What is Real National Security?

by Wendy Greene

Published June 29, 2009 @ 06:54PM PT

"Security is not Defense; Defense does not equal security."

The concept was far from new to me. What was different was who was saying it.

Lt. Col. Shannon Beebe, former Senior Africa Analyst in the Office of the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, is considered one of the nation's leading thinkers on the concept of human security. He spoke as part of a panel discussion at the April 2009 Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum held at John's Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C.

"Security is not kinetics-based, state-focused, tank, plane, gun, defense budget-centric types of issues," he continued. "It is not about kinetics; it is about conditions—conditions that create creeping vulnerabilities that we do not see as threats."

Beebe's words were the exclamation point on the panel's discussion about shifting our international security strategies toward a more balanced "3D" approach using diplomacy, development and defense.

Moderated by Eastern Mennonite University's Lisa Schirch, director of the 3D Security Initiative, the panel also included Reuben Brigety, II, director of the Sustainable Security Program at the Center for American Progress; and Barak Salmoni, full political scientist at the RAND Corporation.

Reminding us his remarks were not an official Department of Defense presentation but a compilation of his own personal reflections, Beebe added, "I would contend that today's strategic security narrative fails at identifying and understanding the challenges of the 21st Century."

Those challenges, Beebe explained, include a "multi-polar" world that is inherently more unstable than the old "bipolar" structure of USA vs. USSR; economic globalization that remains uneven (the ramifications of which, he noted, we still don't fully understand); and the instantaneous nature of technology that allows a Somali-born cab driver in New York to know more about enemy movements in his home country than the CIA knows.

As I listened, I wished I could teleport into the room Republican strategist Sheri Jacobus, a regular on the cable news talking head circuit who diminished, demeaned and discounted the idea of a Department of Peace during an interview segment I shared with her and an equally ill-informed Democratic pundit on CNN Headline News's Jane Velez-Mitchell show. The Department of Peace is based on addressing the issues Beebe laid out and would facilitate much of what he said was needed.

"We have a Department of Peace," she’d said. "It's called the Pentagon."

I wondered if her mind would open to the same issues I was articulating when she heard them from Lt. Col. Beebe.

"Folks, we have to understand, this has untethered our traditional 20th Century security system," he continued, "This is not about the Department of Defense; this is about more of a collective effort, about asking the first order question: What is security for the 21st Century?"

Affirming remarks made by Brigety, who focused on the need to restructure government bureaucracy, not just throw more money into the same dysfunctional system, Beebe noted, "Our bureaucracies have become so calcified, so ossified, so set in 20th Century types of ways…that we're failing to see to see what I call 'creeping vulnerabilities'--these things we do not see as threats."

Beebe brought those vulnerabilities home, challenging us to consider the last time the United States was threatened by a mosquito, dirty water, or someone living on less than a dollar a day as we are now.

"These are not going to be won at the point of a gun," he said. "These are not going to be won with $2 billion fighters. These are not going to be won with multi-trillion dollar military-industrial complexes building new weapon systems. This is also not going to be done by the Department of Defense alone."

He shared results of a study conducted at the request of the Army Chief of Staff in which they asked Africans to describe the greatest threats to stability in Africa. The top four answers were the need for reform in the security sector (military, police, and judicial systems), climate change, poverty and health.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to tell you today that we don't have a tank or a plane that will counter that," Beebe emphasized.

Preventing the need for military action is, no surprise, Beebe's priority. As he reminded us, it's the one who must fight the war who wants most to avoid it. He challenged everyone to have the courage to ask tough questions:

"Is it possibly the case that we are creating more terrorists than we can possibly kill?" he said. "Is it possibly the case that we are allowing these conditions--these creeping vulnerabilities--to grow unnoticed along these strategic seams until they are a kinetic-type of threat [requiring military action]?"

So if this uniformed, Iraq war veteran, active duty Army officer gets it, many of his peers get it, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gets it, and the President gets it, what's the problem?

The problem is Congress and the American people don't get it.

Asked how we might structure the workload in this new "3D" paradigm, Brigety responded that this seemingly daunting challenge is actually the easy part.

"The harder problem is convincing the American public there is more to security so they'll get Congress to do something," he explained. "Until we change that, we won't get these [non-defense] efforts resourced."

No one need look past the outcry at plans to cut the F-22 fighter to understand just how true his statement was.

