Towards Liberal Foreign Policy Strategy

I have just finished reading Francis Fukuyama's America at the Crossroads:Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy. In it, he goes through the history of neoconservativism, explains why the movement failed when its members became the foreign policy elites, and lays out his vision for a US foreign policy strategy, taking the idealism of neoconservative and filtering it through a realistic vision of international institutions; that is, promoting democracy abroad, but using several different multilateral organizations as appropriate, rather than through unilateral action. He argues that the concept of a "benevolent hegemon" is fatally flawed, as shown through the mistakes made in the Iraq War, and that the US must use other tools to promote democracy abroad. Rather than focusing on military might, Fukuyama argues that the United States needs to build legitimate NGOs to downplay its dominance and mitigate any backlash against American power.

Fukuyama's book, along with Fareed Zakaria's Post American World, lay out a relatively coherent framework for a liberal foreign policy. I don't think either book gets talked about as much as they should, especially in liberal circles. There hasn't been a coherent foreign policy strategy from Democrats since Truman's policy of containment. Since then, particularly since Vietnam, Democrats have had foreign policy goals, but not a defined strategy. It is something that I would like to see Obama articulate more. This, I think, has been the major problem with the US since the end of the Cold War. There wasn't a sense of how the US should use its role as the only superpower. We waded through for ten years under Bush I and Clinton, and then experimented in neoconservativism and unilateralism under Bush II, which obviously didn't work for us. Democrats need to better articulate what we believe our goals for foreign policy should be and the best way to achieve these goals. This echos what Ezra Klein said yesterday about Democrats needing to spend less time thinking about good economic policies for the military and a little more time about war policy and a coherent liberal foreign policy.

A Small Town Girl

Apparently, the RNC has spent over $150,000 "to clothe and accessorize" Sarah Palin and her family. Andrew Sullivan: "$5 grand for hair styling and make-up? As Americans face a depression?"

My own two cents is that spending that much even though Americans are facing a depression isn't necessarily bad. In fact, it's probably better for the economy if those who can afford to spend money did so to keep some money flowing through the system. However, it would probably be better for McCain if she didn't do this a) while the campaign has made an issue of their opponent wanting to spend other people's money and b) she insinuated that being rich made you an elite and somehow evil. This makes it seem as though she isn't being truthful with the American people about who she really is.

McCain's Highlights

Yglesias lists them:

• McCain spoke derisively of the idea of “spreading the wealth” — he doesn’t want the non-wealthy to get a piece of the action.
• McCain scare-quoted “health” in the phrase “‘health’ of the mother,” and argued that concern for pregnant women’s health is an extreme position.
• McCain dismissed the idea of wanting nuclear plants to be safe as somehow obviously absurd.

The Last Debate (Thankfully)

There wasn't a whole lot here that was new. The biggest thing that I came away from the debate and the early reactions on CNN.com was about McCain being on the offensive and Obama being on the defensive. I think this was one of the memes following the other two debates as well. And I agree. McCain most often was on the attack and Obama playing defense. But I think this is exactly what Obama wanted.

For starters, some pundits said that Obama had to be careful not to come across as an "angry black man." It's a lot easier to do that when your opponent is the one attacking or being angry. Obama just needed to keep his calm and let his opponent self destruct. But, and I think this is more important, the way that he responded to all of McCain's attacks gave the sense that he was an incumbent, taking on a challenger. McCain kept attacking on Obama's terms. Issue after issue, McCain would attack, looking for an opening, and often coming off as snarky or nasty, and then Obama could explain his position, authoratively, reasonably, and calmly.

This is what America saw for 270 minutes. A complete rope‒a‒dope strategy. And McCain kept playing into this, attacking Obama time and time again. It's not surprising that McCain's unfavorables have been so high and people believe he's running a much more negative campaign than Obama. Yes, he is airing many more negative ads. But McCain also was goaded into constantly playing the role of attack dog, making Obama appear much more reasonable and, ultimately, presidential.

Farce.

Farce.

No Blogging Today

Unless something major happens, I will not be blogging today. It is my father's birthday.

Happy 58th, Dad.

Today's Quote (or The Understatement Of The Year)

"I am really hoping the markets recover next week."

–My friend Red. Heh.

Does McCain Think Arabs Are Not Decent?

Last night, responding to a woman at his rally saying that she feared Obama because he was an Arab, McCain took the mic from her and said, "No, no ma'am. He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements." There has been a lot of talk today that McCain doesn't believe that Arabs can be decent people.

