Some Democrats tune out Tony Blair not only because he backed the invasion of Iraq, but because he committed the unpardonable sin of articulating the case for war far more convincingly than George W. Bush.

That’s too bad, because Britain’s ex-prime minister has some important things to say about the conflict formerly known as the “war on terror.” On this issue, in fact, the Obama administration could use a dose of Blairite clarity and candor.

Blair was in New York this week to accept the “Scholar-Statesman” award from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In his acceptance speech, he argued that the United States and the “civilized world” must combat not just al Qaeda, but also the extremist ideology that inspired the 9/11 attacks:

“I do not think it is possible to defeat the extremism without defeating the narrative that nurtures it. And there’s the rub. The practitioners of the extremism are small in number. The adherents of the narrative stretch far broader into parts of mainstream thinking.”

This inconvenient truth highlights a critical vacuum in U.S. counterterrorism policy. While the Obama administration has ramped up the military campaign to oust al Qaeda from Afghanistan (and pound its sanctuaries in Pakistan), it has been less successful in checking the spread of the Islamist doctrine, which casts Muslims as victims of western oppression and disrespect.

Blair believes western efforts to blunt the force of the extremist narrative by apologizing for policies, such as support for Israel, are counterproductive. They undercut rather than fortify the position of Muslim moderates, and they provoke a backlash from western publics against what’s seen as pandering to extremists.

Although he was too diplomatic to say so, Blair’s call for confronting the extremist narrative head-on challenges current U.S. policy.

President Obama has wisely retired the “war on terror” language he inherited from his predecessor. As Reza Aslan has noted, Bush’s relentlessly martial rhetoric lent credence to the idea that the United States was locked in a “cosmic war” with Islam. By narrowing the focus to al Qaeda (and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan), Obama has sought to reassure both foreign and domestic audiences that the United States is drawing careful distinctions and not making unnecessary enemies.

So far, so good. But even if we demolished what’s left of al Qaeda tomorrow, our problems wouldn’t be over. Its ideology already has migrated to affiliates in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere, which have adopted the same gruesome tactics of suicide bombers and mass casualty attack. And while their victims are mostly Muslims, as Blair noted, too many in the Muslim world seem sympathetic to their narrative of victimhood, if not their methods.

This ambivalence was captured perfectly by one of a group of Somalians from Virginia captured in Pakistan. He said, in effect, we’re not terrorists, we’re jihadists come to help our fellow Muslims defend themselves against western aggression.

So Tony Blair is, as the Brits say, spot on. To reduce the threat of terrorist attacks, the United States must wage a two-track fight. One is the military campaign to disrupt and destroy al Qaeda. The other should be a “whole of government” effort to counter the extremist narrative. I’ll have more to say in future posts about its key elements, but it starts by engaging directly with Muslim publics and by firmly rejecting the false premises of the extremist story.

Photo credit: Washington Institute for Near East Policy

When the US State Department issued a terror alert for European travel this week, it raised the inevitable questions: Should I travel to Europe?  Where should I avoid?  Is this thing really serious?

To make sense of this alert, a history lesson is in order.

This history lesson takes us back to Christmas, 1988 in Frankfurt, West Germany. Back in the days before the classified interwebs, information didn’t flow particularly quickly between US government entities.  Photocopying and physical circulation were standard practices.  So, when something big came up, specific information might not be widely distributed.  Government workers weren’t exactly Tweeting it to one another on SIPRnet (the SECRET-level USG computer network).  It’s hard to believe, but back in the day, everyone didn’t know everything about each other all the time.

In the days before the holiday, the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt received vague threat information about a potential terrorist attack targeting American citizens.  The information didn’t state much, other than that the strike would emanate from Germany or possibly London.  The Regional Security Officer posted the threat information on a public bulletin board in the consulate, and many American government workers changed their Christmas travel plans.

As you’ve probably figured out by now, the travel warning turned out to be credible – the Lockerbie bombing of December 21, 1988 killed 190 American citizens, 270 total, traveling from London to JFK airport.  The flight had originated in Frankfurt, where the bomb was originally smuggled aboard.

While it was of course good that certain American government employees had avoided the catastrophe, a policy problem arose.  In short, there was a double standard in place:  Americans (and their families) who happened to work for the government in Frankfurt as everything from intelligence officers to economic advisors to custodians avoided the tragedy due only to their preferential position.  Americans elsewhere in Europe, whether in government or not, weren’t warned.

The resulting “No Double Standard” policy emerged.  Generally, it says that when the U.S. government receives what it deems credible threat information, it has a duty to alert all Americans, not just those who work for the government.  The State Department alert issued about travel to Europe over the weekend fulfills the “No Double Standard” requirement.

So, does this mean that the current intelligence is as specific as that which preceded the Lockerbie bombing?  No.  However, it does mean that the government has credible, but possibly vague, information about a possible attack.

What does “credible” mean, then?  Media reports indicate that the information was gleaned from an individual detained in Pakistan.  Based on his access to information, officials have assessed that his reporting likely contains a grain of truth – that a group of operatives is interested in conducting a Mumbai-style attack in Europe.

