Home | Subscribe | Current Issue

Toward a Realistic Peace
By Rudolph Giuliani

From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007

---

Summary: The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges: setting a course for victory in the terrorists' war on global order, strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system's benefits. With a stronger defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and cultural influence, the next president can start to build a lasting, realistic peace.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City, is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

We are all members of the 9/11 generation.

The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.

America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have responded forcefully to the Terrorists' War on Us, abandoning a decadelong -- and counterproductive -- strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that promise a safer and better world for generations to come.

But this war will be long, and we are still in its early stages. Much like at the beginning of the Cold War, we are at the dawn of a new era in global affairs, when old ideas have to be rethought and new ideas have to be devised to meet new challenges.

The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorists' war on global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe. The most effective means for achieving these goals are building a stronger defense, developing a determined diplomacy, and expanding our economic and cultural influence. Using all three, the next president can build the foundations of a lasting, realistic peace.

Achieving a realistic peace means balancing realism and idealism in our foreign policy. America is a nation that loves peace and hates war. At the core of all Americans is the belief that all human beings have certain inalienable rights that proceed from God but must be protected by the state. Americans believe that to the extent that nations recognize these rights within their own laws and customs, peace with them is achievable. To the extent that they do not, violence and disorder are much more likely. Preserving and extending American ideals must remain the goal of all U.S. policy, foreign and domestic. But unless we pursue our idealistic goals through realistic means, peace will not be achieved.

Idealism should define our ultimate goals; realism must help us recognize the road we must travel to achieve them. The world is a dangerous place. We cannot afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face. The Terrorists' War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.

A realistic peace is not a peace to be achieved by embracing the "realist" school of foreign policy thought. That doctrine defines America's interests too narrowly and avoids attempts to reform the international system according to our values. To rely solely on this type of realism would be to cede the advantage to our enemies in the complex war of ideas and ideals. It would also place too great a hope in the potential for diplomatic accommodation with hostile states. And it would exaggerate America's weaknesses and downplay America's strengths. Our economy is the strongest in the developed world. Our political system is far more stable than those of the world's rising economic giants. And the United States is the world's premier magnet for global talent and capital.

Still, the realist school offers some valuable insights, in particular its insistence on seeing the world as it is and on tempering our expectations of what American foreign policy can achieve. We cannot achieve peace by promising too much or indulging false hopes. This next decade can be a positive era for our country and the world so long as the next president realistically mobilizes the 9/11 generation for the momentous tasks ahead.

WINNING THE EARLY BATTLES OF THE LONG WAR

The first step toward a realistic peace is to be realistic about our enemies. They follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism, which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian goals and aims to destroy the existing international system. These enemies wear no uniform. They have no traditional military assets. They rule no states but can hide and operate in virtually any of them and are supported by some.

Above all, we must understand that our enemies are emboldened by signs of weakness. Radical Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. In some instances, we responded inadequately. In others, we failed to respond at all. Our retreat from Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993 convinced them that our will was weak.

We must learn from these experiences for the long war that lies ahead. It is almost certain that U.S. troops will still be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan when the next president takes office. The purpose of this fight must be to defeat the terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and to allow these countries to become members of the international system in good standing. We must be under no illusions that either Iraq or Afghanistan will quickly attain the levels of peace and security enjoyed in the developed world today. Our aim should be to help them build accountable, functioning governments that can serve the needs of their populations, reduce violence within their borders, and eliminate the export of terror. As violence decreases and security improves, more responsibility can and should be turned over to local security forces. But some U.S. forces will need to remain for some time in order to deter external threats.

We cannot predict when our efforts will be successful. But we can predict the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become another one -- larger, richer, and more strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today. The balance of power in the Middle East would tip further toward terror, extremism, and repression. America's influence and prestige -- not just in the Middle East but around the world -- would be dealt a shattering blow. Our allies would conclude that we cannot back up our commitments with sustained action. Our enemies -- both terrorists and rogue states -- would be emboldened. They would see further opportunities to weaken the international state system that is the primary defense of civilization. Much as our enemies in the 1990s concluded from our inconsistent response to terrorism then, our enemies today would conclude that America's will is weak and the civilization we pledged to defend is tired. Failure would be an invitation for more war, in even more difficult and dangerous circumstances.

America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War. Then, as now, we fought a war with the wrong strategy for several years. And then, as now, we corrected course and began to show real progress. Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to political self-sufficiency. But America then withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America. The consequences of abandoning Iraq would be worse.

Our goal is to see in Iraq and Afghanistan the emergence of stable governments and societies that can act as our allies against the terrorists and not as breeding grounds for expanded terrorist activities. Succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary but not sufficient. Ultimately, these are only two battlegrounds in a wider war. The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda network is destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed or captured. And the United States must not rest until the global terrorist movement and its ideology are defeated.

Much of that fight will take place in the shadows. It will be the work of intelligence operatives, paramilitary groups, and Special Operations forces. It will also require close relationships with other governments and local forces. The next U.S. president should direct our armed forces to emphasize such work, in part because local forces are best able to operate in their home countries and in part in order to reduce the strain on our own troops.

