- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
September 1, 2009
Exclusive: Playing Politics with National Security Puts Americans at Risk
James Carafano, PhD, Presidential Policy: Does It Make the Grade?
It is not a good sign when, more and more, political news in Washington (more than what we are doing overseas) drives the administration’s grade for national security. But, that’s what seems to be happening.
Last week, attention focused on the decision of Attorney General of the United States to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate charging CIA investigators with the crime of torturing terrorist suspects. His announcement came on the heels of releasing a Bush-era CIA Inspector General report detailing alleged abuses by agency interrogators. The White House also announced that from now the investigation of “high-value” suspects would be done by special teams led by the FBI (not the CIA) and directed by the Executive Office of the President. All these announcements generated a good deal of controversy … including charges that the administration was “playing politics” with the issue and hamstringing the ability of the CIA to proactively discover and thwart terrorist attacks in the future.
There are obvious problems with each of the administration initiatives.
It is far from clear what the Attorney General hopes to gain by conducting yet another investigation of CIA practices. The CIA report had long been available to the Justice Department and they had ample opportunity to prosecute any one who broke the law if they could find sufficient evidence to do so. Heritage analysts argued against appointing a special prosecutor because the investigation would likely prove little more than a “fishing expedition.” Not to mention, concludes Heritage senior fellow (and former CIA case officer) Peter Brookes, “The Justice Department investigation will likely have a chilling effect on CIA officers in the field, who will wonder if they should be getting the terrorist or getting lawyers.” Peter went into more details on problems with the whole mess in an analysis for Family Security Matters.
What seems abundantly clear is that the Obama administration is taking counter terrorism policy back to what it was be for 9/11, where the focus was on investigating and trying cases in court rather than preemptively prevent attacks. That could be a risky strategy with al Qaeda still active in Pakistan and the Taliban fighting hard to protect them. The strategy seems doubly troubling in that the administration has yet to prove it crack the sanctuary in Pakistan and turn back the Taliban in Afghanistan.
There was also breaking news last week concerning missile defense with reports that the President is readying to scrap building the missile defense shield planned in Western Europe and replacing it with little more than vague promises. This decision comes just as new estimates suggest that Iran is only three or four years away from having the long-range missile they are building to threaten Europe and the United States.
On the home front, concerns over the White House backed immigration reform proposals are also raising concerns. This comes on the heels of comprehensive report by Heritage Visiting Fellow Matt Mayer that concludes state and local governments can do a lot more to help out with immigration enforcement – something the administration is actually discouraging.
This was not a good week for grading the administration. At school when things get this bad, the teacher sends home a failure notice.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
