US Internal Security Redux

In 2008, former KGB intelligence analyst Igor Panarin predicted the United States would collapse in 2010. As a 30 year veteran of the Russian intelligence service, he based his conclusions on three primary factors: mass migration, economic decline and moral degradation. Conducting this type of strategic analysis is not unique to the KGB and it is routinely performed by the US Intelligence Community on foreign governments. Thankfully that prediction has come and gone and fortunately the United States is still in existence.

Background link to Igor Panarin, note he is no trace on Amazon.com for his own books:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin

Based on recent events around the world and within the United States, it may be the opportune time to revisit Pararin’s analysis and examine what the potential is for his predictions to actually come to fruition. There is no greater threat to US national security than the collapse of the constitutional form of government or some form of violent, revolutionary movement within the United States. As Dr. Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University noted:

Quote:

---

The U.S. is even more extreme [than London]. We have a more broken and serious underclass right now -we have a pressure cooker in the United States. It hasn't exploded that way, but it is a real pressure cooker.

---

Quote appears within a transcript:http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1.../fzgps.01.html

This is certainly not a pleasant topic to discuss but the impacts would be far more devastating than an early withdrawal from Afghanistan or a WMD attack on a major city.

As Cynthia Grabo points out in, Anticipating Surprise: Analysis for Strategic Warning, a classic work for intelligence analysts involved in strategic analysis, the first step in conducting strategic analysis of this sort is to develop an indicator list of key factors that would signal the actions an adversary. For this problem there is not a clearly defined adversary so we must build a new conceptual framework. Current counterinsurgency doctrine may provide a useful starting point. The US environment should be examined on three broad factors: economic, governance and internal security. Much has been written recently about the first two factors so I will cover them briefly and provide more detail on the third factor.

Link:http://www.amazon.com/Anticipating-S...3808871&sr=1-1

Economic
The downgrade of US credit by Standard and Poor’s is most likely just the tip of the iceberg. As NY Times economist Paul Krugman recently pointed out, the economy was not as good as reported over the past two years and underemployment is a significant concern. He notes:

Quote:

---

Not only are vast numbers of Americans unemployed or underemployed, for the first time since the Great Depression many American workers are facing the prospect of very-long-term — maybe permanent — unemployment.

---

Appears within an article:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/op...g-worries.html

Large groups of underutilized males lend themselves to flash points of nefarious activity. This factor, along with an unsustainable national debt, stagnant GDP and increased international competition, paint a grim economic picture for the US in the years ahead.

Governance
The rationale for the S&P downgrade was actually not based on the future of the US economy; it was more of a statement on the poor state of our governance. Specifically S&P noted:

Quote:

---

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

---

Congress is often referred to as the “broken branch” and the current debate is whether this session of Congress is the most broken in our nation’s history. Public opinion polls seem to bear this fact out. Political infighting and a focus on reelection efforts seem to trump US national interests. Unfortunately under our two party system and without term limits, few options for realistic governance reform exists.

Internal Security
Emerging concepts of modern warfare: Unconventional Warfare, Hybrid Warfare, and 4GW each include criminal activity as a component of the theory. Does the hubris of the national security community assume these types of warfare cannot or will not be practiced on US soil? Perhaps even conducted by US citizens?

There are several functional areas that I would further develop into to an indicator list intended to warn national leadership of unfavorable conditions regarding US Internal Security:
• Civil Disturbances
• Illegal Immigration
• Transnational Organized Crime
• Radicalization
• US Criminal Justice System

Each of these issues poses a national security concern, yet because of their political sensitivities, they are often ignored by the national security community. Many feel because the US is a democracy these issues will simply resolve themselves through the democratic process. However I have seen no significant effort or political will to address these issues over the past several decades and each appears to get worse with time.

I pose the following questions to members of the council:
• Are these domestic issues national security concerns? (use whatever definition of national security you prefer)
• Will these issues eventually be resolved through the democratic process?
• If the economy continues on its current path, will social unrest/civil disturbance increase? Will they turn more violent?
• Could foreign influence make these domestic issue worse?
• What role does citizenship (not the legal process of becoming a citizen) play in National Security?
• Should the US reshape its national security investment strategy to better address these issues?

Others interested in this field of study should add their questions to the list.

Posted by Jack_Gander,

Quote:

---

In 2008, former KGB intelligence analyst Igor Panarin predicted the United States would collapse in 2010. As a 30 year veteran of the Russian intelligence service, he based his conclusions on three primary factors: mass migration, economic decline and moral degradation. Conducting this type of strategic analysis is not unique to the KGB and it is routinely performed by the US Intelligence Community on foreign governments.