A STRONGER DEFENSE

For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly more with increasingly less. The idea of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" was a serious mistake -- the product of wishful thinking and the opposite of true realism. As a result of taking this dividend, our military is too small to meet its current commitments or shoulder the burden of any additional challenges that might arise. We must rebuild a military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges. When America appears bogged down and unready to face aggressors, it invites conflict.

The U.S. Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades. It may need more, but this is an appropriate baseline increase while we reevaluate our strategies and resources. We must also take a hard look at other requirements, especially in terms of submarines, modern long-range bombers, and in-flight refueling tankers. Rebuilding will not be cheap, but it is necessary. And the benefits will outweigh the costs.

The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system. America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as "mutual assured destruction" in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes. Nor can it ignore the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Rogue regimes that know they can threaten America, our allies, and our interests with ballistic missiles will behave more aggressively, including by increasing their support for terrorists. On the other hand, the knowledge that America and our allies could intercept and destroy incoming missiles would not only make blackmail less likely but also decrease the appeal of ballistic missile programs and so help to slow their development and proliferation. It is well within our capability to field a layered missile defense capable of shielding us from the arsenals of the world's most dangerous states. President George W. Bush deserves credit for changing America's course on this issue. But progress needs to be accelerated.

An even greater danger is the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon. Every effort must be made to improve our intelligence capabilities and technological capacities to prevent this. Constellations of satellites that can watch arms factories everywhere around the globe, day and night, above- and belowground, combined with more robust human intelligence, must be part of America's arsenal. The laudable and effective Proliferation Security Initiative, a global effort to stop the shipment of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, should be expanded and strengthened. In particular, we must work to deter the development, transfer, or use of weapons of mass destruction. We must also develop the capability to prevent an attack -- including a clandestine attack -- by those who cannot be deterred. Rogue states must be prevented from handing nuclear materials to terrorist groups. Our enemies must know that they cannot murder our citizens with impunity and escape retaliation.

We must also develop detection systems to identify nuclear material that is being imported into the United States or developed by operatives inside the country. Heightened and more comprehensive security measures at our ports and borders must be enacted as rapidly as possible. And our national security agencies must work much more closely with our homeland security and law enforcement agencies. We must preserve the gains made by the U.S.A. Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation. Preventing a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack on our homeland must be the federal government's top priority. We must construct a technological and intelligence shield that is effective against all delivery methods.

Military victories are essential, but they are not enough. A lasting, realistic peace will be achieved when more effective diplomacy, combined with greater economic and cultural integration, helps the people of the Middle East understand that they have a stake in the success of the international system.

DETERMINED DIPLOMACY

To achieve a realistic peace, some of what we need to do can and must be accomplished through our own efforts. But much more requires international cooperation, and cooperation requires diplomacy.

In recent years, diplomacy has received a bad name, because of two opposing perspectives. One side denigrates diplomacy because it believes that negotiation is inseparable from accommodation and almost indistinguishable from surrender. The other seemingly believes that diplomacy can solve nearly all problems, even those involving people dedicated to our destruction. When such efforts fail, as they inevitably do, diplomacy itself is blamed, rather than the flawed approach that led to their failure.

America has been most successful as a world leader when it has used strength and diplomacy hand in hand. To achieve a realistic peace, U.S. diplomacy must be tightly linked to our other strengths: military, economic, and moral. Whom we choose to talk to is as important as what we say. Diplomacy should never be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage. Holding serious talks may be advisable even with our adversaries, but not with those bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements.

Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the protections of the international system when doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted.

The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan's actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate -- whether ally or adversary -- must know that America has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure.

For diplomacy to succeed, the U.S. government must be united. Adversaries naturally exploit divisions. Members of Congress who talk directly to rogue regimes at cross-purposes with the White House are not practicing diplomacy; they are undermining it. The task of a president is not merely to set priorities but to ensure that they are pursued across the government. It is only when they are -- and when Washington can negotiate from a position of strength -- that negotiations will yield results. As President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

Another step in rebuilding a strong diplomacy will be to make changes in the State Department and the Foreign Service. The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world. Reforming the State Department is a matter not of changing its organizational chart -- although simplification is needed -- but of changing the way we practice diplomacy and the way we measure results. Our ambassadors must clearly understand and clearly advocate for U.S. policies and be judged on the results. Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our representatives. The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end.

Since leaving the New York City mayor's office, I have traveled to 35 different countries. It is clear that we need to do a better job of explaining America's message and mission to the rest of the world, not by imposing our ideas on others but by appealing to their enlightened self-interest. To this end, the Voice of America program must be significantly strengthened and broadened. Its surrogate stations, such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were so effective at inspiring grass-roots dissidents during the Cold War, must be expanded as well. Our entire approach to public diplomacy and strategic communications must be upgraded and extended, with a greater focus on new media such as the Internet. We confront multifaceted challenges in the Middle East, the Pacific region, Africa, and Latin America. In all these places, effective communication can be a powerful way of advancing our interests. We will not shy away from any debate. And armed with honest advocacy, America will win the war of ideas.

