The United States is being asked to take action against countries like Egypt and Syria, because the International Community has failed the Middle East. The lack of influence and action on behalf of the US is too often blamed on a decline in American power due to an unwillingness to act. Consider that President Ronald Reagan stood up to Libya by engaging the country militarily, just as President Barack Obama did to a lesser extent, and used aggressive rhetoric to assert American influence as well as other “soft power” options, which no have as much significance. In a bipolar world where nations and the Peoples of countries must choose between the Americans or the Russians, it is far easier to make America appear to be the best option, even when the US acts against a population’s interests. In our multi-polar world where there is no ideological struggle and stateless, globalized terrorism is the greatest threat to the national security of all nations and Peoples, it is unreasonable to expect America to have the same kind of power as it did in the Cold War era and post Cold War era, when we lived in a monopolar world.
As such, an alternative and more helpful explanation is that the relative decline of American power in the Middle East is actually due to a lack of legitimacy in the eyes of the leadership and people. The international community is going through a democratizing process where it is becoming a more democratic community of nations filled with individual nations that are also slowly democratizing. Because democracies are rooted in addressing the interests of all the People, to some degree at least, individuals must feel their interests will be addressed by a given actor for that actor to have influence, a.k.a. be legitimate. Only if a government, foreign or domestic, has legitimacy in the eyes of a People, will that government have influence. In accordance, the People of a democratic country will only view governments like the US as legitimate, if they belief the US will look out for their interests. Consequently, America must slowly rebuild its influence in the Middle East and the rest of the world through good-faith efforts designed to look out for the interests of the Peoples of the world in big ways. Demanding governments fulfill the will of the US government, i.e. directly “shape” events to fit what America immediately wants, will only make people distrust the US even more and discourage them from supporting American goals, even when the People of the given country can benefit from those interests. Moreover, this means America must become more patient and far more supportive in terms of helping the Peoples of the world reach their own aspirations. The same is true for other world powers.
Comments
If the Egyptian military acted against President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood solely because they threatened Egyptian security, Egypt will not become a democracy. The truth is that any democracy is inherently far more difficult to secure, due to increased demands for civil liberties and the need to respond to the views of the People, while shifts in power always come with insecurity. We live in a world of globalized terrorism. Henceforth, a threat against Egyptian security will always exist, or at least for the foreseeable future. Whether an Islamist government or a secular government, a transition to a democratic state will “endanger” Egypt and depend upon the willingness of the Egyptian military to accept that increased level of insecurity. On the other hand, if the Egyptian military acted against President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood , because they also viewed the actions of his government as dismantling democracy against the will of the People, democracy is possible. That said, the Egyptian military needs to stop overreacting to potential threats and learn how to better engage violent situations without killing unarmed and nonviolent armed actors.
Although the young whistle blower received a sentence far less harsh than what he was facing, 35 years for trying to do what he thought was the right thing is hardly fair while it certainly is not just compared to other punished for whistle blowers. That said, I think when the political winds calm down, Private Manning will see his sentence commuted or he will receive an outright pardon. If President Obama is not the one to do it, I think it will tarnish his legacy as it will be a bold example of the President failing to stand up for his democratic values and commitment to reform through transparency. The same can be said concerning Edward Snowden.
There were wrongdoings by the Obama Administration in the Benghazi consulate attacks, the IRS targeting of political groups, the Department of Justice seizure of Press records, the NSA spying controversy, and other events. Just as all Presidencies have their own controversies, the Obama Administration is no different. Aside from correcting a handful of policies and bad decisions, these incidences must be thoroughly investigated in order to lessen the likelihood and significance of future occurrences while resolving the underlying issues that resulted in these wrongdoings.
Unfortunately, pundits and politicians have a tendency of using these incidences to further their brand of politics, often hypocritically. In recent years, the Republicans have gone to a whole new extreme in terms of its criticism of the Left and Middle thanks to abrupt shifts in the electorate away from increasingly extreme Right wing views and an overreaction to valid criticisms of the George W Bush Administration’s many far more serious controversies. On the Left, valid criticism is either listlessly addressed or met with overreactions. The overall trend is toward a political establishment that simply reacts with bluster instead of deep analysis, critical discussion, and real solutions. Looking at the fundamental reasons why the IRS was targeting groups with words like Tea Party, Patriot, Freedom, Occupy, etc. in their names, there are an increasing number of such groups that are intertwined with candidates and political parties. Because the influence of big money in elections is a serious issue, these connections raise serious red flags. While all involved groups were eligible for tax exemptions, the disclosure of donors is required to stem unwanted political influence. Some of these self-proclaimed 501C organizations are simply political party affiliated groups trying to the game system. Regrettably, it can be difficult to discern between independent and candidate groups without asking intrusive questions. That said, the IRS erred by using the most obvious, simplest solution instead of developing a less intrusive, more sophisticated method that would address political sensitivities. In many respects, the IRS incident is an example of our government’s lack of will and capacity to respond to a highly dynamic world filled with emerging threats to our democracy. Similarly, the DOJ seizure of Press emails and records demonstrates a government that is overwhelmed by novel and growing threats. In trying to address an enormous security leaks, the government overreached when it failed to sufficiently demonstrate the First Amendment Press protection no longer applied before acting. In both cases, the need to protect political speech was ignored in pursuit of wrongdoers. Taking into account the ongoing unrest in the Middle East, and massive shifts in global power, the Benghazi consulate attack represents another example of the US government overwhelmed by the myriad of