When I first saw the clip of McCain correcting the woman, this isn't how it seemed to me. Maybe I'm giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt at this point, but I took McCain to be saying "no" to her whole premise that Arabs were to be feared. That he continued by saying "He's a decent family man..." I understood as him saying, in effect, "Obama is an American and believes in American values. I just disagree with him on several policy points so much so that I am running against him for President."

Again, maybe at this point, this is giving McCain too much credit. But when I watched the footage, the way he spoke did not say to me that he held any particular animosity towards Arabs or that he does not believe Arabs are family oriented. He looked like a man who was ashamed at what he allowed, and even encouraged, to be said in his name and was focused on calmly defusing what had become almost violent anti-Obama sentiment. He seemed to be trying to take any emphasis off the idea of "Arab" and replace it with what his base sees as "American values" - being decent and family oriented.

Could McCain have continued and said "Arabs and Arab-Americans are also overwhelmingly decent and family oriented"? Of course. And maybe he should have. That would have been some straight talk to an increasingy nativist and jingoistic base. But that he didn't, to me, doesn't say that he was implicitly demonizing Arabs and Arab-Americans, or Muslims, or anybody for that matter. He simply looked like a man who finally decided to do what was right, knowing that it would probably cost him the election.

Fractured Health Sector

Ezra Klein points out a problem in health care:

Awhile back, a health economist I met made the point that the very high performing systems in the US -- Mayo, Cleveland, Kaiser, the Veteran's Administration -- are all entirely integrated. Indeed, she said, the thing about them is that they actually qualify as systems. The doctors, buildings, machines, and so forth are all owned by the same institution. That, she argued, was much more important than who ran them or whether they were non-profit or socialized or academic or private. The rest of health care, she said, is a sector. When you're dealing with Kaiser or the VA, they have data from and control over every link in the chain. When it's your insurance company negotiating with an urgent care ward that sends you to a hospital who prescribes a follow-up with a private specialist who tells you to pick up a prescription at the drug store of your choice which gives you a reaction which sends you to the emergency room which then puts you in touch with yet another private specialist...well, that's rather a different story. It's just too fractured, and too few of the actors have an actual incentive to coordinate.

McCain Spins And Spins And Spins

"Today's report shows that the Governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan," said Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapelton. "The report also illustrates what we've known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior. Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact. The Governor is looking forward to cooperating with the Personnel Board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country." (from TPM Muckraker)

What report are they reading? The probe found that Palin had abused her power by trying to get Trooper Mike Wooten fired. From the cnn.com article about the probe

1. Palin DID have the authority as governor to fire Monegan, but
2. Monegan's refusal to fire State Trooper Mike Wooten from the state police force was "likely a contributing factor" to Monegan's July dismissal.
3. Her efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.
4. "Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.

Given all that, from what world is the McCain campaign receiving its news that it can say that Palin "acted within her proper and legal authority"? Do they honestly expect people to believe them, or are they just going through the motions at this point?

(Picture downloaded from magazinesmiles.blogspot.com/.../ghost-town.html)

Read The Full Report

You can read the full report here.

Palin Abused Her Power

An Alaskan investigator has found that Sarah Palin abused her power as governor to get her sister's ex–husband, Trooper Mike Wooten, fired. Key point:

Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Finding Number Two

I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

Finding Number Three

Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten's workers' compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers' compensation benefits to which he was entitled.

Finding Number Four

The Attorney General's office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for infomration about the case in the form of emails.

Awaiting a McCain campaign response. (via Andrew Sullivan)

No Sooner...

No sooner did I publish the last post when John McCain said this: "I am enthusiastic and encouraged by the enthusiasm and I think it's really good," McCain said. "We have to fight and I will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful.

He then took the mic from a woman and directly denied that Obama was Arab terrorist, saying "No, no ma'am," he interrupted. "He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."

It's about time. McCain has let this go on long enough, and he risked doing serious damage to both the country and the Republican Party.

(Update. The woman did not call Obama a terrorist. Only an Arab.)

McCain Manages To Defend Remarks?

The McCain campaign is defending members of its base yelling "traitor" and "kill him" about Obama at their rallies. McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace says:

Barack Obama's assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising. These are the same people obama called 'bitter' and attacked for 'clinging to guns' and faith. He fails to understand that people are angry at corrupt practices in Washington and Wall Street and he fails to understand that America's working families are not 'clinging' to anything other than the sincere hope that Washington will be reformed from top to bottom.

Barack Obama's assault? This is what he said: "It's easy to rile up a crowd," Obama said. "Nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States."

Yes, that's quite the assault. Perhaps Nicolle needs a refresher on the definition of "assault." From dictionary.com, the first two definitions:

1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.