STRENGTHENING THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

The next U.S. president will share the world stage with a new generation of leaders, few of whom were in office when the attacks of 9/11 occurred but all of whom have been influenced by their impact. This will be a rare opportunity for American leadership to make the case that our common interest lies in defeating the terrorists and strengthening the international system.

Defeating the terrorists must be our principal priority in the near future, but we do not have the luxury of focusing on it to the exclusion of other goals. World events unfold whether the United States is engaged or not, and when we are not, they often unfold in ways that are against our interests. The art of managing a large enterprise is to multitask, and so U.S. foreign policy must always be multidimensional.

A primary goal for our diplomacy -- whether directed toward great powers, developing states, or international institutions -- must be to strengthen the international system, which most of the world has a direct interest in seeing function well. After all, the system helps keep the peace and provide prosperity. Some theorists say that it is outmoded and display either too much faith in globalization or assume that the age of the sovereign state is coming to a close. These views are naive. There is no realistic alternative to the sovereign state system. Transnational terrorists and other rogue actors have difficulty operating where the state system is strong, and they flourish where it is weak. This is the reason they try to exploit its weaknesses.

We should therefore work to strengthen the international system through America's relations with other great powers, both long established and rising. We should regard no great power as our inherent adversary. We should continue to fully engage with Europe, both in its collective capacity as the European Union and through our special relationship with the United Kingdom and our traditional diplomatic relations with France, Germany, Italy, and other western European nations. We highly value our ties with the states of central and eastern Europe and the Baltic and Balkan nations. Their experience of oppression under communism has made them steadfast allies and strong advocates of economic freedom.

America is grateful to NATO for the vital functions it is performing in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet NATO's role and character should be reexamined. For almost 60 years, it has been a vital bond connecting the United States and Europe. But its founding rationale dissolved with the end of the Cold War, and the alliance should be transformed to meet the challenges of this new century. NATO has already expanded to include former adversaries, taken on roles for which it was not originally conceived, and acted beyond its original theater. We should build on these successes and think more boldly and more globally. We should open the organization's membership to any state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness, and global responsibility, regardless of its location. The new NATO should dedicate itself to confronting significant threats to the international system, from territorial aggression to terrorism. I hope that NATO members will see the wisdom in such changes. NATO must change with the times, and its members must always match their rhetorical commitment with action and investment. In return, America can assure them that we will be there for them in times of crisis. They stood by America after 9/11, and America will never forget.

As important as America's Western alliances are, we must recognize that America will often be best served by turning also to its other friends, old and new. Much of America's future will be linked to the already established and still rising powers of Asia. These states share with us a clear commitment to economic growth, and they must be given at least as much attention as Europe. Our alliance with Japan, which has been strengthened considerably under this administration, is a rock of stability in Asia. South Korea has been a key to security in Northeast Asia and an important contributor to international peace. Australia, our distant but long-standing ally, continues to assume a greater role in world affairs and acts as a steadfast defender of international standards and security. U.S. cooperation with India on issues ranging from intelligence to naval patrols and civil nuclear power will serve as a pillar of security and prosperity in South Asia.

U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today.

Our relationships with other American nations remain of primary importance. Canada and Mexico, our two closest neighbors, are our two largest trading partners. With them, we share a continent, a free-trade agreement, and a commitment to peace, prosperity, and freedom. Latin America faces a choice between the failures of the past and the hopes of the future. Some look to the governments of Bolivia and Venezuela, and their mentor in Cuba, and see an inevitable path to greater statism. But elections in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru show that the spirit of free-market reform is alive and well among our southern neighbors. Cuba has long stood out in Latin America, first as one of the region's most successful economies, later as its only communist police state. The death of Fidel Castro may begin a new chapter in Cuban history. But America should take nothing for granted. It must stand ready to help the Cuban people reclaim their liberty and resist any step that allows a decrepit, corrupt regime from consolidating its power under Raúl Castro. Only a commitment to free people and free markets will bring a prosperous future to Cuba and all of Latin America.

More people in the United States need to understand how helping Africa today will help increase peace and decency throughout the world tomorrow. The next president should continue the Bush administration's effort to help Africa overcome AIDS and malaria. The international community must also learn from the mistakes that allowed the genocide in Darfur to begin and have prevented the relevant international organizations from ending it. The world's commitment to end genocide has been sidestepped again and again. Ultimately, the most important thing we can do to help Africa is to increase trade with the continent. U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty. It is better to give people a hand up than a handout.

Finally, we need to look realistically at America's relationship with the United Nations. The organization can be useful for some humanitarian and peacekeeping functions, but we should not expect much more of it. The UN has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years. Worse, it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. It has not lived up to the great hopes that inspired its creation. Too often, it has been weak, indecisive, and outright corrupt. The UN's charter and the speeches of its members' leaders have meant little because its members' deeds have frequently fallen short. International law and institutions exist to serve peoples and nations, but many leaders act as if the reverse were true -- that is, as if institutions, not the ends to be achieved, were the important thing.

Despite the UN's flaws, however, the great objectives of humanity would become even more difficult to achieve without mechanisms for international discussion. History has shown that such institutions work best when the United States leads them. Yet we cannot take for granted that they will work forever and must be prepared to look to other tools.

