Something Radical is Needed
I've argued elsewhere that if we are again to have a successful foreign policy, it will require radical rethinking of our approach and grand strategy. This applies significantly to the War on Terrorism. Simply put, the counter-terrorism approach of the US is not just broken, it is counterproductive.
America is ignoring huge gaps in its homeland security in terms of its ports, critical infrastructure, chemical plants, and a host of other potential targets. The branding of America, and the offensive actions and insensitive rhetoric of the Bush administration has created hatred for America around the world, specifically in the Middle East. In fact, according to the CIA, it has created the Afghanistan of the 21st century in Iraq, a training ground for the future terrorist leaders of the next two decades.
As to proliferation, it has squandered precious time invading a meaningless country in Iraq, allowing Iran and North Korea to make huge strides toward joining the nuclear club. Anti-Americanism is on the rise throughout the world, the opposite state of affairs than would be desirable if one wants to forge coalitions of intelligence sharing countries for tracking eventual terrorists.
So things are not going well. What to do? Basically this state of affairs requires a radical shift in our approach to the world. To state the facts plainly, we are light years behind our counterparts across the Atlantic in terms of our foreign policy. We still function as if we are the world's leader--as if the world still needed us the way it once did during the Cold War. It does not. In fact, what leadership was left to America after the Cold War era has been all but destroyed by the Bush Administration.
The simple fact is that the world no longer sees us in a leadership role since the Iraq War debacle. This is the dirty secret that no one seems to want to acknowledge in the American foreign policy community, but there it is. Before we can do anything else we must acknowledge this fact. Then we must move our foreign policy in to line with that of the rest of the world. We must recognize international laws and norms in the same ways other industrialized nations do. We must increase our developmental aid levels. And above all, we must stop pretending that our's is the only country entitled to sovereignty.
An Election Year Frame for Democratic Counter-Terrorism?
Within this short critique are the broad contours of a healthy and radical shift in our foreign policy, and one which would go much further in providing security--especially in the long run--to America. But the question is, how can we sell something so complex? How can we get across such a broad, radical, and sophisticated proposition to an American public not fond of complexity?
A while back I floated a very short diary with a idea I have for how to package this in a way that is persuasive. Some of the feedback I received was very helpful and incisive.
I suggest that, as opposed to developing our own framework for getting this across, we simply co-opt the Republic's WoT frame, but in such a way that we convey the idea that we have developed, as Kerry once said, "a smarter, more effective war on terror." With your indulgence, I think we should call it "The War on Terror 2.0".
One of the original diary's commenters, Srolle, had an important perspective on using the "2.0" frame. He writes,
"2.0" has a lot of resonance with the population. In software, 2.0 is always better than 1.0. It also implies that our terror policy does everything the republican war on terror does, but better. All of these ideas are already planted in people's heads before they even hear the first word of our policy.
Now, I have argued in the past that we new a wholly new frame, that the idea of a War on Terrorism is too inflammatory, and far too Orwellian in its implications. I've racked my brain, however, and simply can't imagine a frame with more potential positive connotations than the "2.0" frame.
Paul Rosenberg, for one suggested we needed wholly new frame. He wrote,
I Still Agree With Lakoff--We Need OUR Frame
I see what you're trying to do, but I think we've got to do more hard thinking about framing. At bottom, this still reinforces Bush's frame.
Now, let me say first that I tread lightly in disagreeing with Paul. He is one of the most intelligent and articulate writers, IMHO, in the blogosphere. However, I think he is wrong on this one. If he has a better idea I'm open to it. But I sincerely doubt that he or anyone else will find an idea with such ready made possibilities and established messages. And to be honest, I've never had a great deal of use for Lakoff's ideas, but that's another diary all together.
Update [2005-3-1 23:59:15 by Descrates]:Heather in SFBay from MYDD has a great suggestion. Keep the "2.0" and replace "War on Terror" with something like "National Security 2.0".
Sometimes the way this administration thinks truly mystifies me.
President George W Bush gave notice yesterday that America's hawks are still a force to be reckoned with when he nominated an outspoken hardliner as his ambassador to the United Nations.
...News of his nomination shocked many at the UN, a frequent target for his criticism.
To the distress of Whitehall, he is a passionate opponent of the International Criminal Court and has long been scornful of Europe's bid to use diplomacy to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said she and Mr Bush had asked "John to do this work because he knows how to get things done".
She hailed him as a "tough-minded diplomat" and, in a clear reference to his outspoken reputation, said that "through history some of our best ambassadors have been those with the strongest voices".
North Korea has been less diplomatic, branding Mr Bolton "human scum".
Let me see if I understand this correctly. One of the clearest signals the American public have sent Bush has been that they trust the U.N. and wish to see more international cooperation between us and them. The public consistently and overwhelmingly supports multilateralism. And most people, including administration officials, believe it would be extremely helpful if more countries where brought into the Iraq reconstruction and Middle East peace as a whole. Last month, Bush spends a week in Europe assuring the international community of his new found multilateral inclinations. The diplomatic community eyes him warily but hopefully. The administration then proceeds to nominate one of the most notorious critics of multilateralism, and specifically the United Nations, to the country's key U.N. post.
What are they thinking? Are purposely trying to antagonize the international community? Do they seriously believe that Bolton will be a very effective ambassador given his historic distain of the organization he is supposed to be working with? Or is this yet another attempt to somehow discredit the U.N. still further? Or better yet, is Bush still determined to convince the world that he has never made a mistake?
Whatever the reasoning, its hard to see the political upshot of this for the Republicans. Already, they are not trusted by the American people when it comes to foreign policy, and much of this is chiefly related to the belief amoung Americans that they are not overly interested in working diplomatically with other countries--that they are, in fact, ineffective when it comes to foreign policy. The appointment will provide yet more ammunition for the Democrats when it comes election time.
Bolton's Greatest Hits
In 2001, Jesse Helm's says of him: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."
He appears to be very interested in providing Helms with an Armegeddon to do so. He is one of the few people left in the world who still advocates returning to Tiawan a seat in the United Nations. He has written, "diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for… The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy, albeit one the Communist leaders welcome and encourage in the West."
Unfortunately, it appears that his testimony may be somewhat compromised. According to the Washington Post (April 9, 2001) Bolton received payments amounting to $30,000 from the Tiawanese Government for research papers on the possibility of their country's being seated in the UN.
One of many Bush operatives in 2000 during the Palm Beach recount. Reports snap pictures of him counting hanging chads.