---

I don't lightly dismiss analysis of our country conducted by a foreign intelligence service, because I suspect in some cases they're better equipped to exam the situation objectively and let the facts speak for themselves. The KGB allegedly always predicted who the winner of our presidential elections would be. That wouldn't surprise me if true, because I think we understand enemy networks better than friendly networks. However, I don't see migration as a threat, and moral degradation to a communist is capitalism (the Marxists have been waiting for capitalism to collapse on itself for over a 100 years now, and someday they may be right, but I don't see it in the immediate future), and economic decline can cause a nation to collapse, but normally it just weakens it, and in our case I suspect we'll see a return to economic highs again.

Quote:

---

There is no greater threat to US national security than the collapse of the constitutional form of government or some form of violent, revolutionary movement within the United States. As Dr. Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University noted, “The U.S. is even more extreme [than London]. We have a more broken and serious underclass right now -we have a pressure cooker in the United States. It hasn't exploded that way, but it is a real pressure cooker.” This is certainly not a pleasant topic to discuss but the impacts would be far more devastating than an early withdrawal from Afghanistan or a WMD attack on a major city.

---

Actually an internal revolution within the U.S. may be the only existential threat, and agreed it is a much greater threat than downsizing in Afganistan, but how probable is it? The President described economic disparity has the greatest challenge of our time. I think that is what Dr. Sachs is referring to, and I tend to agree with that assessment. I can't recall any government in recent history (the last 50 years or so) that saw a revolution forming, most states stay in denial as long as possible.

Quote:

---

Congress is often referred to as the “broken branch” and the current debate is whether this session of Congress is the most broken in our nation’s history. Public opinion polls seem to bear this fact out. Political infighting and a focus on reelection efforts seem to trump US national interests. Unfortunately under our two party system and without term limits, few options for realistic governance reform exists.

---

It can be argued that what we're seeing is a functional democracy, but with the exception of threatening to cut DOD spending, how this really impacted our national security? Seems a little like hyperbole to me at this point.

Quote:

---

Emerging concepts of modern warfare: Unconventional Warfare, Hybrid Warfare, and 4GW each include criminal activity as a component of the theory. Does the hubris of the national security community assume these types of warfare cannot or will not be practiced on US soil? Perhaps even conducted by US citizens?

There are several functional areas that I would further develop into to an indicator list intended to warn national leadership of unfavorable conditions regarding US Internal Security:
• Civil Disturbances
• Illegal Immigration
• Transnational Organized Crime
• Radicalization
• US Criminal Justice System

---

Most of these theories have been around at a couple of decades, and UW has been around forever. I agree that many don't consider the possibility of these forms of warfare being waged within the U.S., but I think it is happening all the time at a low level. As for your indicators, I can agree with the first four, but did you intend when you posted the "U.S. Criminal Justice system" as an indicator?

Quote:

---

Each of these issues poses a national security concern, yet because of their political sensitivities, they are often ignored by the national security community. Many feel because the US is a democracy these issues will simply resolve themselves through the democratic process. However I have seen no significant effort or political will to address these issues over the past several decades and each appears to get worse with time.

I pose the following questions to members of the council:
• Are these domestic issues national security concerns? (use whatever definition of national security you prefer)

---

The short answer is no, I think we have internal security concerns, but not from immigration, political polarization, etc.

Quote:

---

• Will these issues eventually be resolved through the democratic process?

---

One would hope so, but we won't know until time passes.

Quote:

---

• If the economy continues on its current path, will social unrest/civil disturbance increase? Will they turn more violent?

---

Maybe, but I suspect the people will just adjust to a lower standard of living, unless their is a perception of unfairness.

Quote:

---

• Could foreign influence make these domestic issue worse?

---

Definitely, a foreign entity could wage political and economic warfare against us, the KGB did. Would it ultimately be successful?

Quote:

---

• What role does citizenship (not the legal process of becoming a citizen) play in National Security?

---

Citizenship is a legal status, and I doubt it contributes much to national security, but a sense of national identity/patriotism is critical.

Quote:

---

• Should the US reshape its national security investment strategy to better address these issues?

---

I think it already has to a large degree, what do you think we're missing?

Hi Jack,

Building off of Bill Moore's comments, have you looked at 19th and 20th century concerns of internal revolution? The debates are fascinating. Sometimes, the facts were skewed to propaganda for political agendas. Sometimes, it was a bit of fear-mongering. Many times, it was simply the fear of change as the US became a melting pot, granted equal rights to everyone, and went through the Industrial Revolution.

