Don't worry, it's always been like this

Terrorism and non-state actors are the biggest threat to world security today. The state system is in decline. Everything as we know it is changing irrevocably, and probably for the worse.

Such is the typical line of pessimist thinkers on today's international scene, and probably one this blog's writings strays into frequently. Critically, these trends point to a revolution in international affairs and the state system in particular. P. Michael Phillips, an Army liaison to the Pakistani armed forces, begs to differ. In "Deconstructing our Dark Age Future," he argues that yes, terrorism, mercenaries, and other non-state groups are problems and sovereignty is not so universally strong as we might prefer - but these are the same problems we've been dealing with all along.

The "Westphalian system" - a term theorists and use to describe an international system consists of sovereign, legally equal states whose internal affairs are not subject to intervention from others - is really a model, a way the world could work and the way we would like it to. In fact, many states are not absolutely sovereign, exercising supreme authority in their territory (Somalia), legally equal (Iraq) or immune from external intervention (Georgia). Alarmists assert these trends are dismantling our current system. Phillips instead shows how these problems have been endemic to the state system since Westphalia, and instead of overreacting to insoluble flaws to our model, we should change our model and our strategy accordingly. The article is well worth the read and only 17 pages.

I am inclined to agree with Phillips for the most part. Placing the Peace of Westphalia as the beginning of the state system overstates the importance of international law at the expense of power (Are not Thucydides and Machiavelli relevant today?), providing historical legitimacy for the expansion of international law's power, culminating in the League of Nations and UN. Unequal sovereignty and international interventions did not stop with Westphalia and have been part of the international system up until today.

However, I do think that the role of state-sponsorship in terrorism is more ambiguous than the article acknowledges. Like terrorism and "hostile non-state actors" in general, terrorism without state sponsorship has been with us for a long time too. Irish terrorist groups often collected money from diaspora, in the manner al Qaeda collects money from donors in Saudi Arabia. Many insurgencies and terrorist groups have local goals and do not attempt attacks on a Far Enemy. Over-attributing terrorism to state sponsorship has already lead to erroneous ideas about foreign policy (the supposed al Qaeda-Iraq link) and may still lead to overly bellicose responses in the future (Iran).

Sovereignty, like the Westphalian model, is "true" only insofar as they are supported by power. The power of the United States, perhaps, is in relative decline, and thus our ability to check breaches of sovereignty is too. But we have worked against sovereignty as often as we have tried to support it. We too use foreign intervention and take advantage of militia groups, like the Sons of Iraq. It is likely we will continue to undermine sovereignty in the future, as all strong (and truly sovereign) states can and sometimes must do. While we may not be entering a Dark Age, there are still plenty of questions about sovereignty, terrorism, and the role of the state left to answer. Just because answering them might change our preconceptions about the world, though, does not mean they change how the world itself works.

A skeptic at the National Mall

I will admit it: my political affinity for Barack Obama has never been entirely consistent. But I did end up voting for him, and while it was incredibly moving to see him sworn in today, I cannot help but think that this day should be as much clarity and recognition of the difficulties that lay ahead as it is celebration. Election night's spontaneity was the best place for genuine, heartfelt happiness. We have known Obama would be President since November. Today should not be considered the start of a honeymoon, but of the real difficulties and challenges that come with actually being President.

To recap: I preferred the benediction to the invocation. Lowery was inclusive, genuine, and good-natured. Warren, on the other hand, seemed neither rhetorically impressive or able to reach far beyond his usual target audience. The poem seemed out of place, especially after a well performed speech.

I emphasize well performed. Because as Obama's first speech as President rather than candidate or President-elect, I found myself dwelling as much on the elements that originally left me skeptical of Obama as on those that lead me to eventually vote for him.

Perhaps the most troubling of the themes Obama outlined in his speech is the pervasive notion that the idea of trade-offs in a time of crisis are admissions of defeat rather than acknowledgments of reality (all emphasis in the speech is mine alone).

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

Obama is right that these challenges will be met. But we will not meet them if we refuse to accept that sometimes, our hopes are too high or misplaced. For example, if we hope for peace in the world, it is not reasonable that we attempt to meet the challenge of spreading democracy or fighting terrorism with unrelenting energy. This sort of message, though, is poisonous to the political discourse of the leader even if it is the tool of a wise critic.

We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed.