In the face of our own ignorance, obstinance and partisan fear-mongering, how are we to move beyond the outdated systems, structures and beliefs that block us from understanding that human security--not just for Americans, but for everyone--is the only thing that will truly keep us safe?

Beebe offered one possibility: we must get beyond our mistrust of one another--military and civilian, contractor and bureaucrat, activist and politician, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat--and create the language that can bridge our seeming differences.

"We have to shift our thinking for the 21st Century," Beebe said.

Watch the video of the speakers' remarks. Beebe is the last speaker.

###

The Greatest Crime of All

by Wendy Greene

Published February 23, 2009 @ 02:52PM PT

I thought about not writing this blog. I thought about turning a blind eye to the stories I'm reading in the Sunday paper; about remaining inured to the ubiquity of violence. I thought about flipping to the page with the Oscar ballot and making my guesses in advance of the night's big show, or hanging with three 14-year-old girls enjoying a post-sleepover bagel-fest.

After all, every day the papers are full of these stories. And not just my paper--every paper in the country, perhaps in the world, is printed black and white with the blood of victims of violent crime. Why take action today? What makes this any different than every other day in America?

Nothing. And that's the greatest crime of all.

By page six of the Baltimore Sun, I'd read of seven people murdered in the city. (How many pages did you get through in your paper?).

Page one told of Nathaniel Hicks, "killed for making fun of his friend's tennis shoes," and the street justice that resulted in one witness murdered before testifying (he was 16), another threatened if she didn't change her story (she refused witness protection and had to be arrested to ensure her safety), and a third recanting his story after a turn in jail for a drug conviction taught him the dangers of ratting out another con (his arrest occurred during the six months it took to get the case through the clogged court system).

And what about courtroom justice? Jurors conducted independent research but no one reported it so what was actually a mistrial continued until the lone juror believing the accused was guilty "caved" because, "I couldn't continue to put myself through the yelling and screaming for eight hours a day."

Yes, violence comes in many forms.

The killer walked--right back into street justice. Shot multiple times while getting into his car, he survived but "has trouble walking." An alleged accomplice wasn't so lucky. As the paper observes, "His killer didn't bother to steal the packages of cocaine he was carrying." A second, already on probation for another crime, "figured he was next and asked that his probation be transferred to another state."

And that was just page one.

I might have remained inactive if it'd been just that story--shocking, really, to consider, but honest. I feel safe admitting it only because I imagine you might have felt the same way reading your paper.

It was the four brief stories nestled on page six that got me. One told of youth participating in a police education program, learning how they can become involved in law enforcement. One 10th grade girl is particularly passionate and wants to be a forensic specialist because, "All my friends are being killed, and I want to know who's doing it." Her cousin "Smiley" was killed at a take-out place by her home because the perpetual smile that earned him is nickname was misconstrued as insulting by a man arguing with his wife, so the man shot him in the head.

The other three warranted one short paragraph each: a 16-year-old girl arrested and charged as an adult for murdering a 20-year-old man; a 24-year-old shot in the head in an alley near a shopping center; a 33-year-old man dead from multiple gunshot wounds. His name was withheld pending notification of family.

Will that call inspire action in them or be just another dose of numbing reality? Or will it be the start of a new bout of street justice?

The simple horror of these tales and their prevalence was not what finally got me to act today; it's that each addresses what happens AFTER the disaster occurs. None creates a plan to PREVENT the tragedy in the first place.

We can't just keep putting Band-Aids on gaping wounds, hoping to staunch the bleeding to a level low enough that those of us not directly affected by the hemorrhaging can continue to distract ourselves with entertainment award shows and bagels.

It seems we must flip our "justice" model on its head. The cops deserve better, the courts deserve better, the victims deserve better and yes, I'll say it--the perpetrators deserve better. Heck, I deserve better. YOU deserve better.

That's what a Department of Peace is all about.

When we've successfully moved from reaction to prevention, resolving conflict before it becomes crime, I bet Sunday morning bagels will taste a whole lot better, and Oscar parties will be that much more fun.

Wendy Greene is Managing Director of The Peace Alliance, the national nonpartisan nonprofit organization supporting the Campaign for a U.S. Department of Peace. Come to the Department of Peace Campaign 2009 National Conference and help be part of the solution. Learn more at The Peace Alliance website.