On Rethinking Homeland Security, Or, Let’s Invest In These Defense Technologies

It has been a pattern in these discussions to begin with a proposition, and today is no exception.

Specifically, I propose that the current Administration, as well as others before it, have misunderstood what investments are needed to create real National Security for this country.

That war fought, and weapons used, don’t create the real security all Americans desire.

That D candidates, by redefining National Security, can grab purple voters they need in 2008 and beyond.

In order to properly consider what investments are really needed, we need to identify our most important Homeland Security risks. With that in mind, let’s create a short list, in no particular order.

Public Health and Safety. Disasters happen every year. Avian flu is on the way. The possibility of biological or chemical attacks, by Americans and non-Americans alike, cannot be ignored. The only way to control such events is to contain them, which requires a population willing to go to the doctor, and a stockpile of supplies handy. If you have a portion of the population who are afraid of the bill, you have a problem. If you inadequately fund stockpiling initiatives, you have bigger problems. In an emergency, this could be fatal for entire communities.

Ignorance. In “The Fog Of War” Robert McNamara reminds us: “Belief and seeing are both often wrong.”. If you have not seen the film, do so now. Note with particular interest the discussion of the misunderstandings on both sides regarding each other’s intentions and motivations during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ignorance is dangerous, and investments in education and understanding of the world equal more security for everyone.

Climate Change. Nothing threatens our peace and stability in this century more than the prospect of hundreds of millions of displaced refugees-millions of them citizens of our own country. Not to mention the changes in agriculture and the loss of real estate investments. For that matter, what about the industrial complexes along the Mississippi River and the Intercoastal Waterway? Ports across the nation? Investing in solutions now is much, much cheaper than responding to the disaster later.

Loss Of Respect. The Cold War was as much a victory of international perception and economics as it was a military confrontation. Our ability to be accepted as an “honest broker” is worth more in international dispute resolution situations than an air wing, a carrier battle group, a Marine Expeditionary Force, and two Army Divisions combined.

Having created a list, let’s now address the question of how we might frugally invest in each area to really be more secure.

Public Health. There are several areas for investment that cry out for attention.

For starters, we need national health care for all citizens. Whether a single-payer, or Government operated, or somehow privately financed system is your preference, there’s no doubt that, simply from a National Security/ability to respond in an emergency point of view we must be able to quickly offer the access to care to every American. It is just not reasonable to expect that we will somehow be able to quarantine and serve all the affected citizens in an “attacked” (or avian flu infected, or “disastered”) area. There’s even an argument to be made that a generally healthier public is in itself a sort of Civil Defense issue.

Can we afford it? We spent $1.7 trillion on health care in the US in 2004. Divide by a population of 300 million; you get $5600 per citizen. That’s twice what it costs per month for Washington State’s Basic Health Plan (pick any county when you get to the page-the price is the same).

FEMA and the CDC have a role here as well, and we should be stockpiling the things today that Katrina has taught us we are lacking. Basic things, like tarps and water and radios, and antibiotics. This practice is expensive, and wasteful; after all you risk buying some supplies over and over (antibiotics and batteries, for example), but we’re engaged in much more wasteful practices today in the name of National Security.

Ignorance is not bliss. Our national Security situation today would be far, far better if we simply had a better educated public, and a Nation that better understood the cultures and motivations of the other Nations that see us, for better or worse, as The Superpower.

There have to be ways to inexpensively communicate these facts to our citizens. Perhaps a character like Smokey the Bear could be created to advance knowledge about others (“Only you can prevent international ignorance”). Maybe a game show-a sort of “Jeopardy” meets “American Idol” of international culture, geography, and general knowledge. It seems reasonable that if there’s a million dollars to be won, Americans will pay attention to the rest of the planet. (George Soros-are you listening?)

Crime is also damaging to National Security, and far more Americans are victims of this form of terrorism than any other. Crime is also, I submit, something that can be reduced through education. Education equals employability, and having a job you enjoy makes you much less likely to go out at night and rob someone. Education also advances equality for all citizens-and that’s real National Security.