Mike

Quote:

---

It can be argued that what we're seeing is a functional democracy, but with the exception of threatening to cut DOD spending, how this really impacted our national security? Seems a little like hyperbole to me at this point.

---

There are several reasons:

1. The federal debt is a national security concern for a variety of reasons. The inability of Congress to slow or eliminate deficit spending should be of great concern.
2. Congress has failed to enact meaningful legislation on a variety on national security issues, immigration reform for example.
3. Of particular interest to COIN practitioners is the issue of corruption. As a friend from the IC told me when he was recently in Afghanistan, he spoke to a Gov’t official regarding corruption. The official laughed in his face and told him to go home and fix the problems on “K Street” first, then come back and lecture them about corruption.
4. As a senior political appointee told me Congress is just doing their job and actually representing their constituents. The gridlock in Congress is just an indicator of how divided our country is on many issues.

Quote:

---

I can agree with the first four, but did you intend when you posted the "U.S. Criminal Justice system" as an indicator?

---

Absolutely!

• The US prison system are the school houses of radicalization. Pick your flavor – white supremacists, Mexican gangs or jihad. This is a global trend.
• Prisons serve as “Centers of Excellence” for transnational crime. Some prisoners leave prison better citizens; some leave better criminals. It is a great place to share best practices, network and improve your tradecraft.
• Prison has become a fact of life or even a badge of honor for certain groups in the US. It has lost its deterrent effect.
• The failed criminal justice system is an underlying cause of social unrest in the US dating back to the post Civil War era.

I would recommend reading Collapse of The American Criminal Justice System by William Stuntz on this topic:http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Ameri...3794152&sr=8-1

Also, Fabius Maxium has a great review on their blog:http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/28991/ and http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/29087/

Quote:

---

Actually an internal revolution within the U.S. may be the only existential threat, and agreed it is a much greater threat than downsizing in Afganistan, but how probable is it?

---

Revolution or Collapse may not be the outcome. However these same factors have limited the US’s ability to project power. Military Power or coercion only goes so far. Is America today the same “Shining City upon a Hill” that Reagan spoke of?

Quote:

---

The short answer is no, I think we have internal security concerns, but not from immigration, political polarization, etc.

---

The USG recently released policy documents to the contrary. Particularly on radicalization and transnational crime (this does not include the War on Drugs).

I think there were many lessons missed in Wisconsin the past summer. Protest against austerity measures shut down the state gov’t. If this had been a prolonged effort and the protesters were without basic needs (9 meals from anarchy) the outcomes may not have been as peaceful. Austerity measures, particularly at the state level, are coming – the “can” can only be kicked so many times.

Political Polarization may be a soft characterization of real social unrest. There were groups of US citizens in the 1960 who advocated violent revolution in the US and wanted to bring the war to US soil. I’m not saying that is in play now, but I’ve read comparisons of the civil disturbances of today to those of 1968. What do you see as a means to calm the growing unrest or tension?

Quote:

---

Definitely, a foreign entity could wage political and economic warfare against us, the KGB did. Would it ultimately be successful?

---

There was some fairly recent research done at Harvard on the “moveon.org” movement a few years ago. I am not commenting on their political views but it was an interesting look how the internet could be used by non-us citizens to influence US politics. Dependence on information systems only makes this vulnerability worse.

Quote:

---

I think it already has to a large degree, what do you think we're missing?

---

DoD, DHS and Federal Law Enforcement budgets increased significantly over the past decade. With efforts underway to reduce federal spending, it’s difficult to predict how the latter two will fare. Another indicator of our national investment is the amount of funds committed to PME. We send thousands of military officers to graduate school each year to counter the external threat (I would say that SWJ reaps the benefits from this investment) yet there is no educational system to support other agencies involved in domestic issues to this degree. I find it interesting that military officers at NORTHCOM are better educated on homeland security affairs than are DHS personnel. For state and local practitioners on the front line everyday, training is a luxury – education is out of the question.

DHS, and Federal, State and local Law enforcement agencies are facing the same "tough choices" as is the DoD. There is no mechanism in place to balance the entire national security portfolio.

I haven’t looked into those areas yet. This line of thinking was not the original intent of my research. Hopefully if the stars align, I’ll be headed back to school this fall and devote more brain cells to this issue.

You are correct, though. These are politically charged issues so it is a challenge to get to the facts. I attempted to pull some information from the GW Cold War Research Center on Soviet Influence in the US counterculture movement and I got zero support. I can't read Russian so I was out of luck.