There is nothing violent, unlawful, or physical about what Obama said. And he didn't target McCain's supporters, but rather McCain's tactics. "It's easy to rile up a crowd" is a response to McCain and Palin working their crowds into a frenzy. He makes no verbal assaults on the supporters or their integrity.

Now, obviously, when Nicolle says "clinging to guns", she is referring to remarks Obama made in April. Here is the full paragraph, in context:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

So, in context, Obama's "assault" actually is saying the same thing that Nicolle's press release said. So, her statement a) confuses the definition of assault and b) goes on to affirm what Obama was saying in the speech she quotes out of context. Perhaps Nicolle should pay more attention to what she puts out in her name.

There is nothing funny about calling for the assassination of a presidential candidate. There's nothing humorous about using racial attacks as a way to demonize an opponent. Change will not come from perpetuating ignorance. It's irresponsible and dishonest. It's a desperate attempt to reignite a campaign that is rapidly taking on water.

A More Positive Campaign

The McCain campaign has taken on a tone that's too negative for some Republicans.

David Brooks Discovers The Class War

In his Op-Ed article today, David Brooks calls out Sarah Palin for being unabashedly anti-intellectual:

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch

Anti-intellectualism and anti-sophistication have been the hallmarks of the mainstream conservative movement for the last decade. Indeed, David Brooks knows this very well, as he wrote an article, in the Atlantic, no less, mocking coastal sophisticates. A sample:

We in the coastal metro Blue areas read more books and attend more plays than the people in the Red heartland. We're more sophisticated and cosmopolitan—just ask us about our alumni trips to China or Provence, or our interest in Buddhism. But don't ask us, please, what life in Red America is like. We don't know. We don't know who Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are, even though the novels they have co-written have sold about 40 million copies over the past few years. We don't know what James Dobson says on his radio program, which is listened to by millions. We don't know about Reba or Travis. (his links.)

Now, eight years later, when the fruit of what he has sown has been reaped in Sarah Palin's ascendancy to a nominee for Vice President, he has changed his tune:

Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

What caused this change? Brooks wrote the Atlantic article right after the election of George W. Bush, who, of course, came from an East Coast elite family and had an Ivy Leage education. He played the role of "middle American", but really, he was, like Brooks, a highly educated man and his administration was filled with men who went to Ivy League Schools. Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft all attended Yale, with Cheney the only one who didn't graduate from there. Scooter Libby also is a Yale graduate. Donald Rumsfeld graduated from Princeton, Paul Wolfowitz from Cornell, and Tom Ridge from Harvard. In short, while the administration represented "Joe Sixpack", they were not Joe Sixpack and they had traditional "elitist" educations.

However, Sarah Palin does not fit this bill. While the Bush administration paid lip service to anti-intellectualism, Sarah Palin has lived it. She bounced around from college to college, finally graduating with a degree in Communications-Journalism and becoming a sportscaster. Prior to her nomination as Vice President, she displayed no interest in foreign policy, and since her nomination has frequently demonstrated her lack of understanding of what her party's platform is, let alone a grasp on what the issues are.

Brooks is not a stupid man. He understands the dangers that come with having an uneducated person a heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world. And what intellectual honesty he has forces him to report on this. However, by reporting on this, he is admitting his compliancy in the demonization of education and is, in part, intellectually responsible a potential Palin presidency.

A Recapitalization Plan

Greg Mankiw:

Here is an idea that might deal with these problems: The government can stand ready to be a silent partner to future Warren Buffetts.

It could work as follows. Whenever any financial institution attracts new private capital in an arms-length transaction, it can access an equal amount of public capital. The taxpayer would get the same terms as the private investor. The only difference is that government’s shares would be nonvoting until the government sold the shares at a later date.

This plan would solve the three problems. The private sector rather than the government would weed out the zombie firms. The private sector rather than the government would set the price. And the private sector rather than the government would exercise corporate control.

This would be an interesting compromise between the private and public sectors fixing the current crisis. It would encourage private investors to get involved because they'd have to put up less money, and it would prevent an overreaching government ownership over banks.

Economic Crisis: What To Do

The short version is that I don't know what to do. I don't think most people have any idea. There's no way of telling, for sure, how bad things will get. The major players certainly aren't going to tell us how bad things are or might become. Doing so would risk scaring the crap out of the average person, and this loss of confidence would make all the problems we have now even worse. So the Powers That Be (people like Bernanke, Paulson, etc) are walking a tight rope between letting us know the gist of what's happening and not allowing the public to create a panic that makes things worse.