Now, of course Obama is going to talk about having to make unpleasant decisions. But there is little hint to what they will be. What I found most interesting about this passage however, was how it was essentially John McCain's argument about the fundamentals of our economy being strong repackaged in a much more rhetorically effective manner. Obama's choice of the word capacity is interesting too - especially as we find it is not the lack of capacity, but overcapacity that will bedevil our plans to speed ourselves out of a recession.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

Are our memories short? Obama is careful not to mention what big plans have been so successful - each can just laugh at those misguided cynics and let their minds wander to the good old days, whatever they are for each ideology. But the fact is that cynics do remember the New Deal, and they can recall the disastrous industrial and agricultural policies that delayed recovery, even if the optimists choose only to remember fireside chats, the FDIC, and Social Security. No, the ground has not shifted beneath cynics - it has shifted beneath the idealists. The past two decades have seen their plans torn asunder by historical force and human fallibility. The plans for a free, democratic and peaceful new world order were undermined by the realities of '90s military interventionism and ultimately shattered by 9/11. The plans for then protecting that order with force to defeat terrorism have squashed the dreams of a different sort of idealists. Domestically, anyone angry at the so-called legacy of deregulation or globalization in today's economic crisis should speak to the neoliberal idealists that permeated the Clinton administration (not just the Bush administration). The universal legitimacy of freedom, democracy, capitalism, and the American way of life and the American way of leadership, are no longer unquestionable. That is the change in ground, and it strikes against ambitious American Presidents, not cynics who are skeptical of the utility of American power abroad and planners' power at home. The prosperity of our lives and the legitimacy of our values are not natural facts.

The old arguments are not necessarily those of cynics - the clash between progressive left and "laissez faire" right on economics could have easily been described as idealist as cynical. Perhaps the use of idealist divisions by politicians who know the issues better is cynicism, but that does not make cynicism manifested as criticism of these idealist positions irrelevant too. Obama delineates that there are no false choices to be made between big and small government, market and intervention, liberty and security - all that remains is for the cynics to step aside, for their criticism and reluctance are the sole obstacle between vision and reality.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

While I admire Obama's Niebuhrian rhetoric here, Obama grossly simplifies the nature of alliances and convictions. We sacrifice our convictions to maintain our alliances - the United Nations tolerated the totalitarian USSR to defeat fascism, and dictatorships to defeat communism. Nor do I particularly think Obama should dress up any of our challenges today in the garb of the simplified binary rhetoric of world war or cold war. We do not live in a world where our enemies are on one side and our friends another, nor is there any one single struggle that dominates our agenda that can sift nations in such a manner. We face a complex strategic environment where states that befriend us to solve one issue will stonewall us on others.

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

I do not find the call to embody the nationalist ethos as disturbing as I am sure some on the libertarian right will, not because I support blindly a government that believes the main problem with its citizens is that they are too individualist, but because this sort of rhetoric is endemic to American politics. After reading Bacevich's New American Militarism, too, one might describe wrapping policies and attitudes in battle flags as the sort of militaristic rhetoric a cynical politician might employ. More importantly, though, we see the main obstacle to success is not the failure of our policies or an overconfidence in our capabilities, but the failure of Americans to adequately embrace the attitude of optimism. It seems like a rhetorical fail-safe - criticizing or resisting any aspect of this ambitious transformation sows the seeds for its failures. Obama may support bipartisanship, but in a campaign that was based on hope, his administration will need to fight not necessarily the voices of Republicans but of doubt. It is a tough fight and not one I think is particularly wise. Because ultimately, the voice of cynicism can be a voice of reason, and we should be careful in these four years of presumed change and renewed hope about making an enemy of it.

Piling it On

This is not looking like a good week for optimists.

The NBER threw in the towel and decided that despite the discrepancy between quarterly GDP forecasts and the official definition, the US downturn started in December 2007. Before people start grumbling about the worthless academics taking too long to get in touch with reality, remember when the stimulus package to "real Americans" was supposed to save the economy? Those were the days...

Mankiw and Cowen have good NYT editorials on the economy, in particular on what lessons we should really be taking from the '30s.

But, you shouldn't become too wrapped up in worrying about the economy. According to a bipartisan Congressional task force, you should also be worried about an attack on the US using weapons of mass destruction, the odds of which "are now better than even" between now and 2013. The report points out that a biological attack is more likely than a nuclear one, though nuclear proliferation and the destabilization of Pakistan will make loose nuclear weapons likely threats. It says the next attack on the US will also most likely originate from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

But, before we decide to stick to that promised policy of preemptive intervention to kill terrorists on Pakistani soil, it might be worth considering the precedent we're setting. Because there's a country that already has and it believes it has been once again attacked by terrorists based in Pakistan. Already, India has taken Obama's stance to indicate that it too has the right to kick down doors in the pursuit of justice. As Robert Kaplan, India faces a far graver threat from Islamic terrorism than the United States does.

