- Share This Post
- submit
- 0
-
Sparkle (0)
Unlike domestic policy, the American public is usually willing to leave foreign affairs to the "experts" unless things are seriously off course. According to polling done by Public Agenda, the contemporary anxiety indicator stands at 136 on a scale where 150 indicates a collapse of confidence in the government's foreign policy. In general, over the past two years, Americans have less and less confidence that our present strategies will enhance US security. The kicker: women are especially fatalistic about the US position--they worry the most about terrorist attacks, but at the same time, don't feel strongly that government can do much about it. Sounds like things are indeed off-course.
I worked on Capitol Hill in 2003 during the runup to the Iraq war, and so I empathize with people who feel skeptical about our government. I saw first hand how non-conforming information was ignored, protesting Members of Congress were sidelined and a compliant media rolled over for the President and his allies. They wanted a war, and a war they got.
But I'm going to make the case for why women need to take a second look at American security strategy and rally their hope, energy and problem solving skills. Why? Because your nation needs you! America is at a crossroads on national security. We've realized that the old ways no longer work, but aren't quite clear about positive alternatives. What we do know is that we need a new direction. And women are perfectly suited to influence that choice. Remember "soccer moms" in the 90's and "security moms" in 06? Well, women concerned with our nation's strategy for the future could make a real difference this time around.
Since the terror attacks of 9/11/01, security threats have become unpredictable. Today, menacing nations are actually not as worrisome as failing ones, where desperate populations are vulnerable to extremism. We must also worry about criminal organizations and individuals with violent intent. The tools we need to combat such threats cross the gamut, from humanitarian assistance to deadly force. Many strategic thinkers are questioning the usefulness of force. Indeed, even our military commanders in Iraq estimate that 80% of their challenges require problem solving tools other than the military. In a world where war and peace are difficult to separate, American soldiers deployed to conflict zones could just as easily be convening a town council as engaging in combat. We live in an era that defies traditional notions about power. As we are learning in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our success relies less upon our ability to dominate and more upon our ability to influence the intentions of potential opponents. These lessons have implications for our security strategy as a nation as we move further into this new century.
If we choose to learn from our ongoing experiences, a positive strategy for US security will place the safety of people at the center of a new framework. This means that policies that promote peace and stability --like empowering women and educating girls-- should be considered along with secure borders and a strong Army. Not as a mere afterthought. The key lesson for elected leaders is that the safety of people and the safety of our country are complimentary and inseparable, and we must stop posing them as tradeoffs. That means those of us who care about reshaping policies must refrain from tired old "either/or" language. No more hawks vs. doves, no more guns vs. butter, no more hard vs. soft. Each of these approaches is important. The key decisions for leaders is determining the balance between them.
The legacy of women's priorities already informs this policy discussion. For decades, women the world over have championed the safety of people through positive social change. Women rally support for communities-- needs like health care, clean water, economic justice, safe streets, and education. These "women's issues" now form the centerpiece of our national security debate here at home, and share many values with the recently adopted counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. In contrast to kicking down doors and violent pacification, the central focus of counterinsurgency is civilian protection. In fact, improvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are measured by these social change criteria. Whether or not you support or protest either of these wars, the lessons we learn from them are vital. Our elected leaders--especially Congress and the President-- must witness a prominent