Education isn’t cheap, you’re probably thinking, but consider this: According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the California Postsecondary Education Commission you could send a student to any of 16 major colleges for a year for much less than the annual cost of incarceration in a Federal prison. College graduates (read: taxpayers) versus criminals? Cost savings to boot? Which one looks like a better National Security investment to you?

Climate Change is the big one, as we said. Interested in some numbers? Consider the effect of $150 billion a year in insurance claim payouts on your premiums. Consider that Katrina, which displaced at least a million people, cost over $120 billion in the first year of recovery alone, with much, much more to be spent. The 2005 population of Florida is estimated at just a bit under 18,000,000. Suppose one-third were displaced by the rise of sea level. That suggests $720 billion of current dollars just to assist a small subset of all potentially displaced Americans.

I propose a Manhattan Project sort of initiative to retrofit, invent, refine, and prevent our way out of this change.

Half a trillion dollars spent today will seem cheap later.

Which brings us to respect. The strategic value of reputation to the Nation cannot be underestimated. When we act in a manner consistent with our own highest ideals, it is a substitute for occupation forces, it bonds other nations to us, and it is the most cost-effective way to ensure we remain secure. Why? Because reputation is earned in inexpensive ways, like foreign aid, or granting more education visas-sometimes even with bribery. Maybe even a Peace Ship…

Compare just this $12 billion or so spent by the Department of Homeland Security to the $359 million Peace Corps budget in the 2004 fiscal year. In terms of increasing National Security, when examining these two expenses, what cost-benefit analysis might you infer? (By the way-in 2004 210,000 enlistees joined the military, 4,800 joined the Peace Corps. Imagine if those numbers were more equal?)

So let’s boil all this down to a few talking points:

Fighting wars doesn’t always make you more secure as a Nation.

On the other hand, spending money making America healthier, making America smarter, and making America more engaged in the world will make us more secure as a Nation.

The more the world respects America, the more secure America will be.

The best part: all of this can be done for about the same money we’re spending now-or less.

Candidates, are you listening?

On Solving The Iraq Problem, Or, How About A New Old Idea?

I need not tell you gentlemen that the world situation is very serious.
That must be apparent to all intelligent people.

I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation.

Furthermore, the people of this country are distant from the troubled areas of the earth and it is hard for them to comprehend the plight and consequent reaction of the long-suffering peoples, and the effect of those reactions on their government in connection with our efforts to promote peace in the world.

In considering the requirements for the rehabilitation of Iraq the physical loss of life, the visible destruction of cities, factories, mines, and railroads was correctly estimated, but it has become obvious during recent months that this visible destruction was probably less serious than the dislocation of the entire fabric of the Iraqi economy.

For the past 10 years conditions have been highly abnormal.

The feverish maintenance of the war effort engulfed all aspects of national economics. Machinery has fallen into disrepair or is entirely obsolete.

Under the arbitrary and destructive Ba’ath rule, virtually every possible enterprise was geared into the Iraqi war machine.

Long-standing commercial ties, private institutions, banks, insurance companies and shipping companies disappeared, through the loss of capital, absorption through nationalization or by simple destruction.

Confidence in the local currency has been severely shaken.

The breakdown of the business structure of Iraq during the war was complete.

Recovery has been seriously retarded by the fact that 2 years after the close of hostilities a peace settlement with Iran and Syria has not been agreed upon. But even given a more prompt solution of these difficult problems, the rehabilitation of the economic structure of Iraq quite evidently will require a much longer time and greater effort than had been foreseen.

There is a phase of this matter which is both interesting and serious.

The farmer has always produced the foodstuffs to exchange with the city dweller for the other necessities of life. This division of labor is the basis of modern civilization.

At the present time it is threatened with breakdown.

The town and city industries are not producing adequate goods to exchange with the food-producing farmer. Raw materials and fuel are in short supply. Machinery is lacking or worn out.