LINK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

...Of particular interest to COIN practitioners is the issue of corruption. As a friend from the IC told me when he was recently in Afghanistan, he spoke to a Gov’t official regarding corruption. The official laughed in his face and told him to go home and fix the problems on “K Street” first, then come back and lecture them about corruption.

---

Heh. The Afghan had a very good point. See below.

Quote:

---

As a senior political appointee told me Congress is just doing their job and actually representing their constituents. The gridlock in Congress is just an indicator of how divided our country is on many issues.

---

True dat. I'm hitting 80 and that has been true all my life; we're just more vocal about it and we communicate so much more efficiently and rapidly. The 24 hour news cycle has a lot to answer for... :D

Quote:

---

Military Power or coercion only goes so far. Is America today the same “Shining City upon a Hill” that Reagan spoke of?

---

The first item has always been true but many of our not terribly wise Politicians do not know or accept that. Nor did many of their predecessors over the past couple of centuries. That factor and politics in general make Reagan's statement a myth. We've always been just as self focused and devious as any other big power; perhaps even more so than most if not all. Shining city on a hill we are not -- and that's okay, no one else is that either...

Politicians say a lot of stupid stuff that's just plain wrong and they know that when the mouth it. The Afghan had a good point because K Street is simply the current manifestation of a 220 plus year old tradition. Read the tale of the building of the USS Constitution and her sisters. Lobbying and political chicanery are more American than Apple Pie. So are less than wise furrin adventures -- though most of the small one work out well; it's the big ones that we do not do well.

Quote:

---

Austerity measures, particularly at the state level, are coming – the “can” can only be kicked so many times.

---

Probably true and there will be upset. The fascinating thing is that at State level, 'austerity' is required mostly due to excessive Federal expenditure and the Feds oversized take of the tax receipts. Either way, there will be hate and discontent as the current generations inf power and those soon to have power seem rather selfish. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

What do you see as a means to calm the growing unrest or tension?

---

Probably not much that can be done to calm it, it will probably be contained but we will do that rather ineptly -- it's the American way. :D

Quote:

---

DHS, and Federal, State and local Law enforcement agencies are facing the same "tough choices" as is the DoD. There is no mechanism in place to balance the entire national security portfolio.

---

Heh. That, too, is the American way.

The good news is that most people are going to behave reasonably decently and we'll muddle through.

Ken, I must respectfully disagree with you regarding your assessment of the “Shining City on the Hill” quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

That factor and politics in general make Reagan's statement a myth. We've always been just as self focused and devious as any other big power; perhaps even more so than most if not all. Shining city on a hill we are not -- and that's okay, no one else is that either...

---

I have heard several personal accounts, in particular, I was the sponsor for a Latvian Officer attending school in the US in the mid-90s, of the effect of Voice of America during the Cold War. Residents of Soviet controlled areas risked their lives just to listen to the broadcasts. Their vision of America (despite our internal problems) provided them a glimmer of hope in an otherwise dire situation.

You are correct that America has had internal problems throughout our history. No credible literature exists to determine how today’s issues rank against those of our past. However, as you mentioned, our “business” is instantly available to a global audience and that has affected our national interests. Both AQ and China have used our internal problems to advance their “hearts and minds” campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

Their vision of America (despite our internal problems) provided them a glimmer of hope in an otherwise dire situation.

---

Visions are great; Reagan espoused and stated one (Politicians are prone to that flaw...) -- my point was and is that it is just that, a vision and thus isn't true by any measure. The truth is less stirring but not particularly less desirable or acceptable. We do more good than harm, we are what we are.

Quote:

---

You are correct that America has had internal problems throughout our history.

---

Internal and external. One of our 'problems' (in the eyes of many (I happen to not agree) is that our governmental system breeds dysfunction in many minor but rather visible respects. Another problem which I think significant and detrimental is that our foreign relations and efforts are almost always based on US domestic politics. That does us no favors.

Quote:

---

No credible literature exists to determine how today’s issues rank against those of our past.

---

Certainly not. There can be no such literature because the perception in the comparison would be that of individuals, seen by different people in significantly different ways. On that basis, my reading of history and my experience lead me to believe we have, essentially, been there before... ;)

Thus my firm belief there is a Pony in there...

Quote:

---

However, as you mentioned, our “business” is instantly available to a global audience and that has affected our national interests. Both AQ and China have used our internal problems to advance their “hearts and minds” campaign.

