‘It’s U.S. Security, Stupid’

(Washington, D.C.): In 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan posed a
single
question with devastating effect for Jimmy Carter’s reelection prospects. He asked voters: “Are
you better off today than you were four years ago?” A majority correctly judged that they were
not. Carter was turned out of office, Reagan was elected and the rest, as they say, is history.

‘Are You More Secure Today?’

An interrogatory posing a variation on the theme might prove to have a similarly decisive
impact
in Campaign 2000: “Are you more secure today than you were eight years ago?”
Objectively evaluated, the answer is clearly “No.” If Republican candidates do the
necessary
spadework to educate the electorate about the Clinton-Gore Administration’s significant
contribution to that sorry situation, they have the opportunity to engender substantial popular
support for their cause. Far more importantly, they stand to create a mandate for
changes that
will reverse the trend toward greater national and individual insecurity.

The truth of the matter is that Messrs. Clinton and Gore have squandered the
strongest
security policy hand ever dealt one American administration by its predecessor.
Consider
the following indicators:

• In contrast to 1992 — when U.S. power and prestige were unrivaled and universally
  respected
  — both have been substantially dissipated, replaced by an increasingly hollow military (shades
  of Jimmy Carter) and suspicion, if not outright contempt, from friends and adversaries alike.

• In 1992, Russia was an aspiring democracy, China a largely irrelevant (albeit an emerging)
  power, and every despot on the planet had been shaken by the United States’ thrashing of one
  of their own, Saddam Hussein. Today, Russia and China are colluding with each other and
  every rogue nation to share in ever-more-dangerous weapons build-ups, to take advantage of
  the United States’ appalling vulnerability to missile attack and to wage diplo-blackmail
  campaigns aimed at preventing the U.S. from ending that vulnerability by deploying effective
  missile defenses.

• In 1992, America’s alliance relations were arguably as strong as ever, with U.S. leadership
  and friendship respected and valued in Europe and Asia. Now, in the wake of sustained
  unreliability on the part of the Clinton-Gore team — characterized notably by the appeasement
  of nations our allies fear most — the Japanese, South Koreans, Europeans and even the Israelis
  are, to varying degrees, looking out for themselves. In practical terms, that means they are
  doing deals with China and/or other potential threats, deals that are unlikely to be in either
  their long-term interests or ours.

• In 1992, the Western hemisphere was — with the notable exception of a Cuba prostrated by
  the collapse of its Soviet sponsor — a zone of democratic transition and promising economic
  stability. Today, from Colombia to Puerto Rico, from Venezuela to Mexico and, not least, in
  strategic Panama, there are symptoms of serious problems including, to varying degrees:
  festering political unrest, widespread corruption, ominous cooperation between narco-traffickers
  and Marxist revolutionaries, aliens-, drugs- and arms-smuggling, and Communist
  China’s political, economic and strategic penetration. Lately, Cuba has found a new patron in
  the PRC and is relishing the prospect of additional life-support from American agricultural
  and other businesses and an American administration whose ideologues (like State
  Department policy planner Morton Halperin) yearn for a legacy of normalized relations with
  Fidel.

What Hath Clinton-Gore Wrought

To be sure, not all of these worrying developments are solely the
responsibility of President
Clinton, Vice President Gore and the sorry security policies they have promulgated. That said,
the character and conduct of the American government during the past nearly eight
years
has contributed markedly to each of these problems.

Of particular concern is the Administration’s proclivity for relying upon deals — “peace
processes,” arms control pacts, trade agreements, etc. — that are generally not worth the paper
upon which they are written. Mrs. Arafat’s blood libel against Israel is just the most recent sign
that President Clinton has assiduously encouraged the Jewish State to rest its security on a house
of cards. China is already walking back the terms of its bilateral trade accord, just a taste of what
is to come if it actually is admitted to the World Trade Organization.

The most recent, and one of the most egregious, examples of the phenomenon is the new
Conventional Forces in Europe agreement. The United States and nearly three score other
countries signed up to the updated CFE treaty even though Russia is flagrantly violating its
provisions in order to lay waste to Chechnya.

