Politics trumps national security concerns

The chronic difficulty the U.S. has in assessing its critical national security interests was been noted here before. On top of that partially political flaw in our political system, America suffers from a second purely political, overlapping flaw that limits the use of logic and reason instead of emotion in politics, an issue also argued here before. The second flaw is elections.

Truth or spin?

According to  March 4, 2012 story by the New York Post, president Obama is negotiating with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu to not attack Iran's nuclear bomb facilities, until after the November 2012 elections in the U.S. The quid pro quo is that if Israel holds off in attacking Iran, the U.S. will provide air tankers for refuelling and bombs big enough to penetrate Iran's underground nuclear sites. Other press outlets (MSNBC) have repeated and presumably vetted this story. One can therefore reasonably assume it is true. For the sake of argument, assume that the Post's version of reality accurately reflects unspun facts.

 

 Army engaged in bomb (IED) disposal

Route Crowbar in Khowst province, Afghanistan, March 24, 2012

Background context: Based on some limited research, the Israeli air force uses specially designed U.S. F15s and F16s, the F15I and the F16I, that have extended range. The point from Israel's point of view is to reach Iran with a single in-air refuelling on the way out and one on the way back. Apparently, no other country has these extended range F15s and F16s, but that's not confirmed here - its based on only one source. The main point of designing those aircraft apparently was to prepare to prevent the day that Iran attained nuclear bomb capability. Israel now needs two things from the U.S. - bigger bunker buster bombs and better in-flight refueling capacity for the F15Is and F16Is. That gives the U.S. some leverage in negotiating terms of war with Israel.


If the Post story is true, then this is about as clear a case as there can be that domestic politics can trump a critical national security interest such as going to war with Iran. That directly leads to the question of whether partisan political outcomes in an election is a critical national security interest.

Two scenarios - one real, the other not

Simple, unemotional, high-school level common sense (logic) says that (i) domestic politics (elections) is one critical national security interest that trumped another or (ii) if politics is not a critical national security interest, then something is seriously wrong because a relatively unimportant issue trumped policy about a much more important issue. So, which scenario is reality? It can't be both.

Afghan police patrol leader followed by a U.S. army sergeant

Khan Neshin district, Afghanistan, March 27, 2012

Should elections be so important that they dictate U.S. Israel and Iran policy? It is the case that, at least some elections are important enough that they paralyze politics for at least a year in advance (also argued here before). If that's true, and it is, then maybe elections should be so important that they trump other critical national security concerns.

Good, bad or indifferent?

Most democratic defenders of the status quo in March-November of 2012 would probably vehemently deny that elections have anything to do with the situation. Most republicans would likely be much more receptive to the argument because it offers a great opportunity attack president Obama during the current 48-18 month-long election season. If it were a republican president in this situation, the defending and attacking parties would no doubt be reversed. That would just be politics as usual. But what about an opinion from a non-ideological, pragmatic point of view?

Where are the pragmatists?

California Moderates is aware of no non-ideological, pragmatic point of view on this issue or on most any issue. To begin filling the void, this is humbly offered as a starting point from which rational thinking can begin.

First, domestic elections do not constitute a critical national security interest. Elections are something must be done under the constitution, but political concerns attached thereto do not trump a major national security concern like a new war in the middle east. It isn't even close. Given that, what president Obama has done by even entering into negotiations predicated on timing policy actions with his own reelection betrays the American people and American interests. That betrayal of the public interest is clearly in service to his own political interests, i.e., his own reelection.

U.S. army sergeant talking to Afghan police patrol leader through an interpreter

Khan Neshin district, Afghanistan, March 27, 2012

Betrayal of the public interest in service of political self-interest is another flaw in U.S. politics that has been criticized here again and again and again. In fact, that's a central theme behind the California Moderates opinion that politics as usual doesn't just fail the public interest, it betrays us.