However, they do not know when, where, or – quite critically – how developed the plot is or whether the alleged plotters have the operational capability to pull something off.  Authorities just believe their source is telling the truth.

Issuing the alert also puts potential plotters on their heels – European security services’ guard is raised and targets will be harder to access, which might just dissuade an attack in the first place.

Bottom line is that U.S. and European governments have vague but credible information about a discussion of a terrorist plot.  Whether the alleged plotters are serious and capable of executing it is likely yet to be determined.  Issuing the alert is a legal requirement designed to raise awareness among the public at large, not necessarily an indication that a terrorist attack is certain to occur.

Photo credit:  Daniel Horacio Agostini

In late July, I was sitting in a Seattle restaurant with my uncle and his wife.  Our conversation ebbed and flowed among the many problems our country faces –recidivism, poverty, Afghanistan, economic uncertainty – you name it, and I assure you it came up.  Since I do the whole “progressive national security thing” for a living, we invariably circled back to those themes.

Though an oversimplification by any stretch, it’s probably safe to say my uncle and his wife classify themselves as “west coast liberals,” or a bit further left on than yours truly at least on military issues.  They had, however, spent time in Italy in 2008 teaching English to military officers, and enjoyed the experience.

“You know,” Uncle Bill said, “The only other experience I’ve had with the military was when I was 17. I marched in to see your grandfather and told him that he had to sign these papers so I could join up and go to Vietnam.  Of course, he didn’t even bother to drop his paper and said ‘no’.  But it’s probably one of the most patriotic things I’ve done in my life.”

The American public’s lack of familiarity with the military, something we subsequently brought up, continues to be a huge problem.  Because military recruiting is confined to a few areas of the country – notably poorer areas of the South and Midwest – most of the country has little “skin in the game” when it comes to major foreign policy decisions involving military deployments.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates feels just about the same.  He spoke about the issue yesterday at Duke University:

“With each passing decade, fewer and fewer Americans know someone with military experience in their family or social circle…. There is a risk over time of developing a cadre of military leaders that politically, culturally and geographically have less and less in common with the people they have sworn to defend.”

For rational economic reasons, our forces are concentrated in several areas throughout the country – southern Virginia, San Diego, North Carolina, and Texas are amongst the largest – and DoD remains the bedrock of many of those communities.

While that may not change, the next Secretary of Defense should make it a priority to expand the recruiting base.  This is a big argument that needs much more fleshing out, but it’s worth beginning to discuss now: Our military should draw from a more even cross-section of American society to inject a more diverse set of ideas into military culture and policy, which will further benefit the country by engaging those diverse recruits’ families and friends in pressing foreign and military policy debates.  How many officers have Ivy League educations these days, anyway?

Photo credit: Ed Yourdon

Ordinarily, U.S. presidents don’t make headlines by extolling liberty and democracy before an international audience. But when President Obama did just that yesterday at the United Nations, it signaled a welcome shift from his previous reticence on these themes.

Here’s the key passage:

Yet experience shows us that history is on the side of liberty; that the strongest foundation for human progress lies in open economies, open societies, and open governments. To put it simply, democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens. And I believe that truth will only grow stronger in a world where the borders between nations are blurred.

For sure, in his 2009 Cairo speech and elsewhere, the President has argued that individual freedom and democracy are universal aspirations. But in general, the administration’s voice has often seemed muted when it comes to standing up for liberal values.

Critics, for example, have cited Obama’s apparent downgrading of human rights in relations with China; U.S. eagerness to “reset” relations with Russia even as that country slides back into authoritarianism; and, the White House’s failure to offer full-throated support to Iran’s “green” movement which arose in protest over a rigged 2009 election.

The administration’s ambivalence about America’s responsibility to abet the spread of liberal democracy is no mystery. It’s a reaction to George W. Bush’s ill-conceived “freedom agenda”, which seemed to conflate U. S. democracy promotion with the use of force in Iraq and threats of “regime change” in hostile countries like Iran and North Korea. Bush’s unmodulated, even messianic, rhetoric about supporting democratic revolutions everywhere rattled America’s foes but also unnerved our friends as well.

President Obama has devoted his first two years to reassuring the world that America is returning to its tradition of cooperative internationalism, and he’s largely succeeded.  The U.S. “brand” has been refurbished and America’s global approval ratings have risen.

But in rectifying its predecessor’s mistakes, this administration sometimes leaned too far in the opposition direction. At times it seemed to embrace foreign policy “realism”, which emphasizes material interests and geopolitics and downplays the role of political values and structures in shaping countries’ international conduct.  In a telling omission, the administration has organized its foreign policy around the “three Ds” – diplomacy, development and defense – conspicuously excluding a fourth D for democracy.

But realism is antithetical to liberalism, which is why it has been most often associated with Republicans like Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft. From Woodrow Wilson’s day on, Democrats have argued that America can best advance its interests and ideals by throwing her weight on the side of individual rights, economic freedom and democracy. Their guiding philosophy is not realism but liberal internationalism, which holds that a freer world is a safer, more prosperous world.

