A Classical Liberal Approach to “National Security”
It seems that after the September 11th terrorist attack, both right and left embraced an unthinking “pro-national security” position in almost every area relating to defense spending, intelligence gathering and foreign military interventionism. Those who in either party advocated a more measured and restrained approach were often labeled as ‘soft’ on terrorism or too naïve in light of the dangers we face in the world today.
Most of the Republican Party has seen a strong national defense a key component of their national policy prescriptions since at least Reagan, so for them to favor ‘hawkish’ policies is no surprise. Yet the Democrats, again going back to Reagan, have offered very little in the way of resistance to increased militarism and the erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism.
They supported the first Gulf-War, Clinton’s interventions in the Balkans, his airstrikes against Iraq and stated policy of regime change against Saddam. After September 11th, and despite constant criticisms of Bush since his election in 2000, the Democrats, especially main-line party leaders, were fully on board the now disastrous policy of regime change followed by nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq. When Obama was elected in 2008, they failed to hold him accountable for promises to reign in executive power and military adventurism, allowing him to continue and even expand the Bush era spying of Americans as well as intervene in Libya without congressional authorization.
In effect, between Republicans and Democrats, America seems condemned to exhaust itself in endless wars and interventions, all while a shadow national security apparatus rises to ever more power and influence in Washington. Further, as the incomes of middle class Americans have remained stagnant over the past two decades and more, we have spent trillions on wars and defense with little to show for it and a situation in the Middle-East that only seems to be getting worse. We have gone from standing triumphant over the ruins of an ‘Evil Empire’ 1989, to presiding over the collapse of an entire region of the world under the barbaric influence of a modern day death cult and its many variants. We see our influence waning all over the world and the trust even allies once had in us now shifted to ambitious competitors such as China.
Too many in the Republican party would have us believe this loss of influence and loss of control is because of the ‘weakness’ of the Democrats, especially Obama and what is often labeled a ‘conciliatory’ foreign policy. Yet this is the same President who ordered drone strikes against an American citizen, who sent Navy Seals to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, and who has engaged in almost continual warfare in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now Iraq again since he has been in power. How is this ‘weakness’ and what would ‘strength’ mean if someone like Marco Rubio becomes President in 2016? It seems they want more defense spending, more foreign intervention and regime change, more nation building and more control over what we say and do here at home, all in the name of national security and strength. Only Rand Paul seems to be standing agains such ideas. In any case, we must ask what exactly does national security mean, and what exactly gives us strength as a nation in our dealings with the rest of the world?
Those in Washington, be they politicians, generals or bureaucrats, would have us believe our strength comes from blinding funding the Department of Defense, or allowing intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement almost free reign to do what they think is necessary to stop terrorism. The contemporary idea of National Security is tied to this in a fundamental way, because it assumes our security is only as good as the amount of money we spend on defense and the power we give those charged with defending us. Clearly an underfunded military or intelligence agency cannot do its job, but it does not follow that the more money we spend on defense or the more power handed over to various agencies, the more secure we will be. Interestingly, the Republicans understand that policy results are not necessarily tied to money spent when it comes to things like healthcare and education, but they refuse to see this when it comes to defense. Moreover, while they would be aghast at giving the Department of Education more power and control over the nation’s education system, they do not hesitate to give more power and control to the DOD, CIA and FBI.
For the classical liberal, regardless of political affiliation, national security is created when the government is able to adequately protect our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It can never truly guarantee these things in all places and at all times, for we may be silenced by a thug, have our property stolen by a thief, or be killed by a murderer. To expect a total security in that sense is to be for a totalitarian government that has the power to control and regulate every aspect of our lives and which in the foreign policy context, has the power to strike down any potential threat at any time and for any reason, no matter how remote the threat may be to actually harming us here at home. The problem is that even if we were to favor such a government, it could not hope to actually achieve its goals because power can never be sufficiently marshaled so as to secure a nation in a complete sense. In fact, the more that sort of government tries to control and pre-emptively eliminate threats, the more pushback it will receive, both domestically and abroad, so that eventually it will be overwhelmed trying to put out fires everywhere and collapse under the weight of its unending responsibility.
Therefore, no government can ever reasonably be expected to protect its citizens at all times or even to create favorable conditions around the world at all times. The classical liberal approach in this case is as always one of restraint and balance, with a firm recognition of what is possible and what is not. It would seek a strong military to deter agression, but not so strong that it becomes and end unto itself. It would give domestic agencies the powers they need to find and arrest evil dooers, but firmly within constitutional bounds and never so much that they threaten the liberty of the citizenry as a whole. Such an approach was once the cornerstone of the Republican Party, who was often quite happy to fight against dangerous foreign adventurism and giving too much power to government, regardless of its goals or intentions.
Further, America needs a national security approach that understands the finite and limited capability of a nation’s power and wealth. Even the United States, one of the most successful and powerful nations to ever exist on this earth, is still quite limited in what its government can do. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan alone, not to mention Vietnam, should teach us that. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we were founded almost in total opposition to notions of empire or even of standing armies, let alone a massively bloated Department of Defense or NSA and CIA.
The founders were quite fearful of any kind of permanent national security establishment, both due to the bankrupting effects of foreign interventionism, but also because of the threat to liberty here at home. They were aware of centuries of kings in England and the rest of Europe, where vain dreams of glory on the battlefield or great wealth obtained from foreign lands ended up squandering the hard work and resources of their subjects. Where failed foreign war after failed foreign war led to severe taxation, repression and general misery for the nations these kings were supposed to serve and protect. That’s why they rejected an unchecked executive, standing armies, and vested war-making powers in the congress. They understood human nature and the seduction of power and they created systems to control and temper those dark forces for the benefit of all the citizenry.
The classical liberal should recognize that human nature has not changed in these last centuries and will not change in the ones to come. Americans wishing to safeguard their rights and prosperity, while promoting a true national security, should reject the totalistic concept presented to them by current political elites.
