Last week, extempers were given the treat of seeing President Barack Obama and former Vice-President Dick Cheney give speeches on national security. The Obama administration has continued to advocate that the Bush administration’s policies were negligent in winning international support and made hasty decisions concerning the treatment of detainees in the conflict. Not to take these allegations lying down, Cheney has fired back that Obama is trying to compromise with an enemy that will never compromise and is endangering America’s national security when he is releasing information about interrogation techniques and wanting to close Guantanamo Bay.
On top of this, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been under fire for accusing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of lying before Congress and for arguing that she was unaware that waterboarding techniques where being utilized on detainees. This has created yet another partisan, and some would say distracting, conflict on Capitol Hill that augurs ill for Obama’s promise of getting past the politics of division.
With NFL several weeks away, extempers need to brush up on their understanding of America’s national security debate. Even international extempers could face questions about how America’s image abroad is being impacted by the domestic debate we are seeing play out. Thus, this brief will provide a quick overview of the conflict between Republicans and Democrats on national security, the steps being implemented by President Obama to settle some of these national security issues and what the GOP is doing to attack Democratic opposition, and then provide some political impacts for the current national security debate.
Republicans vs. Democrats on National Security
Since the end of the Jimmy Carter administration, the Republican Party has enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on the national security issue. Combating the Soviet threat, and controversially credited with defeating it, enabled Ronald Reagan to win two terms to the White House and assist George H.W. Bush in winning the presidency in 1988. When the Soviet threat ended and there looked to be a “pax Americana” taking over the world, the Democrats were able to regain the White House with Bill Clinton in 1992. In fact, there was a large debate before the 2000 election over whether foreign policy and foreign issues were relevant anymore in American politics, as less than 15% of voters believed these issues were of serious concern. However, September 11th greatly changed the political dynamic of the United States and arguably it was the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, and the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party to put together a coherent national security strategy, that enabled the Republicans to accumulate gains in Congress in the 2002 and 2004 elections and George W. Bush to win a second term over John Kerry.
Despite these gains, the Republicans started to experience setbacks in 2006, due in part to stumbles on the home front with their handling of Hurricane Katrina and the public turning against the war in Iraq, now viewed more as a war of choice than a war of necessity. Political pundits argue that the tarnished Republican brand name on national security coupled with the economic meltdown the country experienced last fall killed John McCain’s chances of becoming president. Today, according to a Democratic Corps poll, President Obama enjoys over a 60% approval rating on national security and the Democrats have closed the national security edge of Republicans among voters to a 43-41% margin. Additionally, the poll cites that 51% of Americans agree that George W. Bush and his policies have undermined America’s security.
The Republicans long-term national security strategy has had more of a realist tilt than their Democratic opponents. As was seen in the lead up to the Iraq war, the Republicans were willing to abandon achieving international consensus for actions against enemies and fight nations on their own, if necessary, to achieve a better security position for the United States. Although the “coalition of the willing” was successful in toppling Saddam Hussein, building the peace proved difficult when the United States went to the United Nations for help. The Republican strategy was also taken over by neoconservative thought in the first Bush administration. This preached the idea that rebuilding countries in America’s image (i.e. having a democratic system of government) would best achieve American national security. Additionally, the Republicans have favored more “big government” solutions to America’s national security problems, with the USA Patriot Act being attacked by civil liberties organizations for intruding too much into people’s privacy.
The Democrats national security strategy has a more liberal bent, favoring international cooperation and negotiations through international institutions such as the United Nations to achieve desired outcomes. The Democrats have also wanted to fire back at government intrusions into civil liberties through the Patriot Act (although many Democrats voted for this after September 11th) or wiretapping programs. The Democrats have also argued that America needs to be a role model for other nations to follow and that its international image has taken a hit after the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and the Bush administration’s refusal to close Guantanamo Bay, which currently houses over 200 prisoners in the formerly named “war on terrorism.” Some Democrats have even argued that those suspected to wanting to launch war against the United States be tried in civilian courts, a step the Republican Party vehemently opposes because they see little reason why those who want to commit crimes against the United States should enjoy constitutional protections.
Where Democrats and Republicans have disagreed vehemently has been the use of so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques by the CIA. These techniques, which include sleep deprivation, stress positions, and waterboarding (which simulates the sensation of drowning), were used against terror suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to get information that might not have been obtained in a more passive manner. Republicans, such as Cheney, argue that these techniques saved American lives and are perfectly legal. Democrats, such as President Obama (and even Republican John McCain who was tortured during Vietnam), argue that these techniques are not lawful and the end does not justify the means. Democrats argue that the use of these techniques gives a terrible image to America internationally and violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture, of which the U.S. is a signatory. Thus, it is this debate that many of the current political rhetoric is centered on.
National Security Policy & Games
While he closed CIA secret prisons shortly after entering office, President Obama has faced recent opposition to several of his national security goals. The first is the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Although President Obama’s team tried to sell the argument that they would close the prison within a year, the administration suffered a setback last week when the U.S. Senate voted 90-6 to strip $80 million of funding out of a defense spending bill that was meant to close Guantanamo. Democratic lawmakers worry that without Obama presenting a specific plan on what will be done with the detainees at the prison, they could lose some of their national security gains. The Republicans have done a good job scaring Democrats and voters about the possibility of Guantanamo detainees being relocated to the United States for trial, which has created the worry that the communities that house those prisoners could become targets for terrorist groups. While advocates in favor of eliminating Guantanamo argue that these detainees would be placed in maximum security prisons (if they were even brought to the United States at all), Democratic lawmakers are still backing off of endorsing a plan that is not fully defined.
