US Internal Security Redux

[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.

[Bill Moore]

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

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.

[Ken White]

Nothing I ever wrote was as nearly meaningless as this:

"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...

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

[Bill Moore]

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