Yet a policy that allows such attack on India's part could easily end up with a nuclear exchange - note that Pakistan does not have a "no first-use" policy on nuclear arms. While launching nuclear weapons at the United States would be futile, Pakistan does have a credible deterrent against India. This will likely be the second time that the United States must navigate its way through an Indo-Pakistani crisis while fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Calls for Obama to take the "regional approach" and use Kashmir to convince Pakistan to contribute more troops to dealing with Islamic fundamentalists in its own borders and cease support for them outside of them seem more unrealistic than ever. India was hostile to the idea before the attacks, it will not be amenable to them now. The ideal outcome would be greater cooperation between the two powers on counterterrorism, but this is incredibly unlikely. As tensions increase, the US will find that Kashmir negotiations will not be able to proceed without taking sides, and treating Kashmir as a way to deal with American concerns about Afghanistan will inevitably draw the US to a pro-Pakistani line.

India has endured decades of Islamist violence on its own soil. If this sort of thing happened to the United States, we'd have taken up Armitage's cry and bombed them into the stone age. But we cannot expect that they will continue to tolerate such tragedies in a manner conducive to our goals. One way or another, Indians will feel compelled to respond. Relying on the Kashmir approach to win the war on terror is not viable. India, for its part, however, must improve its counterterrorist efforts. Watching Indian footage, city police fired at Kalashnikov-wielding terrorists with ancient bolt-action rifles while the response of more professional units has not impressed American analysts either. While there's obviously a lot more than small arms deficiencies that contributed to the problem, they are symptomatic of a deeper problem. India has invested well in its regular military but left the provincial-level counterterrorist and police forces underfunded. Terrorist attacks are thus more effective against India, and India cannot respond with its regular military without triggering a nuclear crisis. (We, too, struggle with managing the traditional gap between domestic law enforcement and the use of our military abroad. Fortunately we've managed to get by without a nuclear war scare... So far.)

The important thing to remember during all of this is that al Qaeda is hoping we'll overreact. Based on the latest tapes, they're having trouble coming up with an effective message against Obama without any policies of his they can criticize. Al Qaeda needs to provoke Obama into making a big mistake that involves perceived aggression and injustice against Muslims to maintain its base of support. This is something his cabinet should keep in mind as January 20th approaches. While I still take issue with sending Hillary Clinton to Foggy Bottom, I'm far more pleased with Obama's other national security picks. That being said, no matter what happens to the economy, sidelining foreign policy will come with consequences. Obama had really better trust his staff, because he is going to be a busy, busy man.

Going long on dollars and bullets

Recent rumors from Saudi Arabia, while very much overstating the militant-AQ split, are emblematic of the uncomfortable choices Americans may be forced to make in the future. If the United States is concerned about more than a manhunt, then we must accept some previously politically unacceptable things. Unfortunately, those American politicians who might otherwise support "talking to our enemies" are more concerned with the manhunt than winning the war. Going, guns blazing, into "where Osama lives" will, at best, severely undermine our ability to effectively deal with the Pashtun tribes, and at worst, start a war of truly catastrophic proportions.

More bad news for "the long war" - Congress seems set to choose pork-laden weapons systems over manpower expansion. Despite the fact that the military is already overworked and will be facing personnel strains in the near future, there's simply little politico-economic incentive to support military expansion when fighter planes with parts made in 48 out of 50 states might have to be chopped. One of John McCain's few good points during the last debate was that the government has to curtail wasteful defense spending. Given the economic constraints facing the next President (well, let's be frank -Obama), he will need to take on Congress if he wants a military ready for a future of counterinsurgency. Or we can just keep laying down firepower from standoff positions, aircraft and provincial capitals until OBL dies or we get tired of dealing with Afghanistan. I guess the realistic question is - which comes first?

On the subject of catastrophe, the American bailout has not done much to shore up confidence in the European economy. The inability of European governments to effectively cooperate to deal with bank failures that individual member states can no longer handle. As previously noted, European banks are often more ponderous than their American counterparts, at least proportional to the countries they reside in. Like the Georgia crisis, the coming weeks may be another test and indicator of the strength and cohesiveness of the EU.

Of course, things are going pretty poorly in the US too. As for the debate - expectations are low. The economic issues are too complex for reasonable political discourse and perhaps too global for a single government to effectively cope. Anyone who claims the next four years are going to be great is probably lying, at least as far as the economy is concerned. But what we should really all be worried about, with the "American" crisis clearly taking a global dimension, are the consequences of globalization "failing" - if history is any lesson, they will not be easy to ignore.

Global chaos aside, we can at least comfortably predict the outcome of the election (and so I invite the world to prove me wrong).