functioning
institutions. To read “Divide, Yes, but Conquer, Probably Not,” go to
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D14F7385A0C7B8CDDAE0894DF4
04482. (TimesSelect required.)
5. The importance of community for seniors
George and Anne Allen, despite four broken ribs and a fractured spine between them,
want to live out the rest of their lives in the home they have owned for decades. They,
along with many of their neighbors, have combined forces to create their own ‘village,’
making them part of a nationwide movement that aims to make neighborhoods
comfortable places to grow old. To read “To read “A Grass-Roots Effort to Grow Old at
Home,” go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/health/14aging.html
6. Book Reviews
“Given the present debate in the US on withdrawal from Iraq, the deteriorating situation
in Afghanistan and the continuing determination of the Bush administration to foster
democracy in the region, this is an important and timely book.” To continue reading
Ambassador John Bruton’s review of Security First, go to:
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/learning-the-hard-lessons-from-iraq1041934.html
“Amitai Etzioni’s uneven but thoughtful book was clearly written as a policy position for
the 2008 Presidential hopefuls. To his credit, he prescribes a new, forward-looking
American foreign policy for all 18 candidates from both parties. One of Richard Posner’s
top 100 American intellectuals, Mr. Etzioni stresses that he wears neither party’s
ideological cloak, and instead seeks a policy that’s at once moral and practical.” To
continue reading Matthew Cole’s review of Security First, go to:
http://www.observer.com/2007/forget-iran-and-north-korea-worry-instead-about-russiaand-pakistan.
For more on the book go to www.securityfirstbook.com
7. Meeting Announcements
Amitai Etzioni will speak on Security First foreign policy at The RAND Corporation's
Center on Global Risk and Security - August 23 at 10:00AM. The address is 1776 Main
Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401-3208.
At the annual American Political Science Association Conference in Chicago, a panel
will discuss Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. Participants include
Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago), Karen J. Alter (Northwestern University),
Vincent A. Mahler (Loyola University, Chicago), and Peter M. Sanchez (Loyola
University, Chicago). The panel will meet Saturday, September 1st at 2pm. Panels will
be at either the Hyatt Regency Chicago (151 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL) or the
Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers (301 East North Water Street, Chicago, IL). Please
consult the APSA website (http://www.apsa.com/mtgs/program_2007/index.cfm) closer
to the date for details.
8. New Books
The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done
About It. Paul Collier. (Oxford University Press, 2007, 205 pages)
Almost a billion people live in what Collier calls “trapped countries”; states caught by the
traps of civil war, the ‘resource curse,’ landlocked geography, and bad governance, with
most of these people living in sub-Saharan Africa. Collier, a professor of Political
Science at UC Berkeley, argues that the West should no longer throw aid at Africa, as the
persistence of corruption makes that option ineffective, and should instead focus on
encouraging growth. Collier also makes the case for military intervention in failing
states, therefore preventing or stopping civil wars.
To read the Economist’s review of Collier’s book, go to:
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9581576
To read Niall Ferguson’s review in the New York Times Book Review, go to:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E2DB103FF932A35754C0A9619C
8B63
Swords and Ploughshares: Bringing Peace to the 21st Century. Paddy Ashdown.
(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007, 352 pages)
The former proconsul of war-ravaged Bosnia, Lord Ashdown’s latest book dwells on the
ethics and practice of war-ending, peacekeeping, nation-building, state-building and
international intervention, detailing some of his hard-won wisdom from the experience.
For example: Conflicts don’t end when the fighting finishes; Keep order—by martial law
if necessary—otherwise nothing will work; Elections should come once everything is
working, as if they’re held too early, they can spell disaster. To read the Economist’s
review of this work, go to:
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9401614
Security First: A Strategy for Defending America. William Galston and Elaine
Kamarck with Sharon Burke. (The Third Way National Security Project, 2007)
In this new report for the progressive Third Way National Security Project, Galston,
Kamarck and Burke argue that the hope that characterized American foreign policy after
the end of the Cold War was altered by the events of 9/11, and that while the Bush
Doctrine of promoting freedom and democracy through all possible means, including
force, was initially accepted, the American public has since overwhelmingly rejected the
Doctrine. Galston and Kamarck call for abandoning the focus on democratization and
instead making America’s security its first priority. They argue that this is best done
through new international institutions and a foreign policy based not only on power, but
also on principles. To read this report, go to: http://www.third-way.com/products/88
9. FREE copies of Security First
We have a limited number of free copies of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral
Foreign Policy (Yale University Press, 2007). If you would like a copy mailed to you,
please send us an email at comnet@gwu.edu, or send a fax to (202) 994-1606. For more
information about the book, please refer to www.securityfirstbook.com.
Communitarian Letter #18 edited by Elizabeth Scott
The Communitarian Network
2130 H Street Suite 703 N.W
Washington D.C 20052
202-994-4292
comnet@gwu.edu
●●●●●●●●●●●●
We apologize if you have received this letter in error. To be removed from this listserv,
email listserv@hermes.gwu.edu with the message “signoff commir” or reply to this
email with the subject “remove commir.” However, if you find our ideas have merit,
please feel free to post or forward this letter to anyone who might be interested, or send
feedback to comnet@gwu.edu. Many thanks.