---

They have indeed used our mostly minor flaws and hesitant, bumbling governmental process as well as certain venal national and governmental characteristics -- i.e. not really being a shining city etc. -- to highlight a certain hypocrisy and to their passing advantage. They have the benefit of being less bureaucratic than are we and thus are far more quick off the mark and are a few orders of magnitude more flexible in their responses. :o

What they and many other observers miss is while that hypocrisy does exist to a slight degree, the majority of actions and statements that lead to the assessment of major hypocrisy are in fact a function of the design features that constitute US governance -- the electoral cycle and process being a major contributor to that flawed perception. We still, as stated, do more good than harm and most of the world knows that, they just like to snipe at the 600 pound gorilla -- and that's okay... :D

Those flawed perceptions BTW also afflict many Americans, particularly in the vales of academe and the punditocracy. :rolleyes:

There is no substantial organized political movement with the intention or capabilities to represent a threat to the United States government or way of life. Underneath the glamor of public school textbooks, America has a long history of low level violence, civil disturbances, anti-immigration sentiment, organized crime, and political radicalization; whether it's frontier violence, strike-breakers, anarchists, or the Ku Klux Klan. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is essentially a laundry list of civil disturbances in American history. America has experienced, and survived, much worst, and in many ways, the democratic system emerged stronger afterwards. In my opinion, the long-view concern is how opposition to first the war in Iraq and now "Wall Street" (as a representation of the capital class) will continue to emerge, evolve, organize, and potentially radicalize as Americans are exposed to future challenges to domestic stability; and, in turn, how that elicits a response from the right. It will require another series of shock events, say an apparently sudden war and equally rapid and surprising defeat by another major power like China, that finally drives home the realization of America's decline.

Quote:

---

Are these domestic issues national security concerns? (use whatever definition of national security you prefer)

---

Yes, but only to the extent they hinder America's capacity to preserve its political sovereignty and territorial integrity. So far, all of the issues you listed are minor.

Quote:

---

Will these issues eventually be resolved through the democratic process?

---

What do you mean by 'resolved'? All of these issues have been present in American history in one way or another.

Quote:

---

If the economy continues on its current path, will social unrest/civil disturbance increase? Will they turn more violent?

---

No, insofar that until an organized political movement emerges, these events should be classified as 'minor'. Basically, people still have something to lose, so why risk that on the streets? When the professional middle class takes to the streets in large numbers and begins agitating for political reform, that is when we should be concerned.

Quote:

---

Could foreign influence make these domestic issue worse?

---

Potentially.

Quote:

---

What role does citizenship (not the legal process of becoming a citizen) play in National Security?

---

None.

Quote:

---

Should the US reshape its national security investment strategy to better address these issues?

---

No. Right now, these issues are solidly political issues since they are minor national security concerns.

Agree with your last sentence, and many of these so called security challenges are manufactured for political purposes/agendas, and can be resolved by the same politicians who have hyped the threats.

On the other hand the threat of subversion by a worthy adversary like the former USSR was very real, but fortunately we have good processes in place to mitigate that risk, and the resiliency of our democratic system also mitigates its impact. On the other hand, that type of subversion is very effective when directed against less resilient nations.

I am a bit confused on your initial response. Is it fair to say you believe that while there currently is no organization (formal or informal) attempting to undermine the gov’t, the potential exists for conditions to emerge that would threaten domestic stability and the situation could be exacerbated by some external event/actions? If so I would agree with you except that the “trigger” could be internal – market/currency collapse, prolonged gov’t shutdown etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

What do you mean by 'resolved'?

---

Take for example, the issue of immigration. Will the political process resolve this by enacting national laws that will eliminate the problem of illegal immigration? This includes finding an equitable solution for the 10-20M illegal immigrants currently within our borders and preventing future immigrants from entering the country illegally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

America has experienced, and survived, much worst, and in many ways, the democratic system emerged stronger afterwards.

---

Perhaps you are focused on the civil disturbance issue with this response. Have we ever had problems with increasing civil disturbances and illegal immigration and a broken criminal justice system and transnational threats and radicalization all in the context of failing governance and a sagging economy. Individually, the components to this equation may be insignificant however in aggregate they are of concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

What role does citizenship (not the legal process of becoming a citizen) play in National Security?

None.

---

This is a surprising response. I would say citizenship, that is being a good citizen, and honoring the responsibilities(civic duties) that come with that title are very important. Just take a few civic duties – voting, honoring the laws of the land, paying just taxes , and serving in the military when needed, for example. Could we have fought the last decade of war without the use of the citizen-soldier? Isn’t citizenship the foundation of our COIN doctrine? During COIN aren’t we attempting to make the indigenous population better citizens of their nation, loyal to a “legitimate” government?