So what do we do? Again, I don't really know. I think the best thing we can do is just try to go about our business and do as much of what we would normally do which is fiscally responsible for us. At the same time, we should make some slight changes in our daily routine: try to drive less and take public transit or car pool more, don't buy things on credit, and perhaps save more of our disposable income. Most importantly, we can't allow ourselves to panic and try to pull our assets out. That'll only exacerbate the problem.

"That One"

I couldn't really figure out what McCain was thinking when he referred to Obama as "that one". I couldn't think of a way that it would be racist. Still, it exuded contempt. Was it a shot at Oprah declaring Obama "The One"? Was McCain just cranky?

Either way, it was classless and uncivil. Not something you want to see in a debate from somebody who could become the most powerful man in the world in a little more than three months. And, while this might be a mental revision on my part, it made George W. Bush's performances a little less loathsome.

Fact Checks

See ThinkProgress's liveblogging for fact checks.

Debate Reaction

Here are some thoughts on the debate:

• A spending freeze across the board. As Matt explained after the last debate, this won't help, but rather hurt. It would remove money from the economy and slow it down.
• Obama calling out Bush for telling people to go shopping after 9/11. Point made, I guess, it isn't that much of a sacrifice. But it really missed the point of what Bush was saying. He meant that the worst thing Americans could do after the attacks is stay at home and allow their daily routines to be interrupted. His point was "don't be afraid." And I think that's a fair request following the attacks.
• When asked about what sacrifices they would ask Americans to make, McCain repeated a bunch of talking points. Obama was able to elaborate and list how he would ask Americans to sacrifice.
  
• McCain gaffe. He says that the last President to raise taxes was Herbet Hoover in 1929. Well, aside from the semantics that the President doesn't actually raise taxes, his larger point is also not true. Bill Clinton raised taxes early in his first term, and the economy experienced one of the largest periods of growth in US history. (via thinkprogress)
• Early in the debate, McCain mentioned that the next generation was going to be saddled with trillions of dollars in debt. But he doesn’t want to raise taxes. How else are we going to pay down this debt if we don't raise taxes? Is there another option that I'm not aware of?
• McCain talking about Reagan and Tip O'Neill fell flat. Both men have passed away, and McCain is facing questions about whether he is too old or could pass away in office.
• It seemed as though McCain was confusing Hillary's healthcare plan with Obama's. Hillary's had mandates for everybody and fines. Obama only mandates for children. And I don't think that's a bad thing.
• Nice Obama pivot on whether he is unserious and dangerous in foreign policy.
  
• The Obama Doctrine: It seemed a little muddled at first, but then his answer cleared up. There is a moral obligation to prevent genocides, but we must do so with a strong coalition. Decent answer. The McCain Doctrine: Obama was wrong on the surge and won't admit it. Also, what Obama said.
  
• Israel/Iran: It seems to me (and I know this could be naive on my part) that it is presumptuous of us to think that the Israelis would need our help in the event of an attack. They haven't yet needed one, and they still have, by far, the most powerful military in the Middle East. Also, there is no real way for Iranian forces to reach Israel. This means that the only way for the Iranian military to attack would to be with bombs. The presumption here is that the bombs would be nukes. But, despite the unhinged rhetoric, Iran is not stupid. They do not currently have a nuclear arsenel. Israel most likely does. Should they obtain one, it still wouldn't match Israels. Or a probable US response. Please see MAD. Furthermore, I think an Israeli attack to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes is more likely than a surprise Iran nuclear attack. That being said, we should always be willing to support any ally that has been attacked.
  

Foreign Policy Challenges

The next president, whoever it will be, will face a myriad of foreign policy challenges that must be addressed, probably by this time next year. It’s worth exploring all of these issues, but that would make for a very long post. So what I’m going to do is list the major challenges followed by a brief explanation, and then in the weeks leading up to the election, analyze each individual issue in detail.

Of course, this is by no means a list of the only foreign policy challenges the next president will face. Certainly, there are more challenges than could be easily listed. And there’s always a good possibility that a new challenge will emerge in the next four years. However, I’m not in the business of speculating (or wars of prevention), so I’m not going to look for problems where right now there are none. I also realize that there may be some who don’t believe that something I’ve listed is a challenge. That’s fine, too. I’m just calling what I see. So, in no particular order:

