The Next Conservatism And Homeland Security

One field in which the next conservatism will probably depart abruptly from current policy is homeland security. The departure will begin with foreign policy and national strategy. As previous columns have suggested, the next conservatism's foreign policy will seek to preserve a republic here at home, not build an American empire overseas. Logically, that will lead to a defensive rather than an offensive national strategy. In both cases, the next conservatism will not be innovating but returning to the policies our country followed through most of its history.

It is no accident that when we eschewed empire and followed a defensive strategy, our homeland seldom faced much of a threat. We did not need to be "security conscious" or fearful -- when it was time to board an aircraft, you just walked out and got on -- because there was little reason for anyone to attack us. Much of the "terrorism" threat we now face arises not from who or what we are, but in response to our country's policies in other parts of the world. Once we turn away from those policies and generally leave other people alone in their back yards, the need for homeland security should diminish. That, of course, is genuine homeland security: not constantly being prepared against an attack, but not needing to worry about being attacked.

There will, of course, always be some level of danger. But the next conservatism will attempt to meet it in ways consistent with conservative principles, which is to say locally. Our first line of defense should be local police. Because the only way to defeat "terrorist" attacks is by preventing them -- once one has taken place, even "first response" is too late -- police who know their beat, the neighborhoods for which they are responsible, are our most important defenders. Only they can be sufficiently aware to nip potential terrorism in the bud. The next conservatism should strongly favor programs such as the Police Corps, a police ROTC that specifically provides personnel for neighborhood policing.

If another line of defense is needed, the next conservatism might consider reviving an old American tradition: the militia. Because a militia is organized from individual communities, it too, like neighborhood beat cops, knows what is going on. Also like local police, a militia does not serve Big Brother, some vast federal power center that seeks to snoop endlessly in ordinary citizens' lives. The militia I am talking about here would be a state militia, not a private one (private militias can be dangerous in a world of Fourth Generation war). One way it could be protected from being turned into an arm of Big Brother would be to have it report to the county sheriff, a local, elected official with substantial common law powers. Under no circumstances should it be controlled by Washington.

I am hopeful that the next conservatism will reconsider whether we need a federal Department of Homeland Security. The arguments against it are strong. It has already become Pentagon II, absorbing vast resources while producing very little. Programs intended to support local police have been cut to provide still more money for the federal behemoth. Worse, it is simply not possible for something like the Department of Homeland Security not to endanger our liberties. All its incentives work the other way. Like all other federal bureaucracies, DHS will seek more power, more money, more bureaucratic empire. Against those powerful inbred drives, what is it to keep it from tearing up the Bill of Rights? Mere rhetoric -- and the dubious protections offered by our courts.

Regrettably, from the perspective of the Federal Government, fear is a growth industry. The more the public can be made fearful, the vaster federal police powers can grow. The next conservatism should go after the heart of the matter, fear itself. If the rest of the world need no longer fear America, there will be less reason for Americans to fear the rest of the world. If the bulk of police power is local, not federal, Americans will not confront Leviathan when they face a law enforcement officer. It is far easier to approach the town mayor or council with an issue of abuse of police powers than it is to confront a faceless federal bureaucracy.

When isolated "terrorist" events do happen, as they will, the next conservatism might remind the public of an old virtue, one necessary to republics: courage. If we cast our liberties before anyone who offers to "protect us," like pearls before swine, we will find in short order that we are neither safe nor free.

Here is a recent Lind lucubration on basically how the anti-Taliban operation in Afghanistan is doomed to failure over time due to what some call 'continuously operating factors', i.e. geography, tribalised social structure, inherent localized resistance to central authority, etc. Read this and you get some orientation of where Lind is coming from with his 'new conservatism'. He is fundamentally a cultural isolationist and as such he considers current US polity and society to be corrupt, decadent, and doomed to failure of a probably catastrophic sort:

This Sunday’s sacred ritual of Mass, bagels and tea with the Grumpy Old Men’s Club was rudely disrupted by the headline of the day’s Washington Post: "U.S. Airstrikes Rise In Afghanistan as Fighting Intensifies." Great, I thought; it’s probably cheaper than funding a recruiting campaign for the Taliban and lots more effective at creating new guerrillas.

Getting into the story just made the picture worse:

As fighting in Afghanistan has intensified over the past three months, the U.S. military has conducted 340 airstrikes there, more than twice the 160 carried out in the much higher-profile war in Iraq, according to data from the Central Command…

The airstrikes appear to have increased in recent days as the United States and its allies have launched counteroffensives against the Taliban in the south and southeast, strafing and bombing a stronghold in Uruzgan province and pounding an area near Khost with 500-pound bombs.