My point by posing this question is there are many people who inhabit the US but are not good citizens -just look at crime and voting statistics. What percentage of inhabitants within the physical borders of the US actually pay federal taxes? The growing disparity between citizens and inhabitants should be of concern. Although some recent data indicate that community level citizenship is on the rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Right now, these issues are solidly political issues since they are minor national security concerns.

---

But how are these minor national security concerns trending? I would offer that with the exception of immigration (because of economic conditions) they are all trending negatively. The intent of this posting was to use Panarin’s analysis as a starting point for continued analysis on this issue.

I fail to see how these issues can merely be dismissed as politics… we can spend the better part of a day on each item. Take transitional crime – this is a political issue? How many people were killed on the US-Mex border since 2006 with the connection to human or drug trafficking?

If you really would like to open the aperture on transnational crime you must include cyber crime – a crime that recognizes no national border. Chinese espionage, organized criminal activity, etc not to mention direct attacks. How many attacks against US critical infrastructure have been perpetrated by US citizens?

Perhaps blaming politics is just an easy solution to actually addressing the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

On the other hand the threat of subversion by a worthy adversary like the former USSR was very real, but fortunately we have good processes in place to mitigate that risk, and the resiliency of our democratic system also mitigates its impact.

---

Do the same Cold War processes work on cyber influence and subversion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

Take for example, the issue of immigration. Will the political process resolve this by enacting national laws that will eliminate the problem of illegal immigration?

---

Unlikely. The 'problem' has always existed, it is merely larger than ever before because of worldwide population increases. The good news is that in many senses, we as a nation are larger than ever before...

Quote:

---

Have we ever had problems with increasing civil disturbances and illegal immigration and a broken criminal justice system and transnational threats and radicalization all in the context of failing governance and a sagging economy.

---

Yes and no, the concern of many on these issues is exacerbated by our superb present day communication capability, the potential that capability offers to produce copycat effects and the aforementioned population increase. Those factors tend to make prolems that have existed since the Republic was founded larger and more significant than they were before. Again, the good news is that we are larger and more capable (if no less clumsy :wry: ) than before.

Quote:

---

I would say citizenship, that is being a good citizen, and honoring the responsibilities(civic duties) that come with that title are very important...

---

Many would so say. Many others will shrug their shoulders. The nation has accommodated, has to and can continue to accommodate both types -- and several in-between...

Quote:

---

Isn’t citizenship the foundation of our COIN doctrine? During COIN aren’t we attempting to make the indigenous population better citizens of their nation, loyal to a “legitimate” government?

---

A very flawed doctrine thus a bad metaphor. :eek:

Quote:

---

Perhaps blaming politics is just an easy solution to actually addressing the issues.

---

Or perhaps politics offer the only solutions to the problems that worry you... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

I am a bit confused on your initial response. Is it fair to say you believe that while there currently is no organization (formal or informal) attempting to undermine the gov’t, the potential exists for conditions to emerge that would threaten domestic stability and the situation could be exacerbated by some external event/actions? If so I would agree with you except that the “trigger” could be internal – market/currency collapse, prolonged gov’t shutdown etc.

---

It is always possible for some grand, national event to induce instability. But under current conditions, I do not see as reasonable the prediction of a singular or rapid event that will culminate in a significant reduction in stability or governance in the near future. There are simply too many interlocking vested interests in the status quo or some semblance thereof.

Quote:

---

Take for example, the issue of immigration. Will the political process resolve this by enacting national laws that will eliminate the problem of illegal immigration? This includes finding an equitable solution for the 10-20M illegal immigrants currently within our borders and preventing future immigrants from entering the country illegally.

---

Since the foundation of Jamestown, Americans have always had a problem with illegal immigration. First it had to do with land, now it's mostly about cultural perceptions and, in my opinion, racism to some degree. The "equitable" solution is to say big words and take no action to satisfy the domestic constituency (i.e. those that vote) and maintain the constant influx of workers into the economy. The idea of illegal immigration as a national security threat is a political fabrication designed to ignite the fears of white middle and lower class America. The greater threat to governance is enacting laws that cannot be enforced in the first place.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you are focused on the civil disturbance issue with this response. Have we ever had problems with increasing civil disturbances and illegal immigration and a broken criminal justice system and transnational threats and radicalization all in the context of failing governance and a sagging economy.

---

Yes. After World War I, the United States had a surge of strikebreaking and union busting, a massive influx of Southern European immigrants, Jim Crow suppressing African Americans across the entirety of the US south, the emergence and dominance of organized crime financed initially by bootlegging, and a reborn Ku Klux Klan. And this was before the Great Depression, which saw a prolonged slump in productivity and employment and the looming threat of another world war. Reconstruction would probably be another good period to examine, as well as the Vietnam era.

