US Internal Security Redux

[Jack_Gander]

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

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.

[Ken White]

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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

[AmericanPride]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Could foreign influence make these domestic issue worse?

Potentially.

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

None.

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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Jack_Gander]

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ken White]

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...

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 ) than before.

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...

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.

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...

[AmericanPride]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jack_Gander]

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.

[bourbon]

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.

[Ken White]

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...

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.

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

Hopefully you'll continue to post.

[AmericanPride]

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.

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?

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.

[wm]

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).