The farmer or the peasant cannot find the goods for sale which he desires to purchase. So the sale of his farm produce for money which he cannot use seems to him unprofitable transaction. He, therefore, has withdrawn many fields from crop cultivation and is using them for grazing. He feeds more grain to stock and finds for himself and his family an ample supply of food, however short he may be on clothing and the other ordinary gadgets of civilization.

Meanwhile people in the cities are short of food and fuel.

So the governments are forced to use their foreign money and credits to procure these necessities abroad. This process exhausts funds which are urgently needed for reconstruction. Thus a very serious situation is rapidly developing which bodes no good for the world. The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down.

The truth of the matter is that Iraq's requirements for the next 3 or 4 years of foreign food and other essential products -- principally from America -- are so much greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help, or face economic, social, and political deterioration of a very grave character.

The remedy lies in breaking the vicious circle and restoring the confidence of the Iraqi people in the economic future of their own countries and of Iraq as a whole. The manufacturer and the farmer throughout wide areas must be able and willing to exchange their products for currencies the continuing value of which is not open to question.

Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all.

It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.

Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.

Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piecemeal basis as various crises develop.

Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative.

Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, I am sure, on the part of the United States Government.

Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us.

Furthermore, governments, political parties, or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.

It is already evident that, before the United States Government can proceed much further in its efforts to alleviate the situation and help start the Iraqi world on its way to recovery, there must be some agreement among the peoples of Iraq as to the requirements of the situation and the part those peoples themselves will take in order to give proper effect to whatever action might be undertaken by this Government.

It would be neither fitting nor efficacious for this Government to undertake to draw up unilaterally a program designed to place Iraq on its feet economically.

This is the business of the Iraqis.

The initiative, I think, must come from Iraq.

The role of this country should consist of friendly aid in the drafting of a Iraqi program so far as it may be practical for us to do so. The program should be a joint one, agreed to by a number, if not all Iraqi ethnic groups.

An essential part of any successful action on the part of the United States is an understanding on the part of the people of America of the character of the problem and the remedies to be applied.

Political passion and prejudice should have no part.

With foresight, and a willingness on the part of our people to face up to the vast responsibilities which history has clearly placed upon our country, the difficulties I have outlined can and will be overcome.

Okay, now for the confession: if you’ve been reading this thinking: “this looks so familiar…” you’re right.

This is a slightly altered version of the speech George Marshall gave at Harvard University June 5th, 1947.

Mr. Bush, I know you’re not listening, but if you were, I’d remind you…

…We’re looking at spending $250 billion or more this year between budget, black budget, and supplementals on Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran if we continue on the same path as we are today.

I’m willing to bet we could get a lot farther on half that money following Marshall’s advice.

Last comment: any Democrats still looking for an Iraq plan?

On Public Diplomacy, Or, Karen Hughes, Are You Listening?

Karen Hughes, we are told, has pulled an Elvis and “left the building”, so to speak.

Noting the vacuum at the top of the public diplomacy pyramid, I thought I’d take this opportunity to encourage some out-of-the box thinking regarding the manner in which we “do” the public diplomacy business.

Today’s conversation comes with a disclaimer:

This is satire.
I’m kidding.
Really.
Well, mostly, I’m kidding

To begin, then: I’m completely jumping over a discussion regarding the propriety of “public diplomacy”, because it seems pointless.

Why?

Because public diplomacy happens, whether you want it to or not.
The real question is: do you want managed or unmanaged public diplomacy?

To assist the discussion, I agree completely that actions speak louder than words, and public relations alone will never compensate for a nation’s bad behavior.

Before we discuss the methods, let’s consider some possible benchmarks for success.

I suggest that if your public diplomacy is going well, the following should happen:

People in other countries should have a better opinion of your country.

Citizens of the world should be more interested in your economy’s output.

Your country should be more attractive to the most desirable potential immigrants available.

Your country should be less of a target for your enemies.

For that matter, if you’re doing well, over time, you should have fewer enemies.