Quote:

---

This is a surprising response. I would say citizenship, that is being a good citizen, and honoring the responsibilities(civic duties) that come with that title are very important. Just take a few civic duties – voting, honoring the laws of the land, paying just taxes , and serving in the military when needed, for example.

---

None of that directly translates into effective national security since national security is aimed, in the end, towards preserving the narrow interests of the state and those in control of it. It does not necessarily produce security for any other constituency or faction, including those obeying the law (since the law may be unjust; i.e. Jim Crow), paying taxes (since taxes may be used for oppression or embezzled), or serving in the military (since the military may be directed against the population, which is historically the usual case). Ultimately, being a "good" citizen perpetrates the system that is in place, just or secure or not.

Quote:

---

Could we have fought the last decade of war without the use of the citizen-soldier?

---

Yes. Most wars have been fought by conscripts, peasants, or mercenaries, including all of America's wars up to Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Isn’t citizenship the foundation of our COIN doctrine? During COIN aren’t we attempting to make the indigenous population better citizens of their nation, loyal to a “legitimate” government?

---

You make a leap of logic to connect these two questions and both questions are filled with value-based assumptions. I don't want to digress too much here, so if you want to discuss COIN, we can. I'll leave that up to you.

Quote:

---

My point by posing this question is there are many people who inhabit the US but are not good citizens -just look at crime and voting statistics. What percentage of inhabitants within the physical borders of the US actually pay federal taxes? The growing disparity between citizens and inhabitants should be of concern. Although some recent data indicate that community level citizenship is on the rise.

---

But what does any of that have to do with America's political sovereignty and territorial integrity?

Quote:

---

But how are these minor national security concerns trending? I would offer that with the exception of immigration (because of economic conditions) they are all trending negatively. The intent of this posting was to use Panarin’s analysis as a starting point for continued analysis on this issue.

---

Until they reduce America's political sovereignty or territorial integrity, they are not national security concerns.

Quote:

---

I fail to see how these issues can merely be dismissed as politics… we can spend the better part of a day on each item. Take transitional crime – this is a political issue? How many people were killed on the US-Mex border since 2006 with the connection to human or drug trafficking?

---

At what point do those numbers become relevant to America's political sovereignty or territorial integrity? America is a notoriously violent country. I don't see how the manner of death distinguishes whether it is a political or security concern.

Quote:

---

If you really would like to open the aperture on transnational crime you must include cyber crime – a crime that recognizes no national border. Chinese espionage, organized criminal activity, etc not to mention direct attacks. How many attacks against US critical infrastructure have been perpetrated by US citizens?

---

Actions by foreign intelligence services are different than actions by autonomous cyber-goons in their mother's basement.

Quote:

---

Perhaps blaming politics is just an easy solution to actually addressing the issues.

---

Politics is the collision of conflicting interests. That is fundamental to all problems. Use of 'national security' carte blanche to label all national problems as a threat is the easy way out. National security = force and violence, and that is not the solution for any of the problems you listed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

National security = force and violence, and that is not the solution for any of the problems you listed.

---

Clearly we have a difference in how we define national security.

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment. I was warned by the moderator when I first posted here that political agendas were not allowed in this forum – apparently there are different ROEs for council members than outsiders.

Thank you for allowing me to post on your forum and for taking the time to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

I would say citizenship, that is being a good citizen, and honoring the responsibilities(civic duties) that come with that title are very important. Just take a few civic duties – voting, honoring the laws of the land, paying just taxes , and serving in the military when needed, for example.
. . .
My point by posing this question is there are many people who inhabit the US but are not good citizens -just look at crime and voting statistics. What percentage of inhabitants within the physical borders of the US actually pay federal taxes? The growing disparity between citizens and inhabitants should be of concern. Although some recent data indicate that community level citizenship is on the rise.

---

I think the notion of citizenship described above is fundamentally at odds with the basic view of humans used by Jefferson et. al as the basis to declare independence from the government of George III. American political theater is based on the notion that individual rights, not duties, are primary. From this perspective a corollary arises: any duties that we may have are derived from the rights which we have. For example, I have a duty not to harm you because you have a right to life.

But, as the excerpt from your post shows, folks also tend to have the belief that people have some fundamental responsibilities (aka duties). Such a perspective exacerbates the so-called "free rider" problem which is at the root of many concerns about, for example, illegal immigration and "the welfare state." The idea that one has to pay one's dues (perform one's civic duties) before receiving benefits is at odds with an idea that people are entitled (have a right) to certain things just because they are human beings.