One might add, "The Taliban has expressed its thanks to the U.S. Air Force for greatly increasing its popular support in the bombed areas."

At present, the bombing is largely tied to the latest Somme-like "Big Push," Operation Mountain Thrust, in which more than 10,000 U.S.-led troops are trying another failed approach to guerrilla war, the sweep. I have no doubt it would break the Mullah Omar Line, if it existed, which it doesn’t. Even the Brits seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid this time, with the June 19 Washington Times reporting that "British commanders declared for the first time yesterday that their troops were enjoying success in the restive south of Afghanistan after pushing faster than expected into rebel territory." Should be in Berlin by September, old chap.

Of course, all this is accompanied by claims of many dead Taliban, who are conveniently interchangeable with dead locals who weren’t Taliban. Bombing from the air is the best way to drive up the body count, because you don’t even have to count bodies; you just make estimates based on the claimed effectiveness of your weapons, and feed them to ever-gullible reporters. By the time Operation Mountain Thrust is done thrusting into mountains, we should have killed the Taliban several times over.

Icing this particular cake is a strategic misconception of the nature of the Afghan war that only American generals could swallow. According to the same Post story,

U.S. officials say the activity is a response to an increasingly aggressive Taliban, whose leaders realize that long-term trends are against them as them as the power of the Afghan central government grows.

"I think the Taliban realize they have a window to act," Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, commander of the 22,000 U.S. troops in the country, said in a recent interview. "The enemy is working against a window that he knows is closing."

Except that the power of the U.S.-created Afghan government is receding, not growing, and the Taliban’s "window" only closes when Christ comes again.

Aaugh! The last time a nation’s civilian and military leadership was this incapable of learning from experience was under the Ching dynasty.

Perhaps it’s time to offer a short refresher course in Guerrilla War 101:

Air power works against you, not for you. It kills lots of people who weren’t your enemy, recruiting their relatives, friends and fellow tribesmen to become your enemies. In this kind of war, bombers are as useful as 42 cm. siege mortars.

Big, noisy offensives, launched with lots of warning, achieve nothing. The enemy just goes to ground while you pass on through, and he’s still there when you leave. Big Pushes are the opposite of the "ink blot" strategy, which is the only thing that works, when anything can.

Putting the Big Push together with lots of bombing in Afghanistan’s Pashtun country means we end up fighting most if not all of the Pashtun. In Afghan wars, the Pashtun always win in the end.

Quisling governments fail because they cannot achieve legitimacy.

You need closure, but your guerilla enemy doesn’t. He not only can fight until Doomsday, he intends to do just that – if not you, then someone else.

The bigger the operations you have to undertake, the more surely your enemy is winning.
The June 19 Washington Times also reported that

The ambassador from Afghanistan traveled to America’s heartland to promote his war-torn country as the "heart of Asia" and a good place to do business…

In his region, "all roads lead to Afghanistan," he said…

Asia doesn’t have any heart, and Afghanistan doesn’t have any roads, not even one we can follow to get out.

The best sort of foreign policy for a nation with our responsibilities is 'Reserved Unilateralism' or 'Defender' Policy. It's basically the 'Reagan Doctrine': 1. offer financial, material, and training assistance (as affordable and prudent)at reasonable prices to those being oppressed by bad/illegitimate regimes. 2. No First Strike; Guaranteed Overwhelming Second Strike.

If a legitimate ('constitutional representative democracy')ally is attacked we cheerfully decimate the attacker, and at very reasonable prices.

Beyond that we encourage/urge pro-democracy reform everywhere, in concert with other pro-democracy nations around the world. Ands we should probably encourage economic self-sufficiency/localism /Fair Trade around the world.

And if there is a another pro-democracy nation in a given region THEY should probably be handling whatever assistance is needed in defending an innocent neighbor from attack, or helping folks within a neighbor country under an illegitimate/thug regime resist oppression. It shouldn't be left to us all the time.

The premise that there will be a "next" conservativism is bogus. There are currently many strains of "conservativism". Individual "conservatives" and "conservative groups" jump from one type of conservativism to another depending more on convenience and opportunism than on core values or sincerely held beliefs.

Talking Heads Examples. There are certain conservative personalities that constantly appear in both the MSM and/or alternative media. What they say is mostly determined, not by what they believe, but by what will get them invited back for more appearances .... and hopefully paid appearances.

Ann Coulter says what she says because it gets attention, not because she believes it. That she may believe it is incidental to the attention getting value. Kathleen Parker and other 2d tier columnists complain. Well it's their own fault that they lack the cajones Ann has.

Buchanan, Novak, etal have made a career of this.

The same is true of politicians. Whether McCain or Tancredo, they are clearly more interested in the attention than in the usefulness of their ideas.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.