Policy Position Summaries - National Security

The Global War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
We have failed to appreciate the complexities of post-911 global threats, and we are pursuing costly operations that do little to make us more secure. Though we are a nation at war, the burdens of this war are being borne disproportionably by the few. The campaign in Afghanistan was brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed. Such is not the case with the invasion of Iraq. We are now diplomatically isolated, and militarily exhausted. If we cannot secure the support of the international community to keep Iraq from tearing itself asunder, we might be compelled to withdraw and undertake a strategic defensive; perhaps in the region. (Please see my 19 March 06 San Francisco Chronicle OpEd “Security Here and Abroad: Crunch time in Iraq” and 19 June 05 Albany Times Union “Room for Debate.”) With regards to Iran, those who entertain the idea of a “military option” have clearly not thought through what a military strike would look like, and the consequences of such a strike not only in Iran, but in the Arab-Muslim world. (Please see 16 Feb 2006 Nezavisimaya Gazeta commentary “Iran--Options beyond “heads-we-win-tails-you-lose”.) Al-Qaeda will largely be defeated by covert action, supported by special operating forces. Counterterrorism is a cooperative effort; one cannot go it alone and win. This nation needs to urgently repair fractured alliances and regain the confidence of the intelligence services of our allies and other friends. (Please see 1 Feb 05 Christian Science Monitor OpEd “US must regain moral ascendancy.”)

Defense.
With regards to defense spending, Republicans are behaving as they once charged Democrats on social policy. Throwing money on defense will not make us safer, but it will make us go broke. Missile defense (less boost-phase intercept) is a waste of precious defense dollars. Historians will one day refer to it as the “Maginot Line of the 21st century.” We have a covenant with veterans who have served that must be honored.

Homeland Security.
We spend $400 billion on defense, and $40 billion on Homeland Security—there needs to be a rebalancing of these mutually supporting priorities. The majority of homeland security monies ought to be allocated on the basis of threat, vulnerability and consequence. I will fight with the NYS, Connecticut, and New Jersey congressional delegations to protect the greater NYC area. Homeland security money for “Sparky the firehouse” and other such frivolous expenditures-- I will not support them.
(Please also see 28 Aug 05 Albany Times-Union OpEd, “To protect, serve and fight.”)

Intelligence and intelligence reform.
Transformation of our intelligence forces ought to be a continuous process. The traditional idea that intelligence supports operations is now stood on its head. The threats we now face demand the ascendancy of intelligence. The Defense Intelligence Agency is ripe for restructuring; the NSA ought to be stripped from DoD; counterintelligence and domestic intelligence ought to be stripped from the FBI; we might be well-served to elevate the DNI to the Secretary of Intelligence. (Please see my 17 July 05 Fort Worth Star Telegram OpEd, “A playbook for John Negroponte.")

Foreign Policy.
We need to rebuild the ruptured NATO alliance left in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. Our diplomatic corps ought to be led by people that are qualified to serve as ambassadors, and not by inexperienced people who are being rewarded for campaign work. (Please see 6 Jun 06 International Herald Tribune OpEd, “America’s amateur ambassadors.”)