Substantive discussion, trust and governance

Joe Nye raises excellent questions in a post, today, on his blog, that gets to the heart of the problems with the rancorous political environment and its impact on the political discussion.

The Next Attack

The recent National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism shows that Bush's policy in Iraq has helped to strengthen Al Qaeda. The CIA's John Kringen testified to Congress that "we actually see Al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations." Bad news. It suggests we will be hit again in our homeland. But in addition to criticizing the administration for its failed policies, where is the public discussion of how we should respond if we are hit again? If a dirty bomb goes off in an American city, should people evacuate or stay in place? Think of the congestion of a holiday weekend. How many people will drive into danger rather than away from it? Where is that discussed? Most politicians shun the question as too sensitive. It implies defeatism. Yet the greatest damage done to our country will likely be done by our own responses to the attack. Terrorism is like jujitsu. The small opponent wins by using the strength of the larger opponent against him. If we respond to another attack by inspecting all cargoes, cutting off visa applications, curtailing our civil liberties, and so forth, we will accomplish what the terrorists want but cannot do alone. If the NIE is correct, does that not imply that we should begin to discuss how, if we are hit in the arm, we avoid shooting ourself in both feet?

Joe is asking, "If another attack takes place, how might we engage public discussion about how to prepare for so many contingencies?"

But I think the more fundamental question is, "Given all of the partisan rancor and aggressiveness that has animated the current political period, how can media, activists, political leaders, military leaders, and scholars make themselves more trustworthy to offer advice or give instruction if such a fate should befall us?"

Here's my response:

"Joe,

It's a good question. Especially given the propensity for polarization to overwhelm almost every important substantive policy discussion, at this point. It also gets to the heart of how government can give trusted instructions about how to handle such a situation in an environment where cynicism about government and the Federal government, in particular, runs so high. It's a good reason for us to expect that political leaders and media folks to start cooling the discussion, shedding more light than heat, engaging with more good faith and open-endedness, and generally starting to build trust that they will need should such a scenario hit.

This is a point in the war when we should be talking in the tones of shared sacrafice and pulling together, especially given the political support and manpower needs no matter what plan is adopted. Scholarly discussions offer us clearer precedent that we can expect a rigorous and substantial discussion and debate that is premised on the notion of common cause. Instead, self-righteous and far-too-certain grandstanding and a whole mess of conspiracy-mindedness dominates this discussion.

I, personally, agree with Frederick Kagan, that we need to stick with this until the Maliki's government gives us the ok to leave.

Understanding General Petraeus's Strategy

I think a policy that calls for volunteers and lets servicemembers who don't want to take up the final leg on this thing step down could shore up political support for such an effort.

But more important than all of that, I think, is for media and political leaders in Washington to start cleaning up this discussion and start putting substantial discussion over political strategy, and let the chips fall where they may. No party in Washington, right now, has so many unfailing right answers that plans with predetermined notions of the current strategy and its failure or success that such a discussion cannot be engaged for purposes higher than just electoral success and begin to shore up substantial enough trust in Washington decisions and sense of judgment, right now, so that the kinds of questions you are asking, Joe, can get some attention, discussion, and ideas and so that decisions in this war and on future terrorism questions get made based on a genuine discussion and debate that occurs with more attention on better ideas and less attention on whose getting elected. It would improve trust in Washington and in decisions getting made, and it would create a more genuine environment for brainstorming ideas and thinking on the war and on future terrorism questions where the risks of particular courses of action can be shared, better, and where better ideas can be trusted better to be coming out of good faith from leaders independent of party rather than in the same pathetic polarized direction that our public discussion has taken as of late.

The Washington Post had an encouraging editorial in this direction that begins to get at the failure of substance in Washington discussions, right now.

The Phony Debate

But it's bigger than this. The rancor, vitriol, and bitterness that has poisoned the Washington debate needs to be replaced with something more honest, genuine, and hopeful. That will take some effort by a lot of players - media, political leaders, activists, military officials, and scholars - to name a few. It will also mean a strategy that focuses more on ideas, less on egos and much less on taking down opponents.

If we're going to have the kind of discussion that is going to answer the questions you raise, Joe, we're going to have to at least move in this direction. It will take some doing and will be far from over by the end of this war. But matters this grave are also where America's propensity for pulling together and being bigger than our circumstances and history are most likely.

Perhaps there is more to learn from our experience of World War II than just how much force will decide a political or military question."

Love,
Ben