Are Republicans Getting It?

The good news is that in recent days, Republican presidential contenders have started to
engage
each other and the Democrats on security policy matters. Among the leading contenders,
Steve
Forbes and Senator John McCain have been addressing the topic
from the outset of their
respective campaigns. Last Friday, the GOP front-runner, Texas Governor George
Bush,
sallied forth for the first time with a speech devoted exclusively to foreign affairs. The
combined effect of these efforts and the growing public perception that the world is getting
to be significantly more dangerous has been to give this portfolio its highest public profile
in an election campaign since Michael Dukakis played Mickey Mouse riding a tank in
1988.

If the Republicans are to lay legitimate claim to their past legacy of “peace through strength”
and
a more realistic approach to tomorrow’s security policy challenges, they are going to need to tune
up some of their positions, however. For example, Gov. Bush’s generally strong speech
at the
Reagan Library ¹ and his subsequent performance on
“Meet the Press” would convey both
a greater sense of realism and a more convincing command of his brief if he refrained from
embracing flawed initiatives with which the Clinton-Gore Administration is closely
associated. Among the more worrisome of these are:

• the idea of throwing more good money after bad in a Nunn-Lugar aid
  program that is
  supposed to be dismantling Russian nuclear weapons but that the Government Accounting
  Office has repeatedly shown is approximately as fraught with misappropriated funds and
  unfulfilled expectations as other U.S. and multilateral handouts to the Kremlin. Of particular
  concern is evidence that American taxpayers’ money has actually wound up subsidizing
  Russian military modernization programs that could pose a threat to this country. ² What is
  required, instead of promising more money, is a top-to-bottom reappraisal of the
  effectiveness and wisdom of this program under present and foreseeable
  circumstances.

• the proposition that the United States needs to give Russia “months” to renegotiate
  the
  legally defunct 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and share its defensive technology
  with
  Moscow. These steps could only slow down, complicate and possibly seriously compromise
  the sort of global anti-missile capabilities the country so clearly needs. The United
  States
  should announce now that it is going to begin deploying anti-missile systems in
  six-months — as a practical matter the soonest such steps could be taken, even if the
  most near-term approach (i.e., a sea-based deployment utilizing adapted AEGIS fleet air defense
  assets)
  is utilized. If the Russians want to talk during that period, fine. But those talks will not
  impede or influence our deployment.

• the commitment to continue the Clinton-Gore moratorium on nuclear
  testing. As the
  Governor’s father put it on his last day in the White House six years ago: “The requirement to
  maintain and improve the safety of U.S. forces necessitates continued nuclear testing for those
  purposes, albeit at a modest level, for the foreseeable future.”

The Bottom Line

In the coming months, Gov. Bush will have ample opportunity to reconsider — and hopefully
dispense with — these deviations from what was otherwise a largely Reaganesque vision of
American security policy. The country will be well served if that vision, whether expressed by
him or another candidate, is offered as a stark alternative to the Clinton-Gore formula that has led
to increasing insecurity for our country and its people.

¹ See the Center’s Security Forum entitled
The World According to ‘W’ (No. 99-F 34, 20
November 1999).

² See in this regard, a highly critical op.ed. article by Lieutenant
General William E. Odom
(USA Ret.) in today’s Wall Street Journal, entitled “Clinton ‘Quids’ Don’t Produce
Russian
‘Quos.'” It says, in part:

“Mr. Clinton’s message is the same as always: Russia is making slow progress toward
democracy, and the West should be patient. A quick look at Russia suggests Mr. Clinton is
wrong….Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is calling for greater military spending, most of which
will fund Russia’s campaign in Chechnya….What does the West do? Prepare to offer another
International Monetary Fund loan to Moscow. IMF managing director Michel Camdessus has
said he will stop funding if he sees that “an uncontrolled increase in defense spending is
overshooting the budget.” But, given that key Russian military industries have been well-funded
over the past few years, all IMF loans have directly or indirectly contributed to weapons
production.”