Obama has also stirred the ire of some supporters by his administration’s decision to bring back military commissions to try some of the terror suspects in Guatanamo. The Bush administration established these commissions during its tenure, facing a myriad of political and legal challenges from rights groups who argued that the commissions were designed to achieve a predetermined outcome and that they lacked safeguards for the defendants. While the Obama administration has argued that the new commissions will include new safeguards, such as providing for the right of a defendant not to have to take the witness stand and new rules on hearsay evidence, opponents argue that these commissions still do not have the same protections that exist in a U.S. court in terms of procedures or evidence.
Finally, Obama has laid out a five party strategy for dealing with Guantanamo detainees, which was revealed in the Christian Science Monitor on May 21, 2009. Obama has argued that some defendants at Guantanamo, such as Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who stands accused of aiding in the 1998 bombing of America’s embassy in Tanzania, will be tried in U.S. civilian courts. Other defendants, who have cases where much of the evidence would not past muster in the civilian court system, will be tried in the newly reconfigured military commissions. Another 21 detainees would be released in accordance with prior judicial rulings, while another 50 detainees might be sent to other countries (who will then decide in agreement with the U.S. what to do with them). The final controversial part of the plan is to indefinitely detain individuals who still pose a large danger to American national security, but which the government does not have specific evidence to try in either civilian courts or with military commissions. While this strategy appears sound, it does open the administration up to criticism from both sides of the political aisle and after Obama’s recent defeat on Guantanamo Bay funding, it might delay the implementation of this plan.
For their part, the Republicans have tried to make an issue of what Speaker Pelosi knew about waterboarding and when she knew about it. Republicans have tried to paint the picture that it is hypocritical of Pelosi to argue that she knew nothing about waterboarding at a time when Democrats have assailed Bush officials, especially its legal team, for authorizing the use of these interrogation techniques. Republicans argue that both parties of Congress were briefed about the use of these techniques and there were no significant objections raised to them in September 2002. After stumbling through a recent press conference, Pelosi has argued that the CIA lied to Congress about these techniques and said that they had been approved, not that they were being used against terror suspects.
Last week, Republicans tried to get the U.S. House to open up a bipartisan inquiry into Pelosi’s claims in an attempt to find out who was telling the truth. This inquiry was going to be chaired by two Republicans and two Democrats. However, by a vote of 252-172, which split along party lines, the House denied proceeding with this inquiry. Some have likened this vote to a vote of confidence for Pelosi. The Democrats have also argued that Republicans, include Minority Leader John Boehner have argued that the CIA does not fully report information to Congress and are attempting to turn the issue against Republicans. It does not appear that Pelosi’s missteps will have any immediate ramifications for the party or her future, but it does show how the Republicans are willing to still use the national security issue as a wedge between their ideas and the Democrats.
Political Impact
After their dueling speeches last week, extempers going into the NFL tournament can expect to see questions about Dick Cheney’s role in the Republican Party and whether or not his assertions against the Obama administration are accurate. Political observers have questioned the wisdom of the GOP allowing Cheney to defend the Bush administration’s record and to emerge as the strongest Republican voice thus far on national security. Historically, it’s unlikely to see members of the outgoing administration to be on the attack this early into a new administration. However, Cheney has argued that he was tired of seeing the Obama administration tarnish the Bush administration’s security record, which Cheney argued in his speech last week was very good because there were no other terrorist attacks in the U.S. post-September 11th. However, it does appear that Cheney’s comments in regards to the release of torture memos might have altered Obama’s decision not to release photos of U.S. treatment of detainees several weeks ago and his comments have finally given the Republicans a strong counterweight to Obama. While it is unlikely that Cheney will be a major political force in several years, he cannot be easily dismissed by opponents because he has been attacked so much there is very little else the American people can not like about Cheney. In fact, although Cheney’s approval ratings remain low, he has enjoyed a seven point bounce after his attacks on Obama last week.
For Democrats, they need to avoid future stumbles such as Pelosi’s to retain their national security advantage. With the economy in bad shape, and with voters still blaming the Bush administration for some of those problems, the Republicans desperately want to shift the public’s focus to another issue, especially on the one issue they still enjoy an advantage on. With the Cheney-Obama speeches, as well as the vote against Guantanamo funding, the Republicans are starting to give the image that they have momentum on their side. Unfortunately, the Republican Party does not have a strong set of leaders that can actually turn this momentum into something useful. Furthermore, lacking a set of specific alternative policy ideal makes it hard for the Republicans to look any different than they did prior to the 2006 Congressional elections. Simply being the party of the status quo, especially in regards to keeping Guantanamo detainees where they are, will not win votes so in order to convert Pelosi’s gaffes into something larger, the Republicans need to create a narrative with different security ideas and sell the image that Pelosi and the Democrats are clueless on national security. A possible opening on this front might be different border control proposals or plans to increase America’s port security.
Much like the 2000 election, there will be a debate about whether national security strategy will matter in 2012. The economy is still in shambles and if unemployment and investment remain stagnant, it is hard to see how Obama will be able to win a second term, regardless of how well the new surge of troops into Afghanistan goes or how much progress Obama makes on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The only way national security could re-emerge as an issue might be if the economy were to suddenly improve, upon which Obama could claim credit with his stimulus package, or if Pakistan’s nuclear arms suddenly fall into the hands of Islamic extremists. This would lead to immediate action from the U.S. government and would truly test Obama in his role as commander-in-chief. However, this situation is unlikely to occur before the 2010 Congressional elections considering the latest Pakistani military initiative and the security measures that have been added in recent years around Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Thus, while each side might win political battles over national security, implementing ideas without an economic agenda will prove political fruitless.