Obama seemed to reaffirm that outlook yesterday. At the same time, the President continued to be clear that his administration’s approach to supporting democracy would be nothing like Bush’s. Picking up a theme introduced in recent speeches by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he promised greater U.S. support for embattled civil society organizations in authoritarian countries.

Finally, Obama stressed that promoting democracy is not something America should do unilaterally, but in concert with new democracies as well as old allies. That was a pointed challenge to countries like South Africa and some Latin American countries, who have been reluctant to speak out against human rights abuses and tyrannical rule in their own neighborhoods.

In all, it was an important speech that realigned U.S. foreign policy with core values that have defined it at its best, and led to its greatest triumphs.

photo credit: transplanted mountaineer

I have a friend who canceled plans last year to play recreational football because, “it’s Wednesday, and I usually get home early on Wednesdays and like to have dinner ready for my wife when she gets home from work.”

“How the mighty have fallen,” a second friend lamented, “I wish I could email that sentence to the You of 2006 and see what he has to say about your cojones.”

Such is John McCain on “don’t ask don’t tell.”  Here’s an interview with him in 2006 saying that “the day the leadership of the military comes to me and says, we oughta change the policy, then I think we oughta seriously consider changing it.”  Where are his cojones?

As I highlighted yesterday, the military brass has answered McCain’s call.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, and retired General Colin Powell have all signaled a willingness to change the policy.  Back in March of this year, General Petraeus echoed McCain’s 2006 language almost verbatim, saying ““I believe the time has come to consider a change to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

So you’d think that when the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, America’s most respected retired flag officer and its most respected battlefield commander all endorse a change to DADT, McCain would be good to his word.

Instead, McCain is moving the goal posts.  For McCain, all of a sudden it’s not good enough that the military leadership has let its views be known, because he now claims that by voting on the measure, the Senate would be “ignoring the troops”.  This is a reference to an ongoing survey of active duty troops on their views on DADT, which McCain is working to discredit anyway, just in case it doesn’t say what he wants it to (and frankly, who knows what he wants it to say at this point.)

To be clear, the Pentagon should absolutely solicit the views of active duty personnel as a critical factor in this debate.  However, it is neither the only nor most important input.  Results of any survey must be weighed against historical averages, adjusted for bias and put in perspective.

Might the social norms of macho military culture influence soldiers to indicate false discomfort about serving with homosexuals? Should the opinion of an 18 year old private matter as much as a battle-tested Four-Star general with 40 years of military experience?  Keep in mind that the military’s rigid command structure regularly demands that its leaders make choices in the best interests of the country.  And those leaders have clearly spoken.

John McCain’s consistent inconsistencies (ha!) have been well documented by my friend Max Bergmann.  It’s curious why McCain, ex-maverick and having successfully beaten back a Tea Party challenge in his recent Arizona primary, continues down this orthodox conservative path.  Let’s hope John McCain remembers the “him” of 2006.  Or even better, the McCain of 2000.

Photo credit: Wigwam Jones

Two good essays in the last few days reflect on America’s overreaction to terrorism. Ted Koppel, who in addition to having amazing hair, is one of this country’s most under-appreciated journalists. He writes:

Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched his 9/11 operation from Taliban-secured bases in Afghanistan. Since nations targeted by terrorist groups routinely abandon some of their cherished principles, he may also have foreseen something along the lines of Abu Ghraib, “black sites,” extraordinary rendition and even the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But in these and many other developments, bin Laden needed our unwitting collaboration, and we have provided it — more than $1 trillion spent on two wars, more than 5,000 of our troops killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead. Our military is so overstretched that defense contracting — for everything from interrogation to security to the gathering of intelligence — is one of our few growth industries. …

If bin Laden did not foresee all this, then he quickly came to understand it. In a 2004 video message, he boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction. “All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written ‘al-Qaeda’ in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses.”

Fareed Zakaria, whose hair is less awesome but still pretty good, brings up the same issue:

This campaign to spread a sense of imminent danger has fueled a climate of fear and anger. It has created suspicions about U.S. Muslims — who are more assimilated than in any other country in the world. Ironically, this is precisely the intent of terrorism. Bin Laden knew he could never weaken America directly, even if he blew up a dozen buildings or ships. But he could provoke an overreaction by which America weakened itself.

Both are spot on and quickly shift the question to how to avoid overreacting.  Since much of the overreaction is born from political posturing (witness Pete Hoekstra’s bizarre comments in the wake of the Christmas Day attempt), it’s going to be tough.  How is any leader supposed to dismiss a charge that he’s not doing enough to keep the country safe?

Part of the solution is understanding the terrorist threat, and how successful our defensive measures will realistically be.  Zakaria’s column again hits the mark:  “[We] are not 100 percent safe, nor will we ever be. Open societies and modern technology combine to create a permanent danger.”

And while it is possible to contain the threat, permanently eliminating it is a long term project that must address terrorism’s root causes.  Beginning that national dialogue is a key to promote this understanding, which in turn, will calibrate more measured responses to terrorism.