EXTENDING THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM'S BENEFITS

Most of the problems in the world today arise from places where the state system is broken or has never functioned. Much of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America remains mired in poverty, corruption, anarchy, and terror. But there is nothing inevitable about this. For all these troubled cases, there are many more success stories that deserve to be celebrated. The number of functioning democracies in the world has tripled since the 1970s. The poverty rate in the developing world has been cut by roughly one-third since the end of the Cold War. Millions of people have been liberated from oppression and fear. Progress is not only possible, it is real. And it must continue to be real.

America has a clear interest in helping to establish good governance throughout the world. Democracy is a noble ideal, and promoting it abroad is the right long-term goal of U.S. policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations. It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors. History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. U.S. assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting progress.

The election of Hamas in the Palestinian-controlled territories is a case in point. The problem there is not the lack of statehood but corrupt and unaccountable governance. The Palestinian people need decent governance first, as a prerequisite for statehood. Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy.

The next president must champion human rights and speak out when they are violated. America should continue to use its influence to bring attention to individual abuses and use a full range of inducements and pressures to try to end them. Securing the rights of men, women, and children everywhere should be a core commitment of any country that counts itself as part of the civilized world. Whether with friends, allies, or adversaries, democracy will always be an issue in our relations and part of the conversation. And so the better a country's record on good governance, human rights, and democratic development, the better its relations with the United States will be. Those countries that want our help in moving toward these ideals will have it.

USING ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL INFLUENCE

Economic development and engagement are proven, if not fail-safe, engines for successfully moving countries into the international system. America's robust domestic economy is one of its greatest strengths. Other nations have found that following the U.S. model -- with low taxes, sensible regulations, protections for private property, and free trade -- brings not only national wealth but also national strength. These principles are not ascendant everywhere, but never has it been clearer that they work.

Ever more open trade throughout the world is essential. Bilateral and regional free-trade agreements are often positive for all involved, but we must not allow them to become special arrangements that undermine a truly global trading system. Foreign aid can help overcome specific problems, but it does not lead to lasting prosperity because it cannot replace trade. Private direct investment is the best way to promote economic development. The next U.S. president should thus revitalize and streamline all U.S. foreign-aid activities to support -- not substitute for -- private investment in other countries.

Our cultural and commercial influence can also have a positive impact. They did during the Cold War. The steadfast leadership of President Reagan, working alongside British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, helped the Soviet Union understand that it could not bully the West into submission. Although such leadership was essential, alone it might not have toppled the Soviet Union in the time that it did. But it was effective because it came with Western economic investment and cultural influence that inspired people in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. Companies such as Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and Levi's helped win the Cold War by entering the Soviet market. Cultural events, such as Van Cliburn's concerts in the Soviet Union and Mstislav Rostropovich's in the United States, also hastened change.

Today, we need a similar type of exchange with the Muslim countries that we hope to plug into the global economy. Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are pointing the way by starting to interpret Islam in ways that respect the distinctiveness of their local cultures but are consistent with the global marketplace. Some of these states have coeducational schools, allow women to serve in government, and count shopping malls that sell Western and Arab goods side by side. Their leaders recognize that modernization is their ticket to the global marketplace. And the global marketplace can build bridges between the West and the Islamic world in a way that promotes mutual respect and mutual benefit.

Economic investment and cultural influence work best where civil society already exists. But sometimes America will be compelled to act in those parts of the world where few institutions function properly -- those zones that lack not only good governance but any governance -- and in states teetering on the edge of conflict or recovering from it. Faced with a choice between leaving a troubled zone to anarchy or helping build functioning civil societies with accountable governments that can serve as bulwarks against barbarism, the American people will choose the latter.

To assist these missions, the next U.S. president should restructure and coordinate all the agencies involved in that process. A hybrid military-civilian organization -- a Stabilization and Reconstruction Corps staffed by specially trained military and civilian reservists -- must be developed. The agency would undertake tasks such as building roads, sewers, and schools; advising on legal reform; and restoring local currencies. The United States did similar work, and with great success, in Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II. But even with the rich civic traditions in these nations, the process took a number of years. We must learn from our past if we want to win the peace as well as the war.

PRINCIPLED STRENGTH

Civilization must stand up and combat the current collapse of governance, the rise of violence, and the spread of chaos and fear in many parts of the world. To turn back this tide of terror and defeat the violent forces of disorder wherever they appear, America must play an even more active role to strengthen the international state system.

In this decade, for the first time in human history, half of the world's population will live in cities. I know from personal experience that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder in the world's bad neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior. But concerted action to uphold international standards will help peoples, economies, and states to thrive. Civil society can triumph over chaos if it is backed by determined action.

After the attacks of 9/11, President Bush put America on the offensive against terrorists, orchestrating the most fundamental change in U.S. strategy since President Harry Truman reoriented American foreign and defense policy at the outset of the Cold War. But times and challenges change, and our nation must be flexible. President Dwight Eisenhower and his successors accepted Truman's framework, but they corrected course to fit the specific challenges of their own times. America's next president must also craft polices to fit the needs of the decade ahead, even as the nation stays on the offensive against the terrorist threat.

