Front Page > World > Article Title/Fixture Title

Front Page > Commentary

Email | Print | Subscribe

Click-2-Listen

advertisement

New security directions

By Daniel Gallington
January 21, 2008

The last 20 years of the Bush (father and son) and Clinton I administrations have had far more national security policies, practices (even people) in common than most Americans may realize.

Accordingly, if Hillary Clinton is elected, we'll probably see a lot of the Clinton I national security people back at work in her administration. The "hand-off" would be largely uneventful, just like it was between George H.W. Bush (the elder) and Bill Clinton, perhaps even collegial — as between Mr. Clinton and George W. Bush (the son), with some significant senior "holdovers."

Contrast this with other election outcomes: If elected, Sen. Barack Obama would certainly not put Clinton national security people back to work. And, neither Sen. John McCain nor Mitt Romney would conceivably want to put back to work national security people from the administrations of either President Bush.

Democrat or Republican, this is something we should both hope for.

Why so testy about this? The last real bright line in national security policy was the Reagan administration, and even the much-maligned Carter administration had some very bright spots in national security policy. Jimmy Carter's Presidential Directive 59, for example, was a brilliant — and attention-getting — strategic doctrine that targeted the Soviet leadership.

So, if it's Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain or Mr. Romney, do we just dust off a few old Reagan or Carter people? Maybe, but also needed will be a new generation of people who can create and operate an entirely new structure for protecting our security interests in the rapidly changing and increasingly dangerous world.

Specifically, if we are to survive as a viable nation we must finally neutralize the means for and sponsorship of terrorism. Furthermore, we likely have only a few years to do this before being struck by a terrorist weapon (or weapons) of mass destruction, i.e., September 11, 2001, times 100 or even 1,000.

Our sworn enemies are still out there, getting richer and stronger by the minute — and, despite spending trillions of our dollars we have not been able to bring them down, nor are we likely to with our current national security practices.

Click-2-Listen

Front Page > Commentary