Immigration has an intimidating reputation in politics for a reason. The last major effort in legislation on immigration was the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007--a bill that was portrayed as a balance between legalization of illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement: it included funding for 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and radar towers, and 20,000 more Border Patrol agents, while simultaneously restructuring visa criterion around high skill workers. This Act, which was built on three earlier efforts at legislation, lost in the Senate 34-61.Despite the fact that this piece of legislation was negotiated for hundreds of hours--every aspect was and remains embroiled in controversy.
The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, co-sponsored one of these earlier bills together with Senator Ted Kennedy back in 2005. His two Democratic presidential rivals, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama each supported his efforts. All three candidates have also supported the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border, a controversial policy proposal with high decibel proponents and detractors.(If I may chime in, I lived in West Berlin, while the Berlin Wall was still standing. The idea of constructing a wall between the US and Mexico seems, to me, naive and insulting to our neighbors). Senator McCain has a somewhat harder political task on the issue. His border state-- Arizona-- is the crossover point for most migrants coming from the South--so he has dealt with the issue for years. However, part of the Republican activist base is vociferously anti-immigrant, labeling most efforts (including compromise legislation) as "amnesty".
Each of the presidential candidates puts a national security lens on immigration while out on the campaign trail, insisting that the first order priority is securing our borders. To her credit, Clinton calls deportation arguments implausible and all three Senators cite the need to be humane and compassionate. (this is important in the face of revelations of terrible and even lethal conditions at some US detention facilities) Yet a glance at the deeply divided political constituencies involved in immigration reform illustrates just how difficult this issue will remain for the forseeable future.
Lacking a comprehensive federal framework, states have taken matters into their own hands. Some communities divide into pro and anti-immigrant factions. Local legislation has been put forward to alternately protect undocumented immigrants and sometimes to make their lives more difficult (one measure I find particularly cruel is not allowing immigrant children to public beaches or swimming pools) But localities push back, saying that they are desperate to do something, anything.
While everyone acknowledges that something needs to be done, immigration (especially by Latinos) is seen very differently depending on who is interpreting. Viewed as an opportunity for cultural evolution on the Left to cries of self-inflicted cultural genocide on the Right, the ultimate solution is going to take a cohort of talented politicians. Here are some bits of the varied challenges that will ultimately need to be addressed by our next President:
As the International Organization for Migration (http://www.iom.int) puts it, "Migration is one of the defining issues of the twenty-first century. It is now an essential, inevitable and potentially beneficial component of the economic and social life of every country and region."
To that end, we would all do well to educate ourselves in order to have the kind of thorough-going public dialogue that will result in a policy that moves us forward. Here are some websites that I've found useful in parsing apart the immigration debate.
http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_immigration.htm
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=205&ParentID=0&SectionID=93...
http://communityresourcebank.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=222
Each of the campaigns has extensive information about the Iraq war on their websites. I would suggest, however, that women voters pay attention to more than just each candidates position on the Iraq war. Whether one supported or disapproved of our nation's decision to invade Iraq, the question for us now is what we're intending to learn from the experience. A good friend of mine working in Iraq to rebuild its army (who opposed the Iraq war, as did I) recently told me "we might leave Iraq, but Iraq's not going to leave us". This thought has both positives and negatives. Iraq has imposed huge costs in terms of blood and treasure. The loss of life is astonishing. To date 4000 American military personal and countless Iraqi civilians have died. Both Americans and Iraqis are going to be paying the price of "regime change" for years to come. But the silver lining of this war is the potential for a dramatic re evaluation of US National Security, some serious introspection into our own democracy and a thorough evaluation of how we involve ourselves with the rest of the world. Here is a flavor of what the candidates have been saying:
Senator Clinton has a three-step plan for Iraq policy: 1. bring our troops home 2. work to bring stability to the region, and 3.replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. A committed and well-traveled internationalist, Clinton recognizes that US power is more than just our ability to dominate and coerce and that we must win back the world's confidence and trust in order to be secure. In a recent speech, she declared "the more the world regards us with suspicion rather than admiration, the more difficult it is to confront these [global] challenges" Clinton's biggest obstacle on her Iraq war policy is overcoming the fact that she voted to go to war back in 2002. This is a considerable sticking point among the Democratic base and Clinton clearly is trying to woo them to her side by consistently recognizing the larger context of today's threats to our security. For example, by saying that in today's world "we are confronted by yet another new face of war and a new reality of global interdependence. It is a moment of peril and of promise. How we proceed is entirely up to us. We can repair the damage that has been done to our security and our standing over these past six years. We can rebuild our alliances and restore our moral authority, and reestablish our leadership in the world." Clinton introduced legislation in 2007 to build a political case against President Bush's "surge" policy. The Iraq Troops Protection and Reduction Act was introduced in February last year and shortly thereafter, she took steps to de-authorize the war entirely.