In this regard, compare the views of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on what life would be like in the "state of nature" (human existence without a government, or Leviathan).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment.

---

They were valid points. Both you and AP are talking about divide and rule political tactics; one with regard to an external adversary and the other wrt the establishment toward its own populace. I would say both frames of analysis are necessary, and both have certain degrees of truth to them.

You seem very concerned about foreign information operations, in that case it is logical they provoke one side against the other; I believe that the Russians play both far-right and far-left groups in central Europe. The Chekists also have a history of infiltrating and manipulating right-wing groups going back to the Basmachi Revolt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment.

---

IMO, that's a reach. Both items appear as a sentence each in a lengthy post, IOW, it's there but one has to work to distill the post to that...

Quote:

---

I was warned by the moderator when I first posted here that political agendas were not allowed in this forum – apparently there are different ROEs for council members than outsiders.

---

The board is apolitical and it is expressly not a political discussion forum. That said, issues of politics do naturally arise in conjunction with small wars, large ones, insurrection, civil disturbances or internal security and allied matters -- and such discussion is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is the espousal of overt political position or any extremist ideologies, right or left, devoid of a connection to the warfare related purposes of the Board. IMO, neither your posts nor those of American Pride violate that restriction.

Quote:

---

Thank you for allowing me to post on your forum and for taking the time to respond.

---

Hopefully you'll continue to post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack_Gander

Clearly we have a difference in how we define national security.

---

Define national security. I define national security as the preservation of a state's political sovereignty and territorial integrity. This necessarily requires violence and coercion.

Quote:

---

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment.

---

Everyone has a political bias. Do you hold any opinions or views you believe to be false?

Quote:

---

I was warned by the moderator when I first posted here that political agendas were not allowed in this forum – apparently there are different ROEs for council members than outsiders.

---

I believe this was addressed by a few of the other posters.

This e-mail directly addresses some of Jack's concerns. I made select portions of the e-mail bold.

Quote:

---

President Barack Obama yesterday issued the "Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States." The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has compiled a fact sheet on violent extremism in the U.S.
(attached).

START researchers have also made themselves available to the news media to comment on the plan as well as discuss violent extremism in diaspora
communities, Islamic radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

"To prevent violent extremism, we need to enhance protective resources in refugee and immigrant families and communities to ameliorate their risk exposures," says Stevan Weine, START researcher. "This calls for utilizing a public health prevention approach to enhancing protective resources which utilizes multilevel, multidimensional and contextual strategies. The development and evaluation of new preventive policies and interventions is necessary to promote community resilience to violent extremism in diaspora communities in the United States."

. Stevan Weine, START researcher and professor at the University of Illinois
at Chicago, has conducted research to address the problem of violent radicalization and terrorist recruitment amongst members of a specific Muslim diaspora community in the United States. He has focused on Somali Americans in Minnesota and the roles of risk and protective processes at different levels (individual, family, sociocultural and structural) that impact violent radicalization and recruitment.

. Gary LaFree, director of START and professor of criminology at the
University of Maryland, is one of the country's foremost terrorism scholars.
His research examines longitudinal and spatial patterns of crime and political violence and he can discuss terrorism trends and networks, homegrown terrorism, counterterrorism, domestic preparedness, radicalization, extremism in the U.S. and global security, among other topics.

. Gary Ackerman, director of Special Projects at START is an expert in
Islamic radicalization and violent extremist organizations. His current research focuses on known jihadists in North America, homegrown Islamic radicalization in North America and Western Europe and the effectiveness and unintended consequences of historical attempts to influence violent extremist organizations.

---

Nothing I ever wrote was as nearly meaningless as this:

Quote:

---

"To prevent violent extremism, we need to enhance protective resources in refugee and immigrant families and communities to ameliorate their risk exposures," says Stevan Weine, START researcher. "This calls for utilizing a public health prevention approach to enhancing protective resources which utilizes multilevel, multidimensional and contextual strategies. The development and evaluation of new preventive policies and interventions is necessary to promote community resilience to violent extremism in diaspora communities in the United States."

---

I think he means "we need to work with immigrant communities and groups to deter extremism."

That quote is indicative of the problem with think tanks and contract 'studies.' They become self justifying and self perpetuating exercises in wordsmithing... :rolleyes:

It's also representative of a degree of academic arrogance and condescension that will never achieve any success with most immigrant communities. :(

Admit that para is takes too long to say too little. You summed it up well with your one sentence. I guess if it didn't sound condenscending it wouldn't qualify as an academic study:D