YearlyKos - Progressive Foreign Policy: Its Importance for Elections and Activism

I started this morning at a panel on Progressives and the
military–moderated by Wesley Clark, and again was impressed how much
national security is on the agenda at this conference. I was one of four
speakers on a panel in the afternoon entitled Progressive Foreign Policy:
Its Importance for Elections and Activism. It gave me a chance to put
forward some of the language we have been experimenting with at the White
House Project. Below I will excerpt parts of my talk:

I believe that progressives, if we act intentionally and soon, will be the
dominant influence this century for a new understanding of American foreign
policy and national security. I say foreign policy and national security
together because I believe that foreign policy is national security–for far
too long the two have been segregated. While this might have made sense
during the Cold War, it no longer does today….and it has huge
implications, from money to manpower to allowing a runaway Executive Branch
to take our country into an ill considered war.

Changing the language of national security is one of the important
contributions that we can make. This is the first step in telling a new
American story about who we are in the world and where we are going.

We are at a crossroads today. How we understand and implement our national
security policies will determine whether the US decides to seek security
primarily through coercion and force, or through legitimacy. In other words,
through leading by example.

We’re living in a world where traditional national concerns remain
important, but where the safety of individuals and peoples, often called
Human Security, is equally so. A strong Army is important, but so is
education for girls. We must insist that both state and individual needs
are complimentary and inseparable, and not pose them as tradeoffs. That’s
one thing we can each do today: resist the language of easy tradeoff–
hawks versus doves, strong versus weak, guns versus butter. There are
plenty of legitimate tradeoffs within national security, and if you
acknowledge their legitimate fears, Americans are willing to hear that
levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis deserve consideration as
critical infrastructure…part of our nation’s security.

I lived in Berlin in 1989 during the twilight of the Cold War and saw in
person the end of an era. Sixteen years later, I am shocked at how little
this momentous occasion impacted American national security.

Progressive change has come in unsuspecting places. When I moved to DC to
work on Capitol Hill (I was asked to come to work in Congress to convene a
foreign policy study group after Newt Gingrich had dismantled the Arms
Control and Foreign Policy Caucus) I was amazed that the most progressive
organization I found working on conflict resolution was the US Army. One
remark that I still hear from my friends in uniform is how the US, since the
end of the Cold War, lacks a Grand Strategy. This is another term for a
story, a big story, if you will. About the future of our nation. In the
military the Grand Strategy is like the pole star, it provides guidance for
everything else that happens. Strategy, operations and tactics. During the
Cold War the big story was containment of the Soviet Union, an era
characterized by continual military preparedness. After 1991, we experienced
many ad-hoc military engagements, all of which required our military to
undertake social and political tasks. These became like disjointed chapters
in a book that never added up to a comprehensive narrative that
underscored the need to do things differently.

To this day, we are still fighting and funding the Cold War. We apply
military tools to political problems. We justify outrageous budgets (54% of
the discretionary budget this year) to military security. And Congress
still today has not had a comprehensive discussion about the need from top
to bottom change.

I sat in hearings in the 1990s and watched Generals like Wesley Clark talk
about peace operations at the House Armed Services Committee. He spoke of
the need for skills like knowledge of culture, history, language and
politics were vital for soldiers. Today we’re hearing the second echo of
these stories. In Iraq, when every General that testifies before Congress
claims that this fight has no military solution. That the dilemma we face
is a political challenge. That the use of force has become counterproductive
at every level–from the strategy of pre-emptive war to the tactic of
kicking down doors and terrorizing families.

This takes me back to my original point, about seeking legitimacy. We’ve
heard a lot over the past few years about the hearts and minds
campaign. Well, this is a legitimacy campaign. Counter-insurgency doctrine
is built on this notion as well. Protecting civilians, preventing violence
through economic development. In fact, every military professional I know
insists on the value of preventive action. This is the realm of foreign
policy. Which is why I believe that today more than ever, foreign policy is
national security. We must not be afraid to call it that. And, to the
opposite of the Cold War, its main ingredients are not weapons and top down
communiques. Leading by example happens at every level.