Senator Obama's position on Iraq entails a phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq in a manner that protects U.S. troops and exerts leverage to achieve the political settlement among the Iraqis. He introduced legislation last year, The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 which has provided a template for many other working documents and efforts to bring the war to a close. Obama is the only one among the three candidates who took a stand against going to war in Iraq--a significant risk considering that he was running for his Illinois Senate seat at the time. His current plan would begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq. Senator Obama often gets flack from opponents and conventional pundits because he lacks "experience". Yet this argument is backward looking and lacks credibility when you consider that he is not only interested in the rest of the world, he is of the rest of the world. His top advisor Susan Rice explains . Senator Obama's biography is important for understanding how he views US security. He is the child of an American mother and an African father. He lived abroad for part of his life but has roots in the midwest. Leading the charge for "Change", Obama consistently puts forward a worldview that sees the world as linked rather than ranked. And his popularity among young voters is a testament to their belief in his ability to update and modernize how America relates to the world--starting with Iraq.
Senator John McCain vigorously opposes the Iraq policy posture of both Democratic rivals. Per his calculus, keeping the maximum number of American troops on the ground there is requisite to Iraq becoming a viable state and that we must be there as long as it takes. He advocates a "clear, hold, and build" counterinsurgency strategy, believing that military force is a key ingredient in securing the space needed for civilian reconstruction. The utility of military force, I believe, is what distinguishes McCain most dramatically from the Democrats and from others who advocate ending the US combat troop commitment. Whereas they come down believing that the use of force itself has become counter-productive, Senator McCain sees the benefits of the troop presence outweighing the costs. And while all three candidates call for political reconciliation, these goals may be mutually exclusive, i.e. the continuing use of violent force by the Americans is actually what keeps the political reconciliation out of reach. Despite being at odds with the other candidates, McCain has a similarly far reaching worldview. He believes that both the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan must be viewed in the larger context of marginalizing radical extremists and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy. In his ideal outcome, these two nations will cease being sources of extremism and instability and instead, over time, become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy.
In a recent speech, he declared "If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom -- if we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity, I believe we will gain tangible benefits as a nation." McCain's open-ended commitment to a military presence in Iraq may well become the major obstacle to this long term goal, however, as the cardinal reason for declining American influence is the Iraq war and the fact that, as a nation, we have used the military as a favorite policy tool while marginalizing diplomacy, prevention and long-term economic development.
A feature of this presidential race worth remarking is how each candidate goes out of his or her way to praise the military, to point out their service and say thanks for their sacrifice. The separation of the troops from the civilian-made policies of Iraq mark an important turning point for us as a nation. This recognition of power dynamics i.e. who makes the ultimate decisions about the use of force to solve perceived threats-- did not happen enough after Viet Nam and the military became politicized, polarized and increasingly isolated from the rest of society. Thus far the level of civility on this topic among all the candidates as they discuss Iraq has remained above the fray and let's hope it stays that way as November approaches. That said, voters should be wary of extreme issue ads or mud slinging about who is "strongest" on national security. If anything, our experience in Iraq requires that we inventory our values, beliefs and policy tools to determine what real strength and real security are in today's world. See this Call to Action for an example of what we need.
