US Internal Security Redux

[MikeF]

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

[Jack_Gander]

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.

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/

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Jack_Gander]

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.

[Ken White]

LINK.

...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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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]

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.