So to get the ball rolling, here’s my proposal:

The American Lottery

How would it work? Something like this…

…Anybody in the world, except American citizens, would be invited to visit the “American Lottery” website. If you’re a lucky random visitor, you get something American.

Maybe a Big Mac coupon.
Maybe a $50 bill.
Maybe a Cadillac.
For one lucky winner, how about a Boeing Business Jet?

Advantages? Here’s a few:

You get a huge bang for the buck. (Maverick missile goes for about $1.5 million. So do 30 Corvettes, more or less. Which would you rather see falling from the sky into your town?)

Winners will like us better.

Our economic output will be far more interesting to the world

We’ll probably have a lot fewer enemies.

Maybe it’ll keep an auto assembly line open a bit longer.

This could be accomplished with no-bid contracts, or by directing the investment with the help of the best lobbyists and well placed contributions. (Bonus!)

Here’s the best part: once somebody wins an Escalade, they have less interest in blowing up the Escalade factory. Might need spare parts one day.

So that’s my modest proposal.

Karen Hughes, are you listening?

On A New Mission, Or, How About a Peace Ship?

I start today’s discussion with the proposition that non-military responses to events around the world offer great bang-for-the-buck opportunities to cement friendships with citizens across the globe.

This is especially true in a disaster scenario. You might recall the story of the New York City paramedics providing assistance in Pakistan, and how much it impacted the locals getting the help.

In my mind, that means responding to disasters around the world is an effective way to enhance our National Security. Even more so when the country you are helping might not be your closest friend; and you want to affect public opinion/increase connectivity in spite of the local Government.

Which brings me to today’s suggestion:

If this stuff works, why not create the tools to do it better?

Specifically, I suggest we build a couple of Peace Ships.

Look at the lessons learned from the Tsunami disaster in East Asia and Katrina.

The complete absence of infrastructure-security, medical, communications, electrical, air traffic control, all of it-meant it was challenging just to get recovery started. Bases had to be created so that repairs could get underway.

We could put those capabilities into a floating response platform using resources already developed and working. Here’s what I mean:

The USS Iwo Jima is one of a class of “light” aircraft carriers used to support amphibious assaults. It has, in fact, been used as a command center following Katrina. Its Combat Information Center is not dissimilar to a Network Operations Center for a telecom company married to an Air Traffic Control facility; and it operates a small airport upstairs, a small medical center downstairs.

So imagine a ship carrying a similar CIC operation, with an expanded medical center, 500-1000 Marines for quick-response security, enough earthmoving gear and Construction Battalion team personnel to clear a runway, and a stash of generators and other electrical/cell phone/satellite gear for emergency restoration of services.

Otters, Ospreys (if considered safe…), helicopters, and quickly assembled microwave towers/satellite uplink vans can allow the ship to reach out more than 500 miles. Mobile hospital kits can offer the same capability in the medical area.

To create a more robust potential response, pre-positioned equipment could be placed outside the US (perhaps the Marine Expeditionary Units will let us borrow some depot space?).

Check out the USS Kitty Hawk for an example of the type of platform that could be used.

There is a huge amount of budget involved, which is good and bad. It will be more difficult to obtain and keep Congressional support, but the Navy will love it (who doesn’t like a mandate for a new mission to fund?).

This can even be sold as a form of “portable” foreign aid that doesn’t statutorily lock to any particular country or program initiative.

Iran has suffered major earthquakes recently, including an event in 1990 that killed 35,000.

We are considering spending billions upon billions to kill thousands more Iranians, and I’ll bet at the end of the process we will not have a peaceful relationship with Iran.

On the other hand, for a lot less money we could create a public diplomacy tool which, had we sent it to Iran two or three times, could have created a much different relationship than we face today. (You might notice that Ache is not considering attacking us…)

And it would have come in real handy in New Orleans, or Florida, or wherever the next American disaster occurs. Bonus!

For full disclosure, the response time issue seems to be the fly in the ointment, but with two ships and smart basing a one week response is possible for much of the world.

So: smart way to spend money, or is the Peace Ship a waste of time?
I’ve reported, you decide.