I worked on Capitol Hill for nearly a decade, and over that time I had the chance to interact with the congressional staff of each of the Presidential candidates. I was impressed by all of them (and I'm not just being nice as I definately don't feel this way about all the staff I worked with) As in any professional capacity, who you surround yourself with is an indication of character. I also think each of these candidates knows a great deal about substance, has introduced important new legislation and would move us out of the rut we've been in for the past 8 years. For individuals looking to fill out their knowledge of the candidates, I suggest looking at this site which collates issue-based report cards on Members of Congress.
As I watch this race to the finish line, I'm going to ultimately vote for the candidate who, I believe, is positioned best to really move America in a fundamentally different direction in the world and who will take on the backward looking inertia in our governing institutions by putting forward a philosophy of government and a vision for American security that unifies the American people around problem solving. This will require abandoning the tactic of rallying the party base through demonization of your opponent and garnering public favor through fear. After all, if there's anything we've learned from our five year experience In Iraq, the security policies that result from this sort of politicking hasn't worked out too well for anybody.
]]>If we've learned anything from our experience in Iraq, it is that easy assumptions are no longer true. Even military commanders suggest that the vast majority of our challenges in Iraq do not have military solutions. These are lessons we should have learned fifteen years ago. I remember sitting in congressional hearings in 1998, watching generals like Wesley Clark talk about the military's peace operations in the Balkans before the House Armed Services Committee. He spoke of the military's need for skills like knowledge of culture, history, language and politics. Today we're hearing these themes echoed in Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. Generals testify that the dilemma we face is a political challenge. That the use of force has become counterproductive at every level....from the national strategy of pre-emptive war to the tactic of kicking down doors and terrifying families. Last year, to better implement its hearts and minds campaign, the military implemented a counter insurgency strategy in Iraq. This strategy places civilian protection at the center of US activities--and has yielded impressive results. The discussion of why these tactics work needs to be separated from the larger, very contentious public argument over staying in or leaving Iraq. Why? because the theme of protecting people holds true for many of our security problems today. We're in the midst of a dramatic shift in how we develop a strategy for US security--moving from reaction to pro-action, away from coercion and force and toward persuasion and cooperation. During the Soviet era that ended in 1991, the organizing principle of US security was containment of communist ideology. It was characterized by continual military readiness, the nuclear arms race, mutual assured destruction and super power summits. Today, containment is obsolete. Our organizing principle must be legitimacy, or leading by example. In other words, we must demonstrate that we will play by the same set of rules that we establish for others. And while a strong military remains vital, we need to ask, what is real security today? The new reality in the post-September 11 world is that protection from terrorist attacks and other security challenges can only be provided by broadening our vision of national security to include law enforcement, intelligence, immigration policy, border security, foreign assistance, economic development, and diplomacy. These are all personnel-intensive missions. We desperately need smart, creative individuals working in national security. Congress needs to hear this so they will stop complaining about "more bureaucrats" and redirect some of those billions of dollars spent on Soviet-era weapons programs toward recruiting talent and modernizing the division of labor for our nation's security.
We are at a crossroads: an unpopular war is winding down, our economy is sliding into the doldrums and we sit on the cusp of a presidential election. How elected leaders decide to define security now will determine our nation's direction for a generation. Will we face the world using coercion or by striving for legitimacy? Will we discard our recent reputation as a rule breaker and work to regain our status as a deal maker? Changing how ordinary Americans talk about security is the first step in this conversation. If the US wants to lead by example, we must recognize that the safety of people across borders is as important to US security as the safety of our country within its borders. We must insist that both these needs are complimentary and inseparable, and not pose them as tradeoffs. I.e. A strong Army is important, but so is education for girls in parts of the world that suffer from contagious ideology and failed governments. That's one thing we can each do today: Resist the language of easy tradeoffs: hawks versus doves, strong versus weak, guns versus butter... There are plenty of legitimate tradeoffs within national security...and if you acknowledge legitimate fears, and put the safety of people at the center of your argument, Americans are willing to hear about all sorts of new priorities---from levees in New Orleans to women's micro-finance in Asia.
