Step Up, Hopester! Tell Us Why We Aren't Safer & Tell Us What We Need To Do!

To commemorate 9/11, The Hopester should speak about national security when we are no safer today than we were on September 11, 2001. This is not just the opinion of this blogger. No less than the 9/11 Commission, now reconstituted within The Partnership For A Secure America, has given the government of the United States of America an overall grade of C in the "war" on terrorism. A grade of C is a badge of honor to a smartass frat-boy like the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. At the end of 7 years, we are no safer than we were when the planes were flown into their targets (with one exception). The time to talk about national security is NOW. Let the Dumbos babble about lipstick on pigs. They slept (or read My Pet Goat and then sat on a stool looking stupid) while the terrorists struck. Speak to the nation about national security, Hopester! If this (fair & balanced) patriotism, so be it.

Note: the hypertext drill is the same; click on the bracketed numbers to move through the text.

[1] Phillip Bobbitt and John C. Danforth ask a dozen tough questions.
[2] Clark Kent Ervin asks seven (7) additional questions.

[x NY Fishwrap]

[1]
Questions Of Security
By Phillip Bobbitt and John C. Danforth

John McCain and Barack Obama are two of the most remarkable Americans to enter public life. Both men are extraordinarily capable and their campaigns — which began against great odds — reflect that fact. And yet with respect to national security, neither campaign has articulated the fundamental points of view that will allow people to make an informed choice in November.

Time is running out. Without understanding how these two leaders approach and analyze problems, without having a clear sense of their differentiated approaches, we will be mired in the ephemera of polls, horse race journalism and the petty exchange of complaints arising from alleged missteps.

Here, then, on the anniversary of 9/11, a day when both candidates have chosen to put politics aside and appear together at ground zero, are a dozen questions we would like to see them address. We know both candidates differ on Iraq and agree on closing the Guantánamo prison camp. We also know that both are for change, that they are patriotic and that they are cautious. But we hope they will not be too cautious to give us clear answers, even when these might alienate some voters. It is our hope that these answers will be published on this page.

1. Afghan officials have charged that some elements of the Pakistani government are seeking to undermine their country by giving sanctuary to Taliban and Qaeda groups that cross the border to attack Afghanistan. Would you launch large-scale armed attacks against terrorists in Pakistan if the new government there is unwilling — or unable — to suppress these groups and refuses to give United States forces permission to act? Or are you willing to put the Afghan regime at risk in order to play for time in Pakistan, hoping that a more successful government will emerge in Islamabad, and fearing that any attempt to use force there will result in a nuclear-armed anti-Western state?

2. For some years now, the world has watched while ethnic cleansing — even genocide — has gripped Darfur. Are you prepared to announce the rules for American intervention for humanitarian purposes and, if so, what would those rules be? Would you be willing to organize a coalition of states to intervene? Or should the United States defer to the United Nations or regional organizations — even when they are deadlocked and unable to act?

3. It has been more than five years since the United States-led coalition removed Saddam Hussein from power. How long should American troops remain in Iraq if American commanders on the ground state that withdrawal would lead to chaos? That is, should the United States withdraw according to a predetermined timetable, even if the consequences appear dire for Iraq? Or should troops remain indefinitely until their withdrawal can be assured to leave behind a stable Iraq?

4. Would you authorize the use of force by the United States — or collaborate with Israel — to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons if it appears that diplomatic efforts are failing to bring about substantial progress in this regard? If not, what further incentives would you offer Iran to end its nuclear programs? For example, would you be willing to press Israel to do away with its own nuclear weapons as part of a regionwide de-nuclearization? What incentives would you be prepared to offer Israel to desist from a pre-emptive attack? Would you be willing, for instance, to give Israel a place under the United States nuclear umbrella?

5. The Supreme Court recently held that prisoners taken in the war against terror are entitled to habeas corpus review in the federal courts. Is it sensible to speak of a “war” on terror, or is this a struggle that should be principally handled by law enforcement? Should suspected terrorists be given the same protections as ordinary criminals — like the right to confront their accusers and the right not to be tried by illegally obtained evidence? Or should there be special rules for the trials of terror suspects, or even a special court that would hold secret trials?

6. In light of United Nations Security Council inaction in Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and elsewhere, critics have said that the United Nations is not an effective instrument for confronting rogue states, terror and genocide. Do you favor expanding NATO, or using it as a model for creating an alliance of democracies? If you do, would such an alliance require unanimity of its members for action? Or, if you oppose creating such a group, how should the United States confront crises when the council is paralyzed?

7. What if anything should the United States do to further trade negotiations after the collapse of the Doha round in Geneva? Should the United States try to revive multilateral talks, and, if so, how? Do you support bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama? Should the United States abrogate Nafta if Canada and Mexico will not revise the agreement to our liking?

8. Russia’s invasion of Georgia followed Georgia’s attack on the separatist region of South Ossetia; it was also an expression of Russian resentment over former Warsaw Pact states becoming members of NATO and hosting proposed American missile defense systems. Would you try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia? If so, how — by offering United States security guarantees to Georgia, expelling Russia from the Group of Eight, withholding membership in the World Trade Organization? Or would you attempt to calm Russian sensibilities by renouncing, at least for the time being, Georgian and Ukrainian candidacies for NATO membership, and putting Polish and Czech missile defense deployments on hold?