1. Iraq − While there has been a lot of progress in the last two years, the next president will have to see continued progress and decide the fate of the troops and decide what exactly our strategy is.
2. China − The world’s fastest growing economy and largest population. This has given them added confidence in world affairs. An upshot is, aside from selling arms to nations that are hostile to the US, they usually keep to themselves on many matters before the international community. The downside of this, however, is that they generally keep out of matters before the international community, such as the recent problems in Burma.
3. Iran − As the country tries to go nuclear, its President, who yields very little actual power, cranks up the anti−American and Israeli rhetoric. They also have, at the very least, projected some of their influence into Iraq. However, the government rules over a relatively modern society that does not necessarily follow lockstep with the government.
4. Russia − After eight years as president and unable to run for election again, Vladimir Putin finds himself the…Prime Minister of Russia. Russia under Putin has become an aggressive state fueled on Petrol dollars. Questions remain whether he prefers the period of history when the Russians were at the helm of the Soviet empire, or of Imperial Russia. Recent hostilities with former Soviet republic Georgia underscore the need to have a coherent policy towards Russia.
5. Sino−Ruso−Iranian Alliance − Currently, the administration pits these countries together, in effect a sort of Axis of Evil. Except the rhetoric is not nearly as strong and the threat is much larger than the original Axis of Evil. But is this a natural alliance of an alliance of convenience? Is it a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Moreover, is this a sustainable alliance that will pose a growing and continued threat to the United States?
6. Afghanistan and Pakistan − The job was never finished in Afghanistan; the Taliban and al Qaeda were removed from power and decimated, but not destroyed. They’ve regrouped in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is still considered to be alive. There is a weak central government in Afghanistan that is increasingly corrupt. Additionally, the Pakistani government has not been helpful in finding the terrorists in their mountainous regions, and American incursion into Pakistani territory has sparked several firefights in the last few weeks.
7. Decreasing Hegemonic Status − The US has stretched its military might been economically irresponsible over the last eight years. As a result, we are no longer in position to be the sole major power in the world. The EU, while politically unstable, has seen its economy grow in the same time period. Both China and India have extremely large and fast growing economies. The course of the last eight years, unilateralism, is no longer tenable. The United States will need to figure out how to live in a post−American world where there are rising regional powers. The US will need to learn how to adapt to this new world.
8. The War on Terror −If this war still exists (it’s hard to tell in these ever changing times) needs a new strategy. Because of our presence in Iraq, a new generation of radical Muslims have been trained in using guerilla tactics in fighting a major military power, much like al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A new strategy, including but not limited to military means, is needed to combat what has been done in the last eight years.
9. The Middle East − Israel is the target of increasingly hostile rhetoric from Iran, which is attempting to assert itself in the region by becoming a nuclear power and influencing the Shi’a in Iraq. At the same time, Israel was less than easily victorious in its last incursion into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, also backed by Iran. Finally, the US had called for democratic elections in Palestine, which catapulted anti−Israel Hamas to power. How does the United States act towards a democratically elected government that has interests contra American interests?
10. Latin America −The triumvirate of Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Evo Morales have produced a lot of anti−American rhetoric, but don’t pose too much of a threat. However, improving relations in Latin America is extremely important, as there are large amounts of Americans of Latin descent and three important economies − Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina − are situated there.
11. Dependence on Oil − This issue is not just a foreign policy issue. Our dependence on foreign soil leaves us open to wild market fluctuations based on global demand, leaves at the mercy of OPEC, which includes many countries who aren’t exactly thrilled at us, as well as helps fill the coffers of many countries that are currently anti−American. However, it is not possible to wean ourselves off foreign oil and replace it with domestic produced oil, and this means the US needs to wean itself off of oil entirely.
12. The War on Drugs − This may seem like an odd inclusion to my list, but it’s an important one. The prohibition of drugs does nothing to fight the demand of drugs, only the supply. And a demand for something with a prohibited supply creates a black market, which are, of course, illegal. Because of black market demand, terrorist organizations are able to fund their efforts by dealing in drugs. Examples are the Taliban in Afghanistan with opium and heroin production and FARQ in Columbia with cocaine. See also the PIRA in the 1980s who distributed drugs in order to fund their campaign against Britain. If we’re going to seriously attempt to squash terrorism, it’s necessary to seriously attack how they fund their actions. Having a realistic policy about drugs that treats people like adults rather than as children who cannot make decisions is one effective way to hurt terrorists, fight crime, and increase government income all at the same time.
13. A Grand Strategy − A Grand Strategy for American foreign policy has been missing since the end of the Cold War. Prior, it was George Keenan and Harry Truman’s policy of Containment. Sure, Bush tried to have the policy of Prevention be the Grand Strategy, but this didn’t work in the first instance of use and is not a tenable long-term strategy. America needs to decide what its values are and how to best promote these values.