The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century that America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms. We must base our trust on the actions, rather than the words, of others. And we must be on guard against overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have learned that evil must be confronted -- not appeased -- because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.

 

Home | Subscribe | Current Issue

 

www.foreignaffairs.org is copyright 2002--2006 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All rights reserved.

Easy to Be Hard

Lyrics by James Rado & Gerome Ragni; 
music by Galt MacDermot from the musical "Hair."

How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

And especially people
Who care about strangers
Who care about evil
And social injustice
Do you only
Care about the bleeding crowd?
How about a needing friend?
I need a friend

How can people be so heartless
You know I'm hung up on you
Easy to give in
Easy to help out

And especially people
Who care about strangers
Who say they care about social injustice
Do you only
Care about the bleeding crowd
How about a needing friend?
I need a friend

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

To: BRENNE
From: Poster No. 3 

My portion of our "collective" sense of humor sees nothing humorous about Manson, Guantanamo, or this "humorous and innocuous wisecrack."

Do you really see no connection? Do you, really? Manson used his influence to cause a number of bloody, heinous murders; he was arrested and tried. During this trial his culpability was proven beyond reasonable doubt in open court, and he received a sentence generally perceived as reasonable and customary. This is what President Bush refers to as "tha rule a' law." The Guantanamo prisoners (I will not call them "detainees") may or may not have committed crimes--we do not know. If they are ever given hearings, it does not appear that this will be in open court; nor does it appear that these "courts" will afford trial and evidentiary rules commonly held to be reasonable and customary. In other words, they are subject to the will of their captors--and the will of those captors include denial of legal rights and basic human rights: confinement in isolation, repeated and systematic insult to Islam, repeated interrogation that even the most reasonable person would call cruel and unusual, torture. Is this the new “rule a’law”? You really do not see this connection?

Perhaps another example would help. From 1932 to 1942 Albert Speer worked as a architect and enjoyed a close personal relationship with Adolph Hitler. In 1942 he became Minister of Armaments for the Third Reich; in this position, he used forced labor to return the Nazi war industry to productivity. After the war, he was “detained,” but not indefinitely and not without human or legal rights—he was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. He served these twenty years in a prison—allowed communication with family and lawyers (and publishers), not subjected to insult or interrogation, not tortured—and was released at the end of that sentence. Certainly, Speer was subject to the will of his captors. And just as certainly, that was a civilized will which recognized that accused persons (and guilty persons) can and should be afforded basic human rights—even when, I dare say, especially when, the acts of which they are accused served to deny those right to others. Do you see that connection?

Rez was in the right to call to account the person who made the insensitive “humorous” remark. I applaud that action and the response of the one other person who spoke out. It seems to me that this is not a matter of humor, misplaced or otherwise. Nor is it a matter of who likes whom (good god! Are we in the third grade, here?). If we learn nothing else as graduate students, ought we not to learn at least that events in our history are connected, that they do have meaning, and that we need to pay attention to the nuisances of those meanings? And, ought we not also to learn to think before we speak and to expect to be called to account for the implications of what we say?

 

To: BRENNE 
From: Poster No. 2

I hope I am not alone in thinking a student of Holocaust Studies should know better than anyone else why it is wrong to 'poke fun' at people who are being (for the most part) wrongfully imprisoned and subjected to torture. Obviously, you can say genocide is worse. But, you cannot say that the Holocaust did not begin with wrongful internment.  What exactly is "humorous" and more importantly, "innocuous" about being indifferent (at best) to the suffering of others, based on their religion? Does being a former member of the military mean you are more accepting of dehumanizing entire groups of people? People need to think before they speak, or send emails.

BRENNE: Reply to post No. 1(June 27)
 

Just to make sure that I wasn't a RACIST, I checked a list of the nationalities of those detainees in Guantanamo Navel Base, provided in a Washington Post article updated on March 15, 2006, and found that if the accusation by a fellow student of mine is true, I must hate a lot of people, although I still do not know the race of any of the detainees.  On the other hand, I might be harboring a deep down hatred of men, since all of the names listed appeared to be associated with the male sex.  Still, male is not a race, although us females sometimes are convinced that it is, e.g. “Men Are from Mars.” But, now I am totally confused. Hmmm. Should you have any suggestions or words of advice, please post your comment. Thank you in advance for your help.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/guantanamo_detainees.html

Guantanamo Bay Detainees by Nationality

Afghanistan | Algeria | Australia | Bahrain | Belgium | Canada | China | Denmark | Egypt | Ethiopia | France | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Libya | Maldives | Mauritania | Morocco | Pakistan | Russia | Saudi Arabia | Spain | Sudan | Syria | Sweden | Tajikistan | Tunisia | Turkey | Uganda | United Kingdom | Uzbekistan | Yemen | Unknown

Clue No. 1

Source: http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/images/usa_guantanamo_4years.jpg


Clue No. 2 - "All Creatures Great and Small"



Clue No. 3 - "All in the Family"

Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/meet-s23.jpg

University of Texas at Dallas, June 27, 2007.

