Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security

Democrats have been losing elections for the past five years and if you want to understand just why, HARD POWER is the place to go. It shows how the Democrats have no viable strategy on the major issue of national security, and shows not only how foreign policy will decide elections of the future, but how Democrats have lost such credibility and how to get it back. With its chapters covering Middle East peace issues and processes, military management, and future problems with China's ascent, HARD POWER outlines all the major issues facing us in the future. Diane C. Donovan California Bookwatch

President George W. Bush and his administration have worked hard to build the illusion that only conservative and neo-conservative Republicans can be trusted with security of the United States. This book is designed to offer Democrats and moderate Republicans alternative approaches to the issues of national security that have been monopolized by the Bush administration for the last six years. Campbell and O'Hanlon have succeeded in at least providing a series of relevant talking points that could be used by opponents of the present administration's national security policies. Yet the book provides somewhat uneven advice to potential policy makers. In the area of defense policies it is quite good and it was especially gratifying that the authors recognized the courage and professionalism of the U.S. armed forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their suggestions on controlling Department of Defense spending and building force structures for the future appear to have a good deal of merit. In the same manner their ideas for establishing regional National Guard planning centers and a bureau of the State Department devoted to the activities related to nation building appear to be will worth examining. On the other hand, their treatments of Homeland Security and the so-called Global War on Terrorism (GWOT or the Long War) are both cursory and ill-informed. Their implication that the U.S. Intelligence System has reformed itself and is no longer what it was prior to the tragedy of 9/11 is complete nonsense. Their chapter on coping with China has the virtue of recognizing that the evolving relationship between the U.S. and China involves a convergence of military, economic, and regional geo-political issues that are dynamic, complex, and nuanced. It is unfortunate that they did not balance the chapter on China with a similar one on Russia. Their treatment of U.S. energy security and the non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are sufficient of be the basis for an informed dialogue on both subjects. So all in all it is a good book.

I know Michael O'Hanlon, whom I consider to be one of the most insightful and honest policy analysts in America--his one line in "A Half Penny on the Federal Dollar" pointing out that the single best investment in foreign assistance is in the education of women, is a benchmark for all that ails US foreign policy--we simply do not know how to wage peace. He's the best. I do not know Kurt Campbell, but I respect the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). I give this book five stars instead of four because of the caliber of the authors and the terribly difficult task they took on. The book is, however, *very* incomplete. The authors are strongest on the politics of national security--there is nothing wrong with the substance where they address it, but I will end with my observation on how incomplete the book it. The book can be summed up--and questioned--on the basis of its eight chapter headings--the book's focus is in capital letters, my alternative focus in lower case: NATIONAL SECURITY AS PRIMARY ELECTORAL ISSUE--not so, electoral reform and the integrity and legitimacy of government is the primary issue MYTH OF REPUBLICAN SUPERIORITY--quite so, but what about Peter Peterson's view in "Running on Empty," to wit, BOTH political parties are inept and two sides of the same coin--they represent corporations, not the people. MANAGING THE MILITARY--is not enough. Must manage ways and means, must manage the inter-agency matrix (Cheney ignores the policy bureaucracy, and the only agency actually fighting in Iraq is the military--everyone else is going through the motions). HOMELAND SECURITY--TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL--physical security is not enough, even if private sector is willing to cooperate. The next level is about immigration control, tracking non-citizens, revoking citizenship as appropriate for those who do not adopt our values, tracking sermons by hostile imans, and rejecting visitors who are not bonded by their home government. WINNING THE LONG WAR--strong on understanding next generation, weak on how to actually stabilize and reconstruct the world. The authors are too focused on terrorism, which is a tactic, not an enemy, and while they boldly propose approaches to stabilizing the Islamic nations, with a positive emphasis on education, they do not address the fundamentals of virtual colonialism, unilateral militarism, and predatory immoral "bandit" capitalism--our greatest enemy is within, not without. THE REAL TRIPLE THREAT; ENERGY & SECURITY, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, AND TERRORIST FINANCING. Simplistic, conventional wisdom. Sure, we have to have energy independence, start doing real-time science and climate stabilization (changes that used to take 10,000 years now take three), and focus on terrorism financing, but these are a *fraction* of the national security challenge, and out of context, they are not realistically achievable. COPING WITH CHINA--all well and good, but what about Brazil, India, Indones