9. Both of you have talked about global partnerships to address problems as varied as climate change, weapons proliferation and terror. What specific incentives can you offer potential allies to create such partnerships? Why do you believe these incentives will be more likely to succeed than those offered by the Bush and Clinton administrations?

10. Political instability in the Middle East underscores the need for Western energy security. At the same time, the Group of Eight has set a goal of bringing global carbon dioxide emissions down to half their 1990 level by 2050. Realistically, there is little chance of achieving this target, nor of achieving real energy security, without drastically new technologies. What, if anything, should government do to increase domestic production of oil and gas, to expand the use of nuclear energy and to encourage energy conservation and new technologies? Which technologies do you favor and how should government promote them — or with high oil prices, would you leave this job to the market?

11. Rising food prices and population growth raise the specter of widespread starvation in Africa. The overseas aid budgets of most countries, including the United States, are far below the United Nations Millennium Development Goals’ target of 0.7 percent of gross domestic product. Would you favor greatly increasing this aid to meet those levels or would you, instead, try to wean Africa off direct aid in favor of using these funds to spur investment in the region?

12. What do you see as the principal difference between you and your opponent in your fundamental approach to the national security problems facing the United States?

Choice is at the heart of the American electoral idea. If Americans are given a clear choice — as they were in 1964 and 1980 — they can speak with clarity at the ballot box. If not, the winning candidate will risk inheriting a fragile mandate that will soon erode in the face of the challenges he avoided forthrightly addressing in the campaign. As 9/11 painfully reminds us, these challenges insistently reassert themselves.

[Philip Bobbitt, the author of Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century, is a law professor at Columbia and a fellow at the University of Texas. Bobbitt holds a BA from Princeton, a JD from Yale, and a PhD from Oxford. John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, was the United States ambassador to the United Nations from 2004 to 2005. Danforth graduated from Princeton University and from both the Yale University Law School and the Yale Divinity School.]
__________________________________________________________________
[2]
All Too Quiet On The Homeland Front
By Clark Kent Ervin

IF recent history is any guide — the first World Trade Center bombing a month after Bill Clinton became president; 9/11 itself, in the first year of the Bush administration; the Madrid bombing in 2004 on the eve of a national election in Spain; and the foiled London-Glasgow bomb plot last summer at the start of a new government — President Barack Obama or President John McCain may well be tested by terrorists soon after taking office.

And it is not just historical patterns that suggest that another major attack is likely to be attempted sooner rather than later. Our intelligence agencies tell us that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001. The sanctuary the group found in Afghanistan has been recreated just over the border in Pakistan, and the departure of former Gen. Pervez Musharraf as that country’s president makes it less rather than more likely that the terrorist training camps there will soon be flushed out.

Thanks to the strain that Iraq continues to place on our military, it may not be long before the Taliban reclaims all of Afghanistan. With two bases of operation, Al Qaeda would be even stronger than it was before 9/11. And around the world, the flames of anti-Americanism have rarely burned hotter, creating a geopolitical environment that increases the risk of a terrorist attack here.

The candidates owe it to us to explain — loudly often, and in detail — exactly what they think the federal government has done right and done wrong in the seven years since 9/11 in securing this country against another terrorist attack.

Yet neither candidate has said much, during the long 2008 presidential campaign, about homeland security. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama address the topic to some degree on their Web sites, but they do not discuss it in detail in stump speeches, nor do they tend to bring it up unbidden in town hall meetings or interviews with the news media.

The government’s approach to homeland security needs to be changed drastically if we are to close the gap between how secure we need to be and how secure we really are. Airport screeners still fail undercover tests of their ability to spot concealed weapons. Scanners at seaports are unable to detect the presence of deadly radiation in cargo containers. Here are just a few of the questions that each candidate should answer:

• What sectors and sites remain most vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and in what priority should these vulnerabilities be addressed? Should, for example, all airport workers, and not just crew members, be routinely screened like passengers?

• Once detection technology is improved, should all cargo arriving at seaports be scanned for radiation?

• Is additional spending needed to address any of the nation’s vulnerabilities? How much more, and how should the money be allocated?

• How would you improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence related to homeland security?

• What is the proper balance between security and liberty?

• How, if at all, should the Department of Homeland Security be restructured?

• What background and qualities would you look for in the next secretary of homeland security and, assuming you retain the position, the next White House homeland security adviser?

As Hillary Clinton’s iconic campaign ad underscored, the phone may well ring in the White House early one morning next year, with news of an attack on our soil. Americans want to know that the president who would answer that call has the judgment, expertise and experience to execute an effective response.

We also need a president who will do everything within his power to prevent such an attack. Knowing the answers that Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama would give to questions about homeland security would help voters judge which candidate is best prepared to defend and to deter.

[Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department from 2003 to 2004, is a fellow at the Aspen Institute and the author of Open Target: Where America Is Vulnerable to Attack. Ervin graduated from Harvard College in 1980, and Harvard Law School in 1985, all with honors. Between college and law school, Ervin studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, earning a Masters Degree in 1982.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.