rapidly developing changes in our society. Instead of risking a potential political disaster and confronting mistakes and oversights, the Obama Administration fumbled, thus allowing the Right to use the incident to shape the image of the Obama Presidency as dishonest. In short, there is so much fear of doing wrong that it creates wrongs. Whether mistakes were made due to a simple failure to recognize and respond a potential threat or an effort to secure sensitive information, the ongoing political response to the Benghazi situation offers no real insights and appears to be little more than political warfare. Meanwhile, the NSA spying controversy has been somewhat of a welcome distraction for the Obama Administration as the fairly independent agency can take all the heat for their misdoings while the Administration can stand for national security, call for a national “discussion” on the issue, and criticize the actions of whistleblowers and foreign leaders without any real political consequences. Unfortunately, the issue actually demonstrates a lack of control over our own government and our inability to address national security, as well as international threats, without violating rights and causing greater problems. Instead of solving problems, our political leaders are shielding them from criticism. Reviewing America’s recent history without regard to what party and what person held the Office of the President, there is an emerging trend of stagnation and an inability to adapt to our new social environment. The US government is failing to adapt to a world where global power is no longer shared between the two superpowers of the US and USSR. We live in a multipolar world where action by “the superpower” will only be effective when the global community accepts those actions, i.e. the international community is democratizing as a community of nations and as individual nations. Meanwhile, technology is also rapidly shifting the means by which traditional powers exert their wills. Unfortunately, the US government and other powers are too wrapped up in their own internal conflicts to pursue their interests domestically and globally. In the case of the current scandals, the Right is simply using these events as political weapons while the Left is running around like a chicken with its head cutoff trying to make old solutions work and hypocritically denying they share many of the same faults as the Right. (That said, the inverse is true when the Republicans are in power.) What we need to recognize is that the US government is failing to properly address competing US interests, i.e. national security and civil liberties in terms of the current examples. In fact, there is a trend of governments around the world toward over focusing on security risks and breeches by violating rights instead of addressing both sets of interests. Similarly, the interest in protecting our electoral system against corruption from the IRS, in this case, either goes unaddressed or is addressed without regard to the interests of those whose voices are being crowded out by overspending by outsiders in campaigns. Moreover, government needs to stop reacting in the wake of engineered crises and start responding in order to solve problems by developing solutions that address all of the interests involved in the issues. As the world awaits the likely harsh sentencing of Bradley Manning while the Edward Snowden/NSA controversy continues to consume the attention of professional media outlets and provoke the condemnation of US political leaders, it is curious as to why so much effort is being focused on the actual whistle blowers with little effort going toward addressing the very serious issues that inspired their actions. Above all, there has been virtually no effort to make it “safe” for others to come forward, so the American People and our representatives can start fixing the faults in our national security apparatus.
Instead of dealing with the exposed secrets and how these secrets were revealed, we largely see the condemnation of two Americans with some marginalized complaints by a handful of politicians. These two did technically break the law, but they also showed the American People what we needed to see. Just consider how ridiculous it is that President Obama went on the Tonight Show to call out the Russians for granting Snowden asylum while our Congressional leaders have certainly dropped the ball in regards to their oversight responsibilities. Meanwhile, the US government’s overly aggressive reactions against the whistle blowers has been justified with the most generic, unverifiable charges possible, i.e. the actions of these two individuals undermines the need for secrecy and has endangered the lives of Americans. Although there is a degree of truth to these statements, it was the NSA, the military, and the rest of our national security apparatus that created the most significant security threat. Obviously, the citizens of our allies would be angry when they eventually learned, which they would have, that the American government was thoroughly violating both their civil liberties and their right to privacy. (Clearly, so would the American People when found they out about the violations against their rights and the rights of others.) In turn, our national security officials and political leaders should have been well aware that foreign politicians would use such a discovery as political leverage to undermine US interests and justify similar and other destructive behavior on their behalf. Meanwhile, it is important to recognize our enemies/friendemenies either knew what the US national security apparatus was doing or assumed it was doing it. Finally, the Peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country that the US is actively ”policing,” witnessed first-hand when American forces made mistakes and acted inappropriately, thus any damage done by Snowden and Manning was far less significant than what the US government was doing on its own. Moreover, it was the weak policies and a lack of control on the behalf of the military and the NSA that allowed these massive leaks. Consequently, the actions of these whistle blowers did more to help, because they afforded the American People a chance to right the wrongs of our runaway government. Furthermore, our political and national security officials now welcome a national security debate after their misdoings have been revealed, but they still want people like Manning and Snowden thoroughly punished for their supposedly unacceptable actions. To legitimize their condemnation, these embarrassed elites cite the fact that the whistle blowers did not use “official channels,” among other seemingly sensible charges. Given that there are no truly secure and easily accessible channels, however, this criticism cannot be taken seriously. That said, perhaps, it is time to create those channels. As such, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch need to publicly develop and endorse protocols, independent organizations, and public channels for which undisclosed sources can legally submit documents for review from outside of the Executive Branch. Creating official channels for whistle blowers, which can be reviewed by the American People and certified by relevant private institutions, such as civil liberties groups, will not solve all of our secrecy problems, but done properly it can encourage whistle blowers to come forward in a responsible manner and discourage abuses by our national security apparatus. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|