Part One: They Love Me:

It has always been pretty easy for me to make friends. I usually have a smile on my face, a good word of cheer, always there to offer a helping hand or a word of encouragement. Sometimes, I even have something interesting to say. People often come up to me on campus and compliment me on my “cheery disposition” and 'interesting' opinions. You might say I am sort of a ‘well-known’ personality on campus, inasmuch as many more students know me than I know them – either by name, face, or both.

Part Two: They Love Me Not:

But there are also those times when my fond young fiends (sic) have awarded me with the “Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award.” Here are a few examples:

THEM: (Graduate student discussion board) 

Sent: Wed 6/20/2007 2:37 PM

Subject: Re: [gsaUTDallas] Time change plus reminder, summer poetry reading

Speaking of poetry - this fall an anthology of poetry written by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will be released. It seems a number of lawyers have received poetry from their clients and one of them, a law professor at Northern Illinois, decided to put together a book.

Harpers writes about it: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/01/sb-the-waste-land-1169582427

PS what really struck me was that some of the poems initially intended for publications have been classified by Homeland Security ... I don't know how I feel about that, but it says something profound I think.

BRENNE:

You forgot to add that Charles Manson also has a Christmas Album coming out soon.

THEM: (Graduate student discussion board) 

Dear Brenne,

[Maybe I'm not reading all this right, but if I am, then. . . ] Although I chuckled at the humor in your witty comment, honestly, I think there is little analogous between the (perhaps hypothetical) release of Mason's Xmas album and poetry that no doubt sheds light on the plight of a bunch of so called Terrorists; People, human beings, locked up for over 4 years (or is it 6 now?) without being charged, without seeing the evidence against them and without light at the end of the tunnel. Mason (sic), as everyone knows, was the master-mind behind the vicious multiple killings of a party of folks in the 60s; killings the likes of which were unprecedented. There was evidence and a trial, then swift justice. Those in Gitmo that the government has actual evidence against have been brought to trial while the rest languish in a remote place far away from the "law,' far away from "justice,' held by a government so embarrassed (or in denial) that they wait until all memory fades of these prisoners' plight (or at least until Bush is out of office) before they can let them go. Pia is on the right track as far as I can tell. But like I said, maybe I am reading this all wrong.

THEM: (Graduate student discussion board)

Jun 25, 2007

Comparing people who (for the most part) are wrongfully imprisoned and who are all being tortured and denied their basic human rights to Charles Manson is insensitive, RACIST and quite simply wrong.

I know you and I like you, Brenne. But, this begs for an apology.

While searching the Internet for data I needed for I paper I am writing, I accidentally came across the ‘educational’ website, Suite101.com, which from at least this one ‘lesson’ ferments an anti-Jewish/pro-Islamic agenda.  Included on its Board of Directors are two high ranking officers of Abebooks.com, Drs. Hannes Blum, President and CEO and Dr. Boris Wertz, COO.[1]  The ‘lesson’ in question refers to Islam 101, Lesson 1: The Beginning Of Islam,
by Wayne Kreger.[2]

The last paragraph of the first page of Lesson 1 contains the following opinion by its author:

"The Qur'an presents us with the idea that Islam was the religion of Abraham, who was the first Muslim. It is believed that Abraham had a key role in the building of the Kaba, though it was tainted with idolatry long after his death. The Islamic tradition also holds Abraham's son, Ishmael, as very important. Interestingly, in the Jewish tradition he is regarded as wicked and the other son, Isaac, is held in high esteem; in Islam Ishmael is seen as a prophet. He is regarded as the father of the Arabs."

Further, Kreger introduces Islam 101 with the following statement:

"Can we cut through centuries of misinformation and misunderstanding to better understand this impressive and massive faith that has grown around the world – can the average person learn about the fundamentals of Islam? With a mature and sincere intent to learn about this tradition, with a decision to ignore popular stereotypes, and with an investigation that covers the basic ideas and integral people and events, one can truly develop one's understanding of what it means to be a Muslim."[3]

I strongly suggest that a boycott be organized against Abebooks.com as well as any other organizations or individuals affiliated with Suite101.com.  I also encourage that the rest of the content of this website be reviewed, as there may be yet other false and inflammatory content.  Please keep me updated with your findings.

Sincerely,

Brenne Meyro, M.S.

PhD Student

Mob Rule & Isn't She Just Darling?
Opinion by Brenne Meyro, MS
PhD student

What do I think of the war in Iraq?  I think it’s at least twenty-eight years too late.  Trace the Jimmy Carter presidency and find the source of many of our security and dipomatic problems.  If the U.S. had taken a strong military and diplomatic stand with regard to the burgeoning terrorist groups with the Arab and Muslim population, we would not be at war now.  Had we acted thirty-six years ago, thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians and brave service men and women would have been spared from terrorist attacks, kidnappings, hijackings, bombings, and the consequential damage to their lives, families, cities, and countries. Today, our nation’s capital was besieged by a mob of demoralized and ignorant participants.  The United States cannot give into mob rule, whether it’s lead by opportunists such as Jesse Jackson, and pathologic thrill seekers such as Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, and Sean Penn.  Continued capitulation to the mob will be only lead to violent escalations of terror against the U.S. and its citizens by terrorists at home and internationally.