In today's world, power is best described by the ability to influence the intentions of others, not by use of dominant force. Interestingly, because women have traditionally been shut out of power, we have found alternative ways to lead, often through networks of relationships. This ability to form alliances, then use our first-hand and personal perspectives on what makes a society work, will be a vital key to filling a global need for a new security.
And it is not that women have all the answers. But, based on what we see of what the world needs and how the definition of security has evolved, women must be part of the dialogue. This must happen not just because women are half the population, but because women have direct knowledge of the politics and the problems in their communities, and they have unique eyes on solutions for real security challenges.
Retired generals always warn their subordinates to "not fight the last war". Well, our elected civilians would do well to listen to this advice. We are still fighting and funding the Cold War--an era that ended in 1991. We continue to apply military tools to political problems. We justify outrageous numbers for a budget that leaves out or marginalizes vital security tools. And Congress still today has not had a comprehensive discussion: where everything is put on the table, where we define ends and means and where our leaders then make the tradeoffs that move us forward. Because of this crisis in leadership, women voters--especially singles--could very possibly have our nation's future in their hands this coming November on election day.
]]>
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 public conversation about the topic, and to know that the American people have high expectations for change. Without it, there will be little incentive to think through where we are going in the world and to reformulate a strategy to get us there. We've missed this opportunity before. After Viet Nam, America didn't effectively review successes and failures and change policy accordingly. Then, when the Cold War ended in 1991, important new issues were shortchanged. Our elected leaders funded national priorities based on a bygone era throughout the 1990's. This problem remains with us today. Our priorities are severely out of balance. This year's budget request for international affairs--which funds economic aid, diplomacy, peace corps and other preventive activities-- is a small fraction of what we spend on defense--even when war spending is not included. And within the defense budget are billions of dollars worth of weapons built to fight the Soviet Union--a country that disappeared 17 years ago. Taxpayers are spending more and more on "defense" but, it seems, purchasing less and less safety.
Women's experiences bring important insights to national security policymaking. Since 9/11, relationship-building, international cooperation, and civil society support--activities that form the core of female power-- have become of equal importance to combat operations in our military's mission-planning directives. This change has implications for US policy. It signals an understanding that a host of critical dangers (like nuclear materials or contagious fundamentalism) can be lessened if our policies act early to bolster responsible government, citizen participation and the welfare of societies as a whole. Unfortunately, this kind of support remains ad hoc and not well-explained to the broader public. More problematic is that on both the left and the right, Americans are retreating to a desire for non-involvement and even isolation.
But these negative feelings also provide for a time of reflection and rehabilitation. Increasing numbers of Americans understand that our policies--like the pre-emptive war strategy in Iraq-- have caused our prestige to plummet. And we believe that our security suffers because of it. Scorning cooperation in favor of cowboy diplomacy (shoot first, ask questions later) we've tarnished our greatest source of strength, our reputation for legitimacy. This term applies when there is a widely held belief that everyone plays by the same set of rules. But the US has gone from being a great deal maker to a flagrant rule-breaker. American women want to gain back that lost ground...consistently showing strong preferences for cooperative problem solving on issues like climate change and nuclear non-proliferation.
Women have a real chance to translate this concern into action when they participate in elections. And indeed, women vote. According to a recent exit poll, women accounted for 58% of the turnout on February 5. Unmarried women accounted for fully 25%.
Women, both married and unmarried are concerned about Iraq and also think our country is on the wrong track. However, single women defy the skepticism of their peers, for they still have faith in government's ability to solve problems. This same poll shows that these singles are also more open to the opinion of others. Sounds like these women are perfect candidates to lead a policy discussion about our future.
The key to a new direction for our nation may well lie with unmarried American women--with children and without. I guess the title of this post should have been about how 2008 belongs to them. So move over soccer moms and security moms. its time to make room for the "strategic singles."
]]>