Isn't she just darling? PHOTOS: Thousands Descend Upon the National Mall College student Alex Klug protests war with peace slogans painted on her head. (Whitney Shefte/washingtonpost.com) • VIDEO: Rallying Against the War | Protest Quotes For more information see:  Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/27/AR2007012700629.html Another Cutie! PHOTOS: Thousands Descend Upon the National Mall Stacy King of the International Socialists Society marches across National Mall. (Whitney Shefte/washingtonpost.com)

Where are the 'No-Nukes' When We Need Them?

Has Iran or Hasn't  Iran Installed Nuclear Centrifuges? After barring 38 inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog group: Ivanov's visit came as Iranian officials issued contradictory statements about progress on expanding enrichment facilities at the Natanz nuclear facility by installing 3,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material. Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said Sunday that Iran was continuing its nuclear activity according to schedule. "If we begin to install centrifuges we will publicly announce it," Saeedi said. Earlier, Hossein Simorgh, spokesman for the Iranian nuclear agency's public relations department, also said new centrifuges had not been installed at Natanz, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. Those remarks appeared to contradict lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who said Saturday that Iran was currently installing the 3,000 centrifuges. To see complete article, go to Townhall.com: Iran Seeks Time to Study U.N. Plan  - Jan 28, 2007

Actress Jane Fonda speaks at the antiwar rally on the Mall as Susan Sarandon stands by her side. (Linda Davidson/Post)

A large group of antiwar demonstrators make their way up Constitution Avenue. (Bill O'Leary/Post)

Reincarnation, Coincidence, or American Apathy?

Opionion of Brenne Meyro, MS
PhD Student























What is America’s plan for defending the United States and our citizens from the clear and imminent danger forming in Latin America?  Our enemies have strategically positioned themselves openly and so close to home.  Yet, there is so much concern to maintain diplomacy with the Europeans who have no stake in Latin America.  They certainly are not free of their own problems, but those are not immediate threats to America.  Yes, the Middle East – particularly Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza are sanctions and fertile grounds for terrorist operations and proliferation, but Iran is the power supply and inspiration of our enemies. Iran and its allies are rapidly sowing political and military bunkers just to our south in Latin America, particularly noticeable in Venezuela. 

Without saying, our porous borders and infiltration of tens of millions of illegal invaders is a very real and potentially lethal network from within.   It should be no wonder that so many of these internal occupiers have a great proclivity towards violence.

So what will be done today, tomorrow, or next week?

 

A Plausible Plan B By Charles Krauthammer Friday, January 19, 2007; A19 If we were allied with an Iraqi government that, however weak, was truly national -- cross-confessional and dedicated to fighting a two-front war against Baathist insurgents and Shiite militias -- a surge of American troops, together with a change of counterinsurgency strategy, would have a good chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, the Iraqi political process has given us Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite coalition. Its beginning was inauspicious. Months of wrangling produced a coalition of the three major Shiite religious parties, including that of Moqtada al-Sadr. Given Maliki's legitimacy as the first democratically elected leader of Iraq, however, he was owed a grace period of, say, six months to show whether he could indeed act as a national leader. By November, his six months were up, and the verdict was clear: He could not. His government is hopelessly sectarian. It protects Sadr, as we saw dramatically when Maliki ordered the lifting of U.S. barricades set up around Sadr City in search of a notorious death squad leader. It is enmeshed with Iran, as we saw when Maliki's government forced us to release Iranian agents found in the compound of one of his coalition partners. The hanging of Saddam Hussein did not change anything, but it did illuminate the deeply sectarian nature of this government. If it were my choice, I would not "surge" American troops in defense of such a government. I would not trust it to deliver on its promises. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus thinks otherwise. Petraeus, who will be leading our forces in Iraq, has not only served 2 1/2 years there but has also literally written the book on counterinsurgency. He believes that with an augmentation of U.S. troops, a change of tactics and the support of three additional Iraqi brigades, he can pacify Baghdad. Petraeus wants to change the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, at least in Baghdad, from simply hunting terrorists to securing neighborhoods. In other words, from search-and-destroy to stay-and-protect. He thinks that he can do this with only a modest increase of five American brigades. I am confident that Petraeus knows what he's doing and that U.S. troops will acquit themselves admirably. I'm afraid the effort will fail, however, because the Maliki government will undermine it. The administration view -- its hope -- is that, whatever Maliki's instincts, he can be forced to act in good faith by the prospect of the calamity that will befall him if he lets us down and we carry out our threat to leave. The problem with this logic is that it is contradicted by the president's simultaneous pledge not to leave "before the job is done." In this high-stakes game of chess, what is missing is some intermediate move on our part -- some Plan B that Maliki believes Bush might actually carry out -- the threat of which will induce him to fully support us in this battle for Baghdad. He won't believe the Bush threat to abandon Iraq. He will believe a U.S. threat of an intermediate redeployment within Iraq that might prove fatal to him but not necessarily to the U.S. interest there. We need to define that intermediate strategy. Right now there are only three policies on the table: (1) the surge, which a majority of Congress opposes, (2) the status quo, which everybody opposes, and (3) the abandonment of Iraq, which appears to be the default Democratic alternative. What is missing is a fourth alternative, both as a threat to Maliki and as an actual fallback if the surge fails. The Pentagon should be working on a sustainable Plan B whose major element would be not so much a drawdown of troops as a drawdown of risk to our troops. If we had zero American casualties a day, there would be as little need to withdraw from Iraq as there is to withdraw from the Balkans. We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latent American strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say to Maliki: Let us down, and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certain strategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces to Kurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province, where we are having success in our one-front war against al-Qaeda and the Baathists. Then we watch. You can have your Baghdad civil war without us. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can. This is not a great option, but fallbacks never are. It does have the virtue of being better than all the others, if the surge fails. It has the additional virtue of increasing the chances that the surge will succeed. letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Opinion of Brenne Meyro,

PhD Student

University of Texas at Dallas

The treasonous and treacherous conclusion of the Iraq Study Group takes second place to the fact that it is comprised of privately selected and favored, non-elected, and financially interested former government officials.  Appointing “special interest groups” to the government payroll in order to steer or dictate American policy should be immediately declared as unlawful and undemocratic.  The members of this committee were not elected to serve the American people during this administration, yet they seem to have gained a voice more powerful than our elected officials.  The ability for any President to form such private, powerful committees is a dangerous threat to our democracy, and diminishes even further the voice of the American citizen.  The formation of this group is just another step to privatize government, on par with the exclusionary and dangerous institution of “Campaign Finance Reform,” where in both cases, only wealthy, intimately networked and connected business and legal professionals are granted the power to determine the policies of the United States.  Those with the least money and connections lose - especially the average American.   At the very least, public hearings should have been set-up before the commission members were finalized, not after.  As it stands, it places “special interest” policies, politicians, and agendas in a shady, politically staged arena.  Questions with regard to their ties to foreign interests, such as Saudi Arabia, should have disqualified Baker and Close, particularly when they place Israel as the keystone to resolving all Middle East issues.  The conclusion of this group was already a forgone conclusion when its formation was announced, particularly with James Baker at the helm – a well recognized anti-Israel politician.  The group’s proposal to negotiate with Iran and Syria is akin to negotiating and seeking aid from North Korea, inviting strategic military opinions from China and Russia, and blaming Taiwan for causing the instability of East Asia.  If committees or groups such as these are not outlawed immediately, the power of the few and privately favored will continue to grow and dictate American policy and security. http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CarolineBGlick/2006/12/10/jews_wake_up!

NYC: Banning Trans Fatty Acids:

A ‘Partially’ Half-baked Effort

Opinion of Ms. Brenne Meyro, PhD Student,

University of Texas at Dallas

The objections to the new law in NYC, which bans restaurants from using trans fatty acids  in cooking is emotionally well founded and in principal understandable, but not altogether based on a complete set of facts or fairness. To those who criticize the law, it is fair to believe on first impression that the banning of this form of cooking in restaurants appears to be another local, willy-nilly interference with the freedom of consumers to use a product that is still considered legal by the Federal Government.  We have seen similar local, but not nationally sanctioned prohibitions on legal substances such as tobacco, peanuts, and perfumes.  However, the difference between those goods and trans fat, i.e. partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, is that in all ingested forms of it is harmful to everyone’s health.  In the interest of ‘consumer protection’, this substance should have been prohibited from all food products and supplements, as well as from imported foods – (yes, European products do contain it) rather than simply requiring manufacturers to disclose it on the product’s label under the list of ingredients and/or Nutrition Facts. Furthermore, despite what you may read on the Nutrition Facts portion of the label, it is still very likely that products such baked goods, candy, frozen desserts, and even nutritional supplements such as chewy calcium tablets, still contain hydrogenated vegetable or hydrogenated soy bean oil, but simply is not subject to disclosure on the Nutrition Facts if each SERVING is less than .5 gram[1].  Remember, most packaged goods contain more than one serving and many consumers tend to eat more than one serving of a product either in one meal or during the course of the day. For a visual explanation, please see the FDA website[2].   So, is it fair to force restaurants in NYC to eliminate cooking with products that contain trans fat, or should a Federal ban be instituted with all food and nutritional supplements?  After all, even if none of the food that you order at a restaurant were actually cooked in this substance, what about the rest of the meal - bread, crackers, dressing, condiments, toppings, artificial creamer, dessert, and after dinner mints - sugar free and regular?  Considering that you may eat one serving of each, and assuming that each serving contains less than .5 gram of some variety of hydrogenated vegetable oil, there is a good possibility that you would have consumed at least 4 grams in one meal!   Lastly, I believe the issue is “bigger than a bread basket” or a ‘big candy apple’.  Consumers should be more active in “laying down the law” to our government, and stop believing that government always has the best interests of its citizens, especially when it comes to health and moral issues.  Most protective legislature has come about from law suits, lobbying, or independently funded research, not